T. Denny Sanford named as 'implicated individual' in S.D. child pornography investigation

T. Denny Sanford, a nationally-recognized philanthropist and the namesake of the Sanford Health System, has been named as the implicated individual in a criminal investigation involving child pornography.

Sanford's name was revealed in court documents released publicly Wednesday after a victory ruling by the South Dakota Supreme Court for the Argus Leader and ProPublica.

The two media organizations had sought records related to a criminal investigation into Sanford, who has been publicly identified as an “Implicated Individual.” Although the Argus Leader and ProPublica knew the identity of the Implicated Individual, the two organizations had been unable to publish the person’s name because they are parties to a court case that had been under seal.

"A very explicit statutory requirement regarding public access to search warrant information is finally being enforced," said Jon Arneson, a lawyer for the Argus Leader. "What is unfortunate is it took 15 and a half months of litigation to get there."

Previously: State high court rules that search warrant records for 'Implicated Individual' must be public

Sanford has not been formally charged in the case.

Previous reports cited anonymous sources within the South Dakota Attorney General's Office identifying Sanford as the Implicated Individual. In a statement to the Argus Leader on Wednesday, Marty Jackley, a lawyer representing Sanford, noted that Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg had disputed those reports as having come from his office.

"Irrespective of the anonymous sources," Jackley wrote the Argus Leader, "what we do know is that an investigation involving search warrants began in December of 2019, and it was thorough in that it included five search warrants. The attorney general has further acknowledged in the court filings the headings on the first page of the search warrants being released today contain incorrect information. The ultimate fact remains that the investigating authorities have not found information to support criminal charges."

The title of each search warrant included Sanford's name.

How did the case unfold?

Both the Argus Leader and ProPublica petitioned Minnehaha Circuit Court Judge James Power in the summer of 2020 to release materials related to five search warrants that had been issued regarding the investigation into Sanford by the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation.

The first warrant had been issued in December 2019 related to an email account, and four additional search warrants were issued in March 2020 related to internet and cellular providers, not specifically directed to Sanford himself. Power had signed off on all five of the search warrants.

When asking for a search warrant from a judge, a law enforcement officer can submit an affidavit describing the reasons for why the warrant is needed. State law allows judges to seal those affidavits until the person under investigation is indicted or arrested.

But the law also explicitly says that other records related to a warrant cannot be sealed, including the disclosure that an affidavit has been filed, the contents of the warrant, the inventory and the warrant’s return.

Both media organizations participated in an oral argument on Oct. 7, 2020 before Power. The argument was closed to the public. Jackley and the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office argued that the records at issue should remain sealed.

Power ultimately ruled in favor of the Argus Leader and ProPublica. Sanford appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, and the seal on the case was extended. Following Power’s ruling, the Attorney General’s Office withdrew from the case.

During oral arguments before the court in August, Jackley argued that other state laws give the Judiciary dominion over its own records. With that power, Jackley argued, the Judiciary could continue keeping the records at issue under seal.

Supreme Court's opinion was unanimous

But the Oct. 28 unanimous 5-0 opinion, authored by Justice Mark Salter, rejected that argument. The provisions in state law, Salter wrote, “at least as far as they relate to the issue here, are easily reconciled using the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation—simply read the text and apply it.”

Salter noted that the Legislature had enacted the law in question, and the law, SDCL 23A-35-4.1, does not conflict with other laws or rules regarding records. The issue, Salter wrote, is with the Legislature and its crafting of the statute.

“In the end,” Salter wrote, “the application of SDCL 23A-35-4.1 is unavoidable, and it means what it says—a court “may not prohibit disclosure that a supporting affidavit was filed, the contents of the warrant, the return of the warrant, nor the inventory.” Under the circumstances presented here, there is no constitutional collision course between coordinate branches of state government and no tension between our court rules and a plain and unambiguous statute.”

Following that ruling, Sanford had 20 days to ask for a rehearing, but he declined to do so. That triggered the release of the search warrant materials on Wednesday.

This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: T. Denny Sanford named in investigation after SD Supreme Court ruling