Connect with us

South Dakota

Improving open records law in SD an uphill battle for advocates

Published

on

Improving open records law in SD an uphill battle for advocates


Bart Pfankuch

Content director
605-937-9398
bart.pfankuch@sdnewswatch.org

Advertisement

Part 3 of a 3-part series.

In 2020, a bill was filed in South Dakota that would have spelled out extensive rules for how police body camera footage can be obtained, maintained, used and shared.

Then-Sen. Reynold Nesiba, a Sioux Falls Democrat and primary sponsor of the bill, said that without a state law, police agencies across the state are on their own to decide how and when to use cameras, what happens to the footage and who should have access to the videos.

Without such a law, South Dakota would remain behind many other states that already regulate police videos, he said.

“In South Dakota, we have a patchwork and it depends on the individual police department … (and) I think it puts our law enforcement in a really difficult position,” said Nesiba. “I think it would be helpful to have guiding statute under what conditions it becomes a public record, who can ask for that record and under what conditions it can be released or held back.”

Opposition to the measure came from state, county and local law enforcement officials, who testified that the measure was unnecessary because police agencies across the state use a set of “best practices” to guide use of body cameras.

Advertisement

The six-page bill, Senate Bill 100, never made it to a vote. Instead, the measure’s original language was gutted immediately in committee and an amendment to recommend a legislative summer study session on body cameras videos was voted down.

New records laws unlikely in South Dakota

Since then, no other police video bill has been filed in the Legislature, according to a review of measures filed.

Given the current makeup of the South Dakota Legislature, support for enacting legislation related to release of police videos appears unlikely, said David Bordewyk, executive director of the South Dakota NewsMedia Association.

“We are on an island because our law is so weak in this area. And a consequence is loss of public trust and having full confidence in the accountability of law enforcement,” he said. “That’s not to say that distrust is the default because it’s not. But by not having good public access to these types of records, it can feed distrust and misinformation in the community.”

This screenshot from a South Dakota Highway Patrol dashboard camera shows an officer-involved shooting incident on April 1, 2025.
This screenshot from a South Dakota Highway Patrol dashboard camera shows an officer-involved shooting incident on April 1, 2025. Troopers said the suspect, Samir Albaidhani, who is circled in red, fired several shots at law enforcement officers during an arrest attempt. (Photo: DCI/South Dakota Highway Patrol via SDPB)

Bordewyk pointed out that it took him and other First Amendment advocates several years to make it legal for police agencies in South Dakota to release criminal booking photos and police logs that show when and where officers respond.

“Those are commonplace public records in every other state in the nation forever, and it took moving heaven and earth to make those a public record in South Dakota,” he said. “There’s this embedded DNA that because we’re a small state, we know each other and trust each other, and we can trust law enforcement is going to do the right thing.”

Advertisement

“By not having good public access to these types of records, it can feed distrust and misinformation in the community.”
— David Bordewyk, executive director of the South Dakota NewsMedia Association

State Sen. Helene Duhamel, a Rapid City Republican, told News Watch in an email that she supports the current open records law, which gives law enforcement agencies full discretion on if or when to release police videos to the public.

“I am not pursuing changes to current public records laws involving law enforcement video,” wrote Duhamel, a former television newscaster who now works as the spokeswoman for the Pennington County Sheriff’s Office. “Body worn cameras are used every day by our largest agencies in South Dakota. It is one of the most successful policing reforms of the 21st century.”

Duhamel said police videos can be seen by the public if they attend court proceedings where the videos are shown. “The video is evidence and not entertainment,” she wrote.

South Dakota ranks low in openness

South Dakota ranks at or near the bottom in more than a dozen analyses of public access to records, especially when it comes to law enforcement agencies, said David Cullier, director of the Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida. 

“They allow police to keep everything secret, and that’s against the basics of public records laws that have been around for hundreds of years,” he said. “If I lived in South Dakota, I would be up in arms because it turns out South Dakota is one of the most secretive states in the nation.”

Advertisement

Cullier said expanding public and press access to law enforcement records tends to make police agencies more transparent but also more accountable for their actions. And it ultimately leads to better performance by officers in the field, he said.

“It’s a way of making sure our police officers are doing their jobs that we entrust them to do because the body cams tell the story,” Cullier said. “When they deny records requests, they’re not saying ‘no’ to journalists and the media. They’re saying ‘no’ to the million people who live in South Dakota.”

Cullier said the American public has demanded more access to police videos after several high-profile incidents in which illegal and misreported shootings by police officers were captured on camera.

Among them: the 2014 killing of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago police officer; the 2015 South Carolina shooting death of Walter L. Scott, who was unarmed and running away from the officer who shot him; and the 2020 murder of George Floyd by an officer in Minneapolis.

In the McDonald killing, officer Jason Van Dyke initially reported that the 17-year-old had charged at him with a knife, and the shooting was ruled justified. A year later, when the video was released publicly, it showed the boy walking away from officers and not brandishing a knife prior to being shot 16 times. Van Dyke was convicted of second-degree murder.

