When South Dakota police take a minor into custody, can they share information about the minor with a Department of Social Services caseworker or with school officials involved with the minor, given that SDCL 26-7A-27 bars disclosure of juvenile law enforcement records to 'the public'?
Plain-English summary
When SD police take a minor into temporary custody, file a summons, or issue a citation, the records are confidential under SDCL 26-7A-27. The statute lists four narrow exceptions: court order, transfer to adult criminal court under SDCL chapter 26-11, presentence investigations after a criminal conviction, and parent-or-child-authorized release to U.S. military recruiters. Police Chief Hennies asked the AG whether the statute's blanket confidentiality bar prevented sharing information with other government agencies that had a legitimate role with the same minor, specifically the Department of Social Services and state-certified school personnel.
The 1994 AG read the statute carefully. The key word is "public" in the phrase "may not be inspected by or disclosed to the public." If "public" means literally everyone, then DSS and schools are excluded along with neighbors and reporters. If "public" means the general undifferentiated community, then officials with a particularized governmental interest in the child are not part of "the public" and can receive information.
The AG went with the second reading. SDCL 2-14-1's plain-meaning rule sent him to the dictionary. The principal definition of "public" as a noun is "the community or the people as a whole." Inherent in that definition is the absence of particularized interest or status. A DSS caseworker assigned to a child has a particularized governmental role with that child. A school principal whose student is the subject of police action has a particularized governmental role with that student. Neither falls within the ordinary meaning of "the public" in the way the statute uses the word.
The opinion is bounded by the protective purpose of the juvenile justice system. SDCL 26-7A-5 makes the best interests of the child the controlling principle, and SDCL 26-7A-6 requires liberal construction of the juvenile laws in the child's favor. Information sharing has to serve one of those purposes: protecting the child from abuse or neglect, or providing guidance, control, and rehabilitation. Sharing for any other purpose (mere curiosity, administrative convenience, political reporting) is not covered.
The opinion ends with a reminder that everyone who receives information under this carve-out is still subject to confidentiality obligations. DSS caseworkers and school officials cannot turn around and post the information on a bulletin board or release it to the press. The child's confidentiality continues to be protected; only the categories of people with access widens to include officials with a legitimate role.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. SD juvenile justice law has been amended substantially since 1994, including changes to the labeling of statutory categories (delinquent child, child in need of supervision), the procedural rules for transfer to adult court, and the information-sharing provisions for multi-agency response. Federal overlays under FERPA and similar laws also affect what schools can do with information from law enforcement. Verify current statute and current ATF/DOJ/FERPA guidance before relying on this opinion for any current information-sharing decision.
What the opinion meant at the time
For SD police chiefs and sheriffs in the 1990s, the opinion gave the green light to talk with DSS and schools about juvenile cases where the information was needed for protection or rehabilitation. The blanket statutory bar did not apply.
For DSS caseworkers responding to abuse and neglect reports involving children who were also in juvenile court, the opinion meant they could receive law enforcement context that helped their work, rather than operating blind.
For school principals, counselors, and SROs (school resource officers) handling situations involving minors who had police contact, the opinion meant law enforcement could share information necessary to manage the school environment and support the student.
For prosecutors and juvenile court intake officers, the opinion confirmed an integrated multi-agency approach that the statute had not explicitly authorized but had not foreclosed either.
For the minors and their families, the opinion meant their confidentiality from the general public was preserved (the press still could not get the records, neither could nosy neighbors), but officials with a duty to help them were within the information loop.
Common questions
Q: What does SDCL 26-7A-27 prohibit?
A: Inspection or disclosure of juvenile law enforcement records (including names of children taken into custody, issued summonses, or cited) "to the public," subject to four enumerated exceptions.
Q: Why doesn't the statute prevent sharing with DSS or schools?
A: The 1994 AG read "the public" to mean the undifferentiated general community. DSS caseworkers and school officials are not members of "the public" in that sense when they have a particularized governmental role with the child.
Q: What purposes justify the sharing?
A: The protective purposes of the juvenile system under SDCL 26-7A-5 and 26-7A-6: protecting the child from abuse or neglect, or providing guidance, control, and rehabilitation. Other purposes do not qualify.
Q: Can police share with private parties who help the child, like a private therapist or church youth pastor?
A: The opinion addresses DSS and state-certified school officials specifically. Private parties may fall under a different analysis. Consult current law and counsel before extending the carve-out.
Q: What are the four explicit exceptions in SDCL 26-7A-27?
A: (1) Court order; (2) child held for criminal proceedings as transferred under SDCL chapter 26-11; (3) presentence investigation after criminal conviction; (4) authorized release to U.S. military for enlistment.
Q: Are DSS and school officials still bound by confidentiality?
A: Yes. Receiving information does not strip the confidentiality. They must protect the child's confidentiality within their own systems and cannot redistribute the information further.
