Court Opinion

ID: 9738101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:42:45.534209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.689186
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
It is basic that the constitutional protections and guarantees of the South Dakota Constitution may be greater than those of the United States Constitution. State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673, 674-675 (S.D. 1976), citing Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975); State v. Neville, 346 N.W.2d 425, 427-428 (S.D.1980), rev’d on other grounds, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983).
It is also basic that the South Dakota Supreme Court is charged by statute with the supervision and control of the Unified Judicial System — this obviously includes the circuit courts. SDCL 16-2-20; S.D. Const, art. V, §§ 11, 12. For someone to seriously argue that the Federal Courts have access to courts within the Unified Judicial System but that we have no control or jurisdiction is incredible and a contradiction in terms. No one has access to our courts outside of our jurisdiction.
Some of the reasons given for no jurisdiction are equally incredible. (The opinion, on two occasions, sets up the fictional strawman for the purpose of knocking him down.) The opinion argues that either the Federal District Court or the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals might go ahead and decide this case which would leave us “hanging” without jurisdiction or there might be simultaneous inconsistent decisions. One has to ask why would they do that after sending it to us (in a spirit of comity) in the first place. One might even ask how would they do that when we have the file until we return it to them.
If we don’t want this case, we should say so. But we should give the real reason for not wanting it — whatever that is. For my part, I think this court should take this case and finally decide it once and for all under the South Dakota and Federal Constitutions.