This is a screenshot of a dashboard camera video moments before the October 2014 fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago police officer. Warning: video contains graphic images. (Photo: YouTube)

Despite calls for more openness, and some state laws passed to expand open-records laws, most state legislatures have not taken steps to improve public access to police videos, Cullier said.

“I think we’ve seen a public push, especially since Floyd and other police brutality and killings,” he said. “Unfortunately, I don’t think a lot of legislatures have been moved by it. And I don’t think we’re going to see improvement unless the public continues to demand it.”

Challenging even for lawyers to obtain videos

The ability of prosecutors or judges to block access to videos can protect officers who might have acted illegally or improperly, said Jeffrey Montpetit, a Minneapolis attorney who has worked several civil cases involving law enforcement activities in South Dakota.

Advertisement

“I know of two cases I had in South Dakota where the courts basically said this video isn’t getting out because we don’t like what it shows,” he said.

The lack of access to police videos can inhibit the ability of the public to file civil claims against law enforcement officers who are alleged to have used excessive force or violated someone’s rights, Montpetit said.

“Without video, you’re out of luck,” he said.

“When they deny records requests, they’re not saying ‘no’ to journalists and the media. They’re saying ‘no’ to the million people who live in South Dakota.”
— David Cullier, director of the Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida

Defense attorneys who take cases on a contingency basis are unlikely to accept cases where a judgment might come down to the word of a police officer versus the claims of a member of the public, he said.

“The trooper, sheriff or police officer can write some B.S. report that the defendant resisted or took a swing at him,” Montpetit said. “Then all you’re getting is a credibility comparison between someone who may be a felon and a law enforcement officer, and you’re going to lose those cases.”

Advertisement

Also, members of the public who cannot afford to hire an attorney are unlikely to obtain videos that could help make a case against an officer or the government, he said.

“Without video, there’s not a lot of options for lawyers to undertake those efforts,” Montpetit said.

Rural sheriff supports a possible state law

Alan Dale, sheriff of Corson County, said videos of interactions with the public or perpetrators have mainly been used to help prosecutors prove crimes or have helped his deputies respond to unwarranted complaints.

“In one incident, we had someone complain the officer searched a vehicle without cause. And when we watched the video, it showed the man actually giving the deputy his consent to search,” Dale said.

News Watch submitted a request to view videos of a June 30, 2023, incident in which a Corson County deputy and tribal officers engaged in a vehicle chase with 25-year-old Samir Albadhani, who brandished a gun before being shot and wounded by officers. Dale forwarded the request to the local state’s attorney, who declined the News Watch request.

Advertisement

Dale said he isn’t sure if police videos should become an open record for press or public viewing in South Dakota, but he would support some form of legislation to create a uniform approach for cameras and videos for all agencies across the state.

“When I first started in law enforcement, we didn’t have cameras,” Dale said. “But now I wouldn’t want to be in law enforcement without them because the cameras don’t lie.”

“I don’t feel that we’re done yet, and I feel there’s more work to be done on that.”
— South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said that while serving two separate stints in the office, he has formed three task forces to examine public meetings and records laws, which have led to more openness.

Jackley, who is running for South Dakota’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, said he is willing to ask his ongoing open meetings task force or a new task force to consider whether police videos should be more publicly accessible.

“I don’t feel that we’re done yet, and I feel there’s more work to be done on that,” he said.


Read parts 1 and 2 of the 3-part series:

Advertisement

Police videos in SD: Public pays costs but cannot see footage

As more states begin to provide public access to videos captured by law enforcement agencies, South Dakota continues to keep a tight lid on them.

With discretion left to agencies, police video releases rare

When videos and still images have been released, they tend to justify officer use of force or highlight humorous on-the-job interactions.

This story was produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit organization. Read more stories and donate at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email to get stories when they’re published. Contact content director Bart Pfankuch at bart.pfankuch@sdnewswatch.org.



Source link

Advertisement

South Dakota

South Dakota lawmakers push bill criminalizing deepfakes nearer to governor’s desk

Published

on

South Dakota lawmakers push bill criminalizing deepfakes nearer to governor’s desk


PIERRE — A bill from South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley to criminalize the creation or sharing of deepfakes was amended this week to more clearly define what constitutes nudity before it reaches Gov. Larry Rhoden’s desk.

The amendment, added on the floor of the House of Representatives, came in response to concerns about unintended consequences.

Senate Bill 41 creates a class of felony crime for the creation or distribution of images digitally altered to depict a person in a state of nudity or involved in a sexually explicit act, commonly referred to as deepfakes.

Advertisement

In testimony in the House Judiciary Committee on Monday in Pierre, Jackley pointed to the case of Mark Rathbun, a former Division of Motor Vehicles employee who is accused of taking images of women and girls from state databases and creating sexual images.“This is real, and it’s something that we unfortunately are seeing happen in our state,” Jackley said.

The judiciary committee voted 8-3 to send the bill to the House floor but not before a discussion on its potential to criminalize political memes.

