Supreme Court justices who heard cases in Sioux Falls, S.D., on March 18, 2026, included (left to right) Scott P. Myren, Mark E. Salter, Chief Justice Steven R. Jensen, Patricia J. Devaney and Robert Gusinsky. (Bart Pfankuch / South Dakota News Watch)
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (South Dakota Searchlight) — The South Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments for the first time Wednesday on whether a voter-backed amendment to the state constitution prevents the public disclosure of victims’ names, including the names of police officers involved in altercations with members of the public.
Voters passed “Marsy’s Law” in the 2016 general election. Among other provisions, it says crime victims can, upon request, prevent the release of “information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information about the victim.”
Since its passage, law enforcement agencies in South Dakota have regularly used it to justify their refusal to release the names of the officers involved in shootings.
This week, during the South Dakota Supreme Court’s traveling term at Augustana University, the justices were asked if the release of victim names alone constitutes a violation of Marsy’s Law.
Last year, a judge in Sioux Falls said it does not.
The case stems from assault and attempted murder on law enforcement charges filed against a man named Samir Albaidhani, who’s alleged to have shot at officers in April 2025 after a high-speed, multi-county chase that began in Sioux Falls. Officers shot and injured Alabainhani, and the state Division of Criminal Investigation ruled the shooting justified.
After the first few documents were filed in Albaidhani’s case, the officers involved and their police union asked that the Minnehaha County State’s Attorney and Second Judicial Circuit Clerk of Courts redact the officers’ names from those documents. They also asked that any future documents that might list their names be filed under seal. They attempted to force the redaction and mandate the sealing of future documents through a writ of mandamus in civil court, which is meant to compel action by a government agency or official, and were granted a temporary order to seal documents containing their names.
Judge Bobbi Rank dismissed the civil case, however, saying Marsy’s Law gave the officers the opportunity to argue for privacy during regular court proceedings. She agreed to keep the names under seal as the officers made those arguments.
The Sioux Falls judge assigned to Albaidhani’s criminal case would later rule that Marsy’s Law doesn’t explicitly shield victim names from disclosure. Instead, Judge Susan Sabers wrote, it prevents the release of information that could be used to locate or harass the victim. The name alone isn’t enough to qualify, Sabers wrote.
“Marsy’s Law does not provide a crime victim with a right of complete anonymity,” Sabers wrote, who also noted that the U.S. Constitution grants people the right to confront their accusers in court.
Jeffrey Beck, a lawyer for the officers and their police union, spoke first on Wednesday, telling the justices his clients appealed Sabers’ ruling to protect their constitutional rights as victims.
Publicizing the officers’ names could lead to harassment, Beck told the justices, especially given the widespread availability of personal information online. He said he’d entered his name into a free search engine before attending the oral arguments, and that the results showed his full name, the names of his relatives and his birth month and year. The search also turned up his current and prior addresses, phone numbers and email addresses, among other information — enough information to locate and harass him.
Courts can manage requests from victims to opt in to Marsy’s Law protections without infringing on a defendant’s right to due process, he argued. The officers’ names are known to the defense lawyers, he said, so Albaidhani’s right to confront witnesses remains intact without their public disclosure.
Albaidhani’s lawyer, Kylie Beck of the Minnehaha County Public Defender’s Office, said public disclosure is important for defendants and their counsel. She and her co-counsel may have access to the law enforcement officers’ names, she said, but shielding the names from public view restricts their ability to use them to mount “a complete defense.”
“We can’t send off subpoenas for information on these individuals because their names would be protected,” she said.
As the case moves toward trial, she said, questions of when the names can and can’t be used might further hamper her ability to defend her client. In their written arguments to the high court, she said, the officers’ legal team said “that when it comes time to trial, whether or not the identities of the victims would become public would ultimately have to be litigated.”
She’s not confident her client’s right to confront his accusers will be preserved, she said.
“Clearly, this is not a situation where this is all that’s going to be requested,” she said of the redactions and sealing of documents with the officers’ names.
She conceded that a person’s name constitutes “information” about a victim, but said a name alone isn’t enough to qualify as information that could be used to “locate or harass” a victim under Marsy’s Law.
When Jeffrey Beck returned to the lectern for his rebuttal, Justice Mark Salter asked him if there are implications for the public’s right to know in instances where a victim invokes a right to privacy.
“It’s not really in front of us” as an explicit argument from Albaidani’s lawyers, Salter said, “but what do we do with that? Is that just not part of this case?”
“We would say that the public’s right to know does not take away a constitutional protection,” of Marsy’s Law, the officers’ lawyer said.
Comments