Court Opinion

ID: 9852102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:24:34.769428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:22.376677
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I would dissent. I am in agreement with the interpretation made of SDCL 22-25-13 by the Assistant Attorney General and the Minnehaha County State’s Attorney. The statute is a prohibition of possession and use of slot machines, and it does not apply to possession of an antique machine. In fact, SDCL 22-25-14.1 (which went into effect after this incident) declares it to be the policy of the legislature that all slot machines manufactured prior to 1941 be preserved as part of South Dakota’s heritage. SDCL 22-25-14 (declaring all slot machines a nuisance), upon which the majority opinion leans heavily in interpretating SDCL 22-25-13, is still in effect. So we now have one statute calling the slot machines manufactured prior to 1941 a “public nuisance” and another preserving these antique machines as “part of South Dakota’s heritage!”
I am authorized to state that Justice Porter joins in this dissent.