Attorney General Jackley Issues Official Opinion Relating to Marsy’s Law

jackleyheader2 Marty JackleyAttorney General Jackley Issues Official Opinion Relating to Marsy’s Law

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley has issued an Official Opinion on the implementation of Marsy’s Law as it relates to release of auto accident reports to the public, the release of street addresses where crimes occur, and the names of victims in crime report logs or law enforcement radio traffic requested.

“While there is more work being done, this opinion is intended to help victims and those assisting victims in carrying out our new law,” said Jackley. “I would like to thank the individual Task Force members for their willingness to serve and for their assistance on these issues that have affected law enforcement and the public statewide,” said Jackley.

marsyslawAGop16-02 by Pat Powers on Scribd

26 thoughts on “Attorney General Jackley Issues Official Opinion Relating to Marsy’s Law

  1. Anonymous

    Remember the jail for judges initiated measure? Remember how the entire establishment spoke up against the law? Remember how badly it lost?

    That can’t happen when the measure is *sponsored* by the establishment. No one (except the lawyers) had the integrity to stand up against it. Marty knew this would be a disaster … and he watched it happen.

    And then he gave the main sponsor a top job in his campaign.

  2. Anonymous

    Reconcile that with im22. Rick W can’t win a race has alienated his own party and is far from the “establishment.” I think both involved simple messages, a million plus of outside money and a loaded ballot. Who’s is pro corruption and against victims of violent crime? Sound bite based decisions on complicated or disastrous measures. A horrible way to make policy.

  3. Anonymous

    Marty needs to distance himself from Glodt. Ethically he should not have hired Glodt to be his campaign manager while Jackley was responsible for writing the ballot opinions.

    1. Jason Glodt

      Please stop spreading misinformation. I have never been paid by the Jackley campaign. In addition, Marty and I didn’t start having conversations about the possibility of me working on his campaign until many many months after he wrote the ballot explanations. While we certainly would have appreciated his endorsement, Marty remained neutral during the campaign.

      1. Anonymous

        Ok let’s flush out the facts:

        When did you start Marcy’s law campaign and when did you become his campaign manager?

    1. Jason Glodt

      Far from true. I made less money working on the Amendment S campaign than I would have made if I had continued working in the Governor’s Office. I am proud to have fought for crime victims in this campaign and I will always fight for crime victim rights.

      1. Springer

        OK, so explain why most of the attorneys in the state said to vote NO on Marsy’s law. This was after I voted for it, about the only time I voted for any amendment change because I had thought you were a good guy and would never promote anything not good for the state. I regret my vote now. I regret being one of the uninformed this time around, not realizing this was being pushed by out of state money and interests. I will never again regret such a vote because I will never ever again vote for any amendment change or IM but will leave it to the legislature to address and debate issues such as this. Now, please explain why most attorneys said to vote NO on this but you think it is such a good deal.

        1. The Guy from Guernsey

          Oh, and thank you for selling the State Constitution to the bidding of a California billionaire. /s

          1. The Guy from Guernsey

            Reply above was intended to be placed under Mr Glodt’s contribution to this thread.

      2. The Guy from Guernsey

        Hundreds of thousands of dollars surging through the campaign finances of a ballot question committee of which you were the State Director … and you made less than the usual remuneration made to a humble government servant in South Dakota? LOL.
        If so, this would make you the only member of the Rounds cabal who hasn’t figured out how to skim $$’s from the millions passing through your fingers.

  4. Nony Mouse

    I guess the biggest take away from this opinion is that the words contained therein are to be construed as the law of the land. I assure you that no AG opinion has ever been construed as the final word on a matter. It is not binding upon administrative agencies, it is not binding on circuit courts, and it is not binding on the South Dakota Supreme Court. While the Attorney General’s words carry substantially more weight than those coming from Mr. Glodt, the only words that will matter will be those of the 5 justices when this ‘thing’ finally gets resolved on a declaratory judgment action. Of course that will cost the taxpayers as well.

  5. Trey

    Now this Glodt character is on the political blog trying to defend himself. That in itself should be reason for him to be distanced from the Jackley campaign. This will end up poorly for Jackley, the people are already having buyers remorse on this law. Plus the explanations don’t dig enough into what the law says, people weren’t fully informed. South Dakota already had adequate victim’s rights laws, now we put this junk in the constitution. This whole deal, Marcy’s law, Glodt working for Jackley has bad news written on it. Jackely is a good guy, needs better people around him.

  6. Non Attorney Spokesman

    Please explain your comment about “buyer’s remorse”…..as far as I know the voters still support Marcy’s Law. Seems to me that the only remorse is with the losers that use disingenuous statements and perceptions to gin up controversy over the issue.

    1. Anonymous

      I am not the above poster, but I don’t know anyone who is for it and I have a wide and diverse set of friends…many have told me they fell for the sad story’s like Kelsey Grammer and wish they would not have voted for it….

      We got suckered on 22 and S both

  7. Anonymous

    Anyone else notice that the States attorney asking for the clarification was Michael Moore the proponent of this measure along with Glodt….so he doesn’t know what he was supporting????

  8. Marsy or Marty

    I’m disappointed in Marty for this, it’s just more corruption in Pierre. Glodt needs to choose between Marty or Marsy. He can’t do both.

  9. anony

    This is going to cost the counties around $100,000 each for something that was already public information. This is such a waste of money and now a burden on our law enforcement agencies.

  10. Draft Michels

    Marty doesn’t need this it’s just more ammo for the dems to use against the republican party for corrupt crony capitalism. Matt Michels please run.

  11. anon

    This is just another point for Noem to use against Jackley. Add it to the list EB5, Gear Up, Marsy’s Law campaign manager. His motto is to protect and serve his friends.