Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneystatutetrialparolewrit of prohibition
attorneystatutetrialparolewrit of prohibition

Related Cases

Saint Ford v. Attorney Gen. of U.S.
View Case »
Kulhawik v. Holder
View Case »
Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey
View Case »
Rizzio v. Kenney
View Case »
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Doe v. Nelson

Facts

In January of 2003, a representative of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader requested a list of individuals who were named in pardons filed with the Secretary of State for the years 1995 through 2002. All of the pardons contained notation from the Governor indicating the pardons were sealed 'pursuant to section 24-14-11 of the South Dakota Codified Laws.' The Secretary of State determined that approximately 279 pardons had been filed during that time period containing that language. The Attorney General concluded that those pardons granted by the Governor outside of the Board's involvement could not be legally sealed under SDCL 24-14-11. Applicants, who received their pardons directly from the Governor, filed this action seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the unsealing of records relating to those pardons.

In January of 2003, a representative of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader requested a list of individuals who were named in pardons filed with the Secretary of State for the years 1995 through 2002. All of the pardons contained notation from the Governor indicating the pardons were sealed 'pursuant to section 24-14-11 of the South Dakota Codified Laws.' The Secretary of State determined that approximately 279 pardons had been filed during that time period containing that language. The Attorney General concluded that those pardons granted by the Governor outside of the Board's involvement could not be legally sealed under SDCL 24-14-11. Applicants, who received their pardons directly from the Governor, filed this action seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the unsealing of records relating to those pardons.

Issue

Does either Article 4, Section 3, of the South Dakota Constitution or any statute provide the Governor with the legal authority to seal the pardons granted to the Applicants?

Does either Article 4, Section 3, of the South Dakota Constitution or any statute provide the Governor with the legal authority to seal the pardons granted to the Applicants?

Rule

The Governor may, except as to convictions on impeachment, grant pardons, commutations, and reprieves, and may suspend and remit fines and forfeitures. The words used in the Constitution are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and are to be given the meaning they have in common use unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary.

The Governor may, except as to convictions on impeachment, grant pardons, commutations, and reprieves, and may suspend and remit fines and forfeitures. The words used in the Constitution are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and are to be given the meaning they have in common use unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary.

Analysis

The court analyzed the constitutional and statutory provisions regarding the Governor's authority to grant pardons. It found that while the Governor has the power to grant pardons, the sealing of those pardons is not authorized under the current statutory framework. The court emphasized that the sealing language in SDCL 24-14-11 applies only to pardons involving the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and not to those granted directly by the Governor. Therefore, the trial court's conclusion that the Governor had the authority to seal pardons was incorrect.

The court analyzed the constitutional and statutory provisions regarding the Governor's authority to grant pardons. It found that while the Governor has the power to grant pardons, the sealing of those pardons is not authorized under the current statutory framework. The court emphasized that the sealing language in SDCL 24-14-11 applies only to pardons involving the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and not to those granted directly by the Governor. Therefore, the trial court's conclusion that the Governor had the authority to seal pardons was incorrect.

Conclusion

The court reversed the order of the trial court and remanded the matter with instructions to dissolve the writ, affirming that the pardons granted directly by the Governor cannot be sealed.

The court reversed the order of the trial court and remanded the matter with instructions to dissolve the writ, affirming that the pardons granted directly by the Governor cannot be sealed.

Who won?

The South Dakota Secretary of State and the South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles prevailed in the case because the court found that the Governor did not have the authority to seal the pardons.

The South Dakota Secretary of State and the South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles prevailed in the case because the court found that the Governor did not have the authority to seal the pardons.

You must be