Former Employee of South Dakota Secretary of State Office Pleads Guilty and Sentenced to Theft in Original State Flag Case
PIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that Garrett Darwin Devries, 26, Washington D.C., has pled guilty to one count of theft of the “Original State Flag”, having a value in excess of four hundred dollars, class one misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 30 days in the county jail with 30 days suspended upon the condition that he commits no law violations for a period of one year. In addition, Devries was sentenced to pay court costs and in lieu of a fine, he was ordered to pay the costs to assist in the future preservation and protection of the “Original State Flag’ in the amount of $1,500 by December 4, 2015. Devries was also ordered to submit a letter of apology to the employees of the Secretary of State’s Office and the citizens of the State of South Dakota.
“South Dakota’s original State Flag is an important part of our history, and its recovery without damage or further incident was an important consideration in the resolution of this case. Mr. Devries has accepted responsibility for his actions and apologized to his co-workers as well as the citizens of South Dakota. This resolution further serves to assist in the preservation of our State Flag for future generations,” said Jackley.
This charge stems from Devries employment at the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office during the time between December 2012-November 2013 and the theft of an ‘Original State Flag’ from his place of employment.
This case was investigated by the Division of Criminal Investigation and prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office.
-30-
Very little to deter future like crimes here.
Nice job Marty and people of law enforcement and Shantel and the SOS office for bringing this matter to conclusion swiftly.
Yes. Good job Republicans. Your employee stole the flag. Now pat yourselves on the back for bringing him to justice. Only in South Dakota does that equal good government …
Jackley/Krebs 2018?
Krebs/Jackley 2018?
Mickelson/Krebs 2018?
Krebs/Mickelson 2018?
Stop. Her ego is big enough already.
Isn’t ego a requirement for politicians?
I think Krebs would be strong candidate in a primary race.
C’mon
The GOP has so many really good candidates that are turning into great candidates. Shantel, Marty, Mark, Michels, Gosch. I don’t see why anyone of them would need to take a back seat to anyone else. Let’s not forget about Kristi Noem who would be the frontrunner for governor if she got in the race. But if you put Kristi up against the others then maybe you end up with someone like Stephanie Herseth getting in and suddenly SD has a 50/50 chance of going blue for the first time in a almost half a century.
If Kristi passes on governor I could see a handful of legislators getting in that race because it would be up for grabs.
I hope 2018 is exciting.
Too bad there’s no statute to charge Mr. Devries with moronic douchebaggery. He’s lucky to get off with a misdemeanor and not slapped with a felony. The AG’s release says the guilty party has “apologized to his co-workers as well as the citizens of South Dakota.” Really? Where can I find that apology? If it really exists, I’ll bet it’s more “sorry I got caught” and less “sorry I did it”.
This guy got what is an equivalent to a slap on the wrist. What a joke. With competence like, no wonder why Mayor Mike walked to victory.
Being a republican, I am disappointed in Jackley’s actions not to charge the individual with a felony. Boz got the book and this guy gets a slap on the wrist. So much for fair justice under the Jackley regime. I am a no vote for Jackley in 2018.
I thought Marty would be the conservative alternative to Mickelson.
Republican Jesus,
The criteria for a felony and misdemeanor is set by law. The AG has to have a basis to charge one with a felony and can’t do so arbitrarily. Upon what basis do you think he should have asserted it was a felony?
It was clearly a felony. It was invaluable and irreplaceable.
That is not the law. If you steal a tea cup used by the first Governor Mickelson at my Grandmother’s house and passed down to me, it might be irreplaceable and invaluable to me you will not be charged with a felony because the law considers “value” not on sentiment but actual market value.
There is no documentation to prove it was an original flag and not a copy made years later for a celebration or decoration. Thus, legally it is not “invaluable” but possibly of low value.
–the law considers “value” not on sentiment but actual market value.
As usual, Troy is wrong.
SDCL 21-1-8 provides:
Where certain property has a peculiar value to a person recovering damages for a deprivation thereof, or injury thereto, that may be deemed to be its value against one who had notice thereof before incurring a liability to damages in respect thereof, or against a willful wrongdoer.
This is also the standard used in criminal cases. SDCL 23A-28.
Some states bar “sentimental value” from the calculus, but not SD.
When one blows smoke out of his behind on topics he knows little about, he should be prepared to be embarrassed.
The only think worst than not knowing, is not knowing that you do not know. It’s called metacognition–get some.
This sideshow of whether or not it’s the “original state flag” is nothing more than an intentional distraction to shift attention away from the real crime and and its perpetrator; and it’s getting old. Let’s say Garrett decided to rob his hometown bank but we later learned the money he stole is counterfeit. Does that lessen his guilt? Of course not.
Provenance, much like science is better at proving that something isn’t versus something is, and so far it’s the accepted premise that the flag is genuine. I assume proving or disproving that will be among the Cultural Heritage Center’s first responsibilities when the flag find its way there. Until then we should treat this like the NFL and assume the ruling on the field stands until there’s compelling evidence to the contrary.
Two things:
1) 21-1-8 is determining damages in a civil case.
2) 23A-28 is about restitution for the consequences of a crime.
Good try but no cigar.
How did I know you wouldn’t bother reading those statutes in their entirety? Blowhards never do.
In determining restitution in a criminal case, SDCL 23A-28-2(4) defines “restitution as, “full or partial payment of pecuniary damages to a victim.” SDCL 23A-28-2(3) then defines “pecuniary damages” as “all damages which a victim could recover against the defendant in a CIVIL ACTION arising out of the same facts or event, except punitive damages and damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of consortium.”
This isn’t rocket science, wannabe genius.
METACOGNITION!
Heck, here’s a case on point:
State v. Martin (2006):
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/sd-supreme-court/1413525.html
Give it up, fool.
law 101.
Like
Weak sentence.
Anonymous,
Before I discuss this further and you criticize me personally, why don’t you have the courage to give your name so I know if I’m arguing with someone who knows anything about the law.
You had the opportunity to learn something about the law that you clearly did not know.
Instead, you wish to attack the teacher.
Whether the teacher is Plato, , wikipedia, google, or anonymous,
why not demonstrate some humility, read the statutes and some case law, and enjoy the opportunity to learn, instead of trying to heal your wounded ego by lashing out?
There’s no need to argue with me or anyone else about the law–the law is the law and you can read it yourself as can everyone else. (You had the chance, and then made another erroneous post). YOU were the only one who chose not to learn from the opportunity. YOUR name is attached to the mistakes, yet you demand the name of someone who is trying to lead you to the well of knowledge. After all, you were scolding another poster about how to determine the value of stolen property–maybe you should know what you’re talking before doing so? Instead of admitting the mistakes, you chose to make it personal (again). Why? Oversized ego? Why the childish games? How about a bit of self-reflection?
Not too long ago you lectured folks about grammar and the use of “her’s” (sic). Another lost opportunity to learn, but the ego led to more embarrassment?
It is really sad.
I’m not arguing with you about the law. We can all look that up for ourselves and see that you were wrong. The better question is why YOU were arguing about the law with Anonymous at 12:37 & Rep. Jesus, when you really didn’t know what the law is.