Two police officers involved in a shootout with a suspect in 2024 can have their names protected from public view to prevent someone from potentially locating or harassing the officer or their families, according to a ruling Thursday by the South Dakota Supreme Court that reversed a lower court’s decision.
Justices ruled that Marsy’s Law, a state constitutional amendment approved by South Dakota voters to protect victims of crimes, applies to police officers.
“Whether a victim’s name, initials or other information should be redacted will depend on the unique circumstances of each case and the asserted interests that should be balanced by the court,” the ruling states.
The justices heard oral arguments in the case during a traveling court session held in March at the Hamre Recital Hall on the campus of Augustana University in Sioux Falls.
The case “State versus Albaidhani” centers around an April 3, 2024, incident in which two Sioux Falls officers stopped a vehicle and then exchanged gunfire with Samir Albaidhani. One officer and Albaidhani were shot but survived.
As the criminal case progressed, the two officers’ names were published in court documents, but they later asked a court to redact their names from future documents related to the case.
Marsy’s Law is a constitutional amendment passed by South Dakota voters in 2016 that provides crime victims with a variety of rights, including being treated with fairness and respect and to be free from intimidation or harassment.
The law includes, “The right, upon request, to prevent the disclosure to the public, or the defendant or anyone acting on behalf of the defendant in the criminal case, of information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family.”
A circuit judge ruled that the two officer names or other identifying information could not be redacted from documents. The court noted that “a name alone does not provide location details about the individual. Nothing in the plain language of Marsy’s Law prevents the disclosure of a victim’s name.”
That ruling prompted the appeal.
The officers were represented by Jeffrey R. Beck, an attorney representing the Fraternal Order of Police.
Beck told the court that releasing names of victims, including police officers, makes it easy for someone to find out where they live. Beck said he searched his own name online and found extensive information about himself, including everywhere he had lived back to his childhood.
Attorneys for Albaidhani included Kylie Beck and Emily Herbert of the Minnehaha County Public Defender’s Office. Kylie Beck argued that keeping people’s names out of public records could make it difficult for lawyers to contact them or subpoena them for interviews. She also said redacting names could interfere with a defendant’s right to due process.
The case will now go back to circuit court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the Supreme Court ruling states.
___
This story was originally published by South Dakota News Watch and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Read the full article here