South Dakota’s Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Marsy’s Law—approved by voters to protect crime victims—can extend to police officers, allowing courts in some circumstances to keep officer names and other identifying information out of future public records connected to a criminal case.
In the decision described by the court, the justices said that “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 reverses a lower court decision that had held officer identifying information could not be redacted from documents tied to the case. The circuit judge had noted that “a name alone does not provide location details about the individual” and that “nothing in the plain language of Marsy’s Law prevents the disclosure of a victim’s name.”
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case during a traveling court session in March held at Hamre Recital Hall on the campus of Augustana University in Sioux Falls. The justices’ ruling came after they considered how Marsy’s Law’s protections should apply in this instance and what factors should guide redaction requests.
The case, State versus Albaidhani, centers on 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.
After the criminal case progressed, the two officers’ names were published in court documents, according to the reporting. The officers later sought redactions 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 rights, including being treated with “fairness and respect” and being “free from intimidation or harassment.” The law includes a 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.”
The officers’ request was supported by attorneys including Jeffrey R. Beck, who represented the Fraternal Order of Police. Beck told the court that releasing names of victims, including police officers, can make it easier for someone to find out where they live, and he said he had searched his own name online and found extensive information about himself, including everywhere he had lived back to his childhood.
Representing Albaidhani were 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 harder for lawyers to contact them or subpoena them for interviews, and she also said redacting names could interfere with a defendant’s due process rights.
In its decision, the Supreme Court said the case will return to circuit court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” according to the reporting, leaving circuit judges to apply the high court’s framework to the redaction question in the specific circumstances before them.