Court Opinion

ID: 9674880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:36:52.493688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.935885
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
The record is devoid of any proof that any of the defendants were members of any Indian tribe. Therefore, these defendants cannot claim any benefits as a member of any Indian tribe.
Defendants did not have a permit for an open fire on November 15, 1981. The encampment existed for approximately three or four weeks before November 15, 1981, when law enforcement officers arrived to find that the encampment was breaking up and most of the tents had been taken down the night before. Most significantly, the open fire was being used to cook breakfast and was not being used for a religious ceremony. On or about November 8, 1981, the sheriff of Custer County was called to this encampment for the purpose of an emergency, namely to remove and help a woman and a new-born baby. On November 10, 1981, the same sheriff returned to this encampment and arrested three individuals for open fire violations. The sheriff was handed a written .statement by a member of the encampment which was titled “The Camp Significance or the Camp’s Purpose.” This statement indicated that the purpose of the camp was for hunting and fishing in the Black Hills and the hunt was being conducted because of cuts in welfare, not one word being mentioned concerning religious practices or purposes. One of the campers testified that the camp was set up in a spiritual way but that he and his family’s main purpose in going to the Black Hills was political in nature, namely that the Black Hills still belonged to the Sioux Nation and that his wife and two daughters had moved with him to demonstrate that they were against the so-called “selling” of the Black Hills. Further, this camper stated he wanted to draw attention to the Indian people’s opposition to settlement of money in exchange for the Black Hills to the federal government. He testified that *224life was poor on the reservation and that he just wanted to go to the Black Hills to camp.
The State of South Dakota had a compelling interest, namely the prevention of fire and the burning down of the Black Hills. The area was dry where the open fires were burning and there was grass and pitch in the immediate area. Trees totally surrounded the encampment next to the open fires. Strewn about was clothing and old mattresses, all of which created a highly combustible and dangerous situation.
The entire purpose of the Black Hills forest fire protection district is to protect the timber and areas subject to unusual fire danger. See SDCL 34-35-15. It is not unreasonable nor burdensome for any citizen of this State to procure a permit to have an open fire in the Black Hills. For the sake of public interest and safety, the State must protect the Black Hills National Forest lest indiscriminate burning reduce it to total ruin.
There has been absolutely no encroachment upon the religious freedom of these defendants by their prosecution and conviction. The statute under which these defendants were convicted does not make criminal the holding of any religious belief or opinion and it certainly does not coerce anyone into embracing any religious belief or to do or to say or to believe anything in conflict with their religious tenants. Therefore, and in keeping with the basic ruling in Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 1145, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961), the open fire statute pertaining to the Black Hills of South Dakota is not a violation of the First Amendment rights of the defendants.