The bill’s definition of nudity originally encompassed a partial state of nudity. Fort Pierre Republican Rep. Will Mortenson asked Jackley if that would include a fabricated topless photo. Jackley said yes. Then Mortenson asked if a fabricated image of Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker without a shirt, if shared by President Donald Trump on social media, would put the president in line for felony charges.

Jackley said a Pritzker image wouldn’t qualify because Pritzker is male, but Mortenson pushed back.

Advertisement

He noted that partially nude fabrications would be a felony if done with the intent to “self-gratify or alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm to that individual.”

Nothing in the bill specified that a person in a digitally fabricated topless image must be female.

“We just said that half-nude is a state of nudity, and so now he’s shirtless, and the point of this is to embarrass this guy,” Mortenson said of his topless Pritzker meme scenario.

Mortenson voted against the bill in committee but brought an amendment Tuesday to define nudity as inclusive of male or female genitalia, buttocks or the female nipple.

The amendment passed, but it did not address every concern about the bill.

Advertisement

Democratic Rep. Kadyn Wittman of Sioux Falls asked Jackley during the bill’s committee hearing why he didn’t use it to enhance penalties for people who film others in states of undress or participating in sexual activity against their will.

That behavior is a felony if it involves the recording of a minor, or if it happens repeatedly. The new penalties for deepfakes would be added to the same chapter of South Dakota law.

“Why is the first time hidden recording a misdemeanor generally, but a digitally fabricated image would automatically be a classified felony,” said Wittman.

Jackley said he feels that the creation of digitally manipulated sexual images, even if they aren’t shared, signals “significant criminal intent.” He told South Dakota Searchlight after the committee meeting that he’s open to addressing that issue, but that SB 41’s primary purpose was to target deepfakes.

On the House floor, Wittman was one of two representatives to say the bill’s felony penalties could be unnecessarily harsh in instances where young people make “a stupid decision” and create a deepfake.

Advertisement

“I feel like, in a lot of situations, this bill covers behavior that could be covered by a lower level of offense,” Wittman said.

Supporters countered that the creation of fake nudes can do real psychological damage to real people, and that the state needs to clearly signal that doing so is a serious crime.

“It’s only fun and games until it happens to you,” said Rep. Mary Fitzgerald, R-St. Onge.

The bill passed the House 60-6. It now moves to the state Senate, which passed the bill 32-0 on Jan. 16. The Senate would need to approve the amended version of the bill before it could be delivered to Gov. Larry Rhoden to sign or veto.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South Dakota

SD Lottery Mega Millions, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for March 3, 2026

Published

on


The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 3, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Mega Millions numbers from March 3 drawing

07-21-53-54-62, Mega Ball: 16

Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 3 drawing

09-10-13-25-54, Bonus: 05

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your prize

  • Prizes of $100 or less: Can be claimed at any South Dakota Lottery retailer.
  • Prizes of $101 or more: Must be claimed from the Lottery. By mail, send a claim form and a signed winning ticket to the Lottery at 711 E. Wells Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501.
  • Any jackpot-winning ticket for Dakota Cash or Lotto America, top prize-winning ticket for Lucky for Life, or for the second prizes for Powerball and Mega Millions must be presented in person at a Lottery office. A jackpot-winning Powerball or Mega Millions ticket must be presented in person at the Lottery office in Pierre.

When are the South Dakota Lottery drawings held?

  • Powerball: 9:59 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
  • Mega Millions: 10 p.m. CT on Tuesday and Friday.
  • Lucky for Life: 9:38 p.m. CT daily.
  • Lotto America: 9:15 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Dakota Cash: 9 p.m. CT on Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Millionaire for Life: 10:15 p.m. CT daily.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a South Dakota editor. You can send feedback using this form.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South Dakota

Nebraska volleyball to play regular-season match in South Dakota

Published

on

Nebraska volleyball to play regular-season match in South Dakota


Nebraska volleyball will play South Dakota State in a regular-season match in Brookings, S.D. The Huskers will face the Jackrabbits on September 2 at First Bank & Trust Arena.

Nebraska finished 2025 with a 33-1 overall record and was ranked No. 3 in the final AVCA poll of the season. South Dakota State was 23-5 and was the Summit League regular-season champions.

These two programs have faced each other before. They played a spring exhibition match in May 2025. The Huskers were victorious by a 4-0 sweep (25-18, 25-19, 25-17, 25-19).

Harper Murray led the Huskers in kills with 12, while also earning seven digs, five blocks and two aces. Andi Jackson delivered a double-double on the day, finishing with 11 kills and 10 blocks. 

Advertisement

Nebraska is scheduled to play two exhibition games this spring. The Huskers will face Iowa State in Sioux Falls, S.D. on April 11 and Creighton in Omaha on April 17.

Contact/Follow us @CornhuskersWire (https://twitter.com/CornhuskersWire) on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page onFacebook (https://www.facebook.com/CornhuskersWire) to follow ongoing coverage of Nebraska news, notes and opinions.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending