PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — Two people licensed to practice medicine in South Dakota have received official reprimands for unprofessional conduct.

The South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners took the actions against Phinit Phisitkul, a foot and ankle surgeon for CNOS in Dakota Dunes, and Sheena Rippentrop, an OB/GYN who specializes in reproductive medicine for Sanford Health.

The South Dakota reprimands came after Phisitkul was officially punished by the Iowa Board of Medicine and after Rippentrop was officially punished by the North Dakota Board of Medicine.

Phisitkul admitted that he sexually harassed a medical student in 2017 while he was employed by the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, where he practiced for 10 years.

Phisitkul agreed in a May 16, 2025, settlement with the Iowa board to take “live Board-approved courses on the subjects of professional boundaries and medical ethics,” have “a chaperone present during all examinations and consultations with female patients” for one year, and to pay a $2,500 civil penalty to the Iowa state treasurer.

Phisitkul signed a separate settlement agreement with the South Dakota board on June 26, 2025, and the board voted to accept it on September 11, 2025.

Rippentrop, meanwhile, was reprimanded by the South Dakota board earlier this year for “falsely documenting in a patient’s medical records that two IUI procedures were performed on the patient.”

The North Dakota medical board opened an investigation of Rippentrop in 2024 and considered an official complaint alleging that Rippentrop “falsely documented in a patient’s medical records that two intrauterine insemination (IUI) procedures were performed when Dr. Rippentrop did not complete an IUI on either occasion.”

The North Dakota complaint specifically said:

“(Rippentrop) established a physician patient relationship with Patient A. Patient A carried
the BRCA2 gene and wanted to proceed with in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, Patient A’s insurance required that Patient A go through three intrauterine inseminations (IUI) before
insurance would cover IVF. (Rippentrop) saw Patient A on August 17, 2024, and September 23,
2024 for an intrauterine insemination (IUI). On both dates, (Rippentrop) documented in Patient A’s chart that the IUI procedure was done without difficulty even though (Rippentrop) did not complete the IUI on either occasion.”

Rippentrop signed a stipulation on October 29, 2024, agreeing “the allegations in the Complaint are true and are grounds for disciplinary action by the North Dakota Board of Medicine.” The North Dakota board on January 31, 2025, approved its order that Rippentrop receive a reprimand.

The South Dakota board in turn approved its reprimand of Rippentrop on June 12, 2025.

Neither Rippentrop nor Phisitkul appeared at their hearings held by the South Dakota board.

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.

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.”

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.”

“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 21^st 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.”

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

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:

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.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate passed the annual National Defense Authorization Act or the NDAA. South Dakota’s Congressional delegation applauded the bill and what it means for South Dakotans.

Over $900 billion of defense spending and policy changes were passed by a vote of 77-20. It includes some compromises between parties, but South Dakota’s delegation vouched for addressing needs in the state and providing better opportunities to students of South Dakota colleges and universities.

South Dakota Air Force and National Guard locations are getting major upgrades. Ellsworth Air Force Base will receive a total of $378 million to support the newly authorized B-21 Raider stealth bomber program. $28 million will go to the Army National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop in Watertown.

Senator Mike Rounds said there has been a need for upgrades in Watertown for some time and it was a welcome addition to the bill.

“We try not only to take care of the full-time operations going on with things at Ellsworth Air Force Base, but for the National Guard, they also have needs of upgraded facilities to take care of the equipment that they’re responsible for,” Rounds said.

Majority Leader Senator John Thune and Representative Dusty Johnson agreed.

“In addition to authorizing a well-deserved pay raise for our service members, this bill strengthens the important role that South Dakota plays in keeping our nation safe by continuing to prepare Ellsworth Air Force Base for the arrival of the B-21 Raider and authorizing a new facility for the South Dakota Army National Guard in Watertown,” Thune said in a release.

“This defense package ensures America’s military remains the strongest in the world,” Johnson added in a statement of his own. “It keeps our military men and women focused on military readiness and ensuring peace through strength. I’m grateful for its investment in South Dakota and the B-21, which will be an incredible addition to our fighting force.”

Senator Rounds also touted what he called a win for South Dakota colleges and universities. Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, or SCIFs, allow for greater partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense and the ability to share more confidential information within research.

Under the new NDAA, South Dakota universities are given a greater opportunity to partner with the DoD. Dakota State would strengthen its current SCIF status and other schools that have remained interested will get their chance to partner. According to Rounds, South Dakota School of Mines, South Dakota State University and the University of South Dakota have all expressed interest.

“To allow young men and women who want to either go into the military or who have a particular field of expertise to be able to stay at their university location and communicate back and forth with folks in the Washington, DC area or elsewhere on a very private or confidential basis,” described Rounds.

Despite polarizing politics, Rounds said this annual bill brings together those from both sides of the aisle.

“It shows that Republicans and Democrats do work together on certain issues and the defense of our country is one of them,” explained Rounds. “This bill also provides a 3.8 percent increase in salary policy for the young men and women that serve our country. Both of which, I believe, are very positive and items I think the citizens of South Dakota clearly care about.”

Thursday evening, President Donald Trump officially signed the bill into law. The next step would be appropriations acts to authorize the spending.

Copyright 2025 Dakota News Now. All rights reserved.