Q: What about a parent or guardian asking for the records?
A: The statute does not explicitly carve out parents and guardians (other than via the military-consent exception). Practical and other legal frameworks (custody orders, FERPA for school records, statutory access rights) may give parents access through other routes.
Q: Can a journalist get juvenile law enforcement records?
A: No. A journalist falls within "the public" under SDCL 26-7A-27 and is barred from inspection or disclosure unless one of the four statutory exceptions applies (e.g., a court order).
Background and statutory framework
The South Dakota juvenile justice code is built around the best-interests-of-the-child principle. SDCL 26-7A-5 makes that principle the governing standard. SDCL 26-7A-6 requires liberal construction of the juvenile laws in favor of the child, the child's parents, and the state, for the protective and rehabilitative purposes the code serves.
Confidentiality is one of the structural features of the system. Juvenile records are kept separate from adult arrest records (SDCL 26-7A-27 itself), and disclosure to "the public" is broadly prohibited. The four enumerated exceptions in SDCL 26-7A-27(1)-(4) reflect specific situations where disclosure serves the system's purposes (judicial supervision, the transition to adult court, supporting sentence decisions, and the child's own consent for a specific narrow purpose).
The statute does not define "public." The 1994 AG had to fall back on plain-meaning canons and statutory-construction case law. Crescent Electric Supply Company v. Nerison says the Legislature is presumed to mean what it says. American Rim and Brake, Inc. v. Zoellner says undefined terms get their common, ordinary meaning. The dictionary entry for "public" as a noun, "the community or the people as a whole," is the starting point.
The cases the AG cites for the proposition that "public" excludes those with a particularized interest, Griffin v. S.W. Devanney & Co. and Interco, Inc. v. FTC, both stand for the general idea that "the public" in disclosure statutes typically refers to undifferentiated outsiders rather than to officials with a defined governmental role.
The protective purpose of the juvenile system supports the same reading. The point of the confidentiality bar is to keep juvenile records out of the kind of public exposure that would damage the child's rehabilitation prospects. Sharing with DSS and schools who are themselves bound by confidentiality and themselves part of the rehabilitation effort does not create that exposure.
The "best interests of the child" standard is what bounds the sharing. The sharing has to be for one of the protective or rehabilitative purposes, not for unrelated reasons.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 26-7A-5 (best interests of the child)
- SDCL 26-7A-6 (liberal construction)
- SDCL 26-7A-27 (juvenile record confidentiality, four exceptions)
- SDCL chapters 26-8A, 26-8B, 26-8C (juvenile categories)
- SDCL chapter 26-11 (transfer to adult court)
- SDCL 2-14-1 (plain meaning)
Cases:
- Crescent Electric Supply Company v. Nerison, 232 N.W.2d 76 (S.D. 1975)
- American Rim and Brake, Inc. v. Zoellner, 382 N.W.2d 421 (S.D. 1986)
- Griffin v. S.W. Devanney & Co., Inc., 775 P.2d 555 (Colo. 1989)
- Interco, Inc. v. FTC, 478 F. Supp. 103 (D.D.C. 1979)
Source
Original opinion text
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 94-12
"Public" agencies and juveniles
Dear Chief Hennies:
You have requested an official opinion from this Office based upon the following factual situation:
FACTS:
When dealing with juvenile matters, the sharing of law enforcement custody information often becomes an issue. You understand that information should be denied to anyone not from a public agency that has an interest or serves the minor. However, you question whether you are prohibited from discussing pertinent information with personnel from certain other public agencies involved with the juvenile.
On the basis of that factual scenario, you have asked the following question:
Does the term "public" as it is used in SDCL 26-7A-27 also apply to individuals from the Department of Social Services or public school officials?
SDCL 26-7A-27 provides:
The records of law enforcement officers and agencies concerning all children taken into temporary custody or issued a summons or citation under this chapter or chapter 26-8A, 26-8B or 26-8C shall be maintained separately from the records of arrest and any other records regarding detention of adult persons. The records concerning children, including their names, may not be inspected by or disclosed to the public except:
(1) By order of the court;
(2) If the court orders the child to be held for criminal proceedings, as provided in chapter 26-11;
(3) If there has been a criminal conviction and a presentence investigation is being made on an application for probation; or
(4) Any child or the child's parent or guardian may authorize the release of records to representatives of the United States military for the purpose of enlistment into the military service. (Emphasis added.)
The basic premise of the juvenile justice system is that the best interests of the child are to govern. SDCL 26-7A-5. To achieve this purpose, the juvenile laws are to be "liberally construed in favor of the child, the child's parents and the state for the purposes of protecting the child from abuse or neglect by the child's parents, guardian or custodian and for the purposes of affording guidance, control and rehabilitation of any child in need of supervision or any delinquent child." SDCL 26-7A-6.
As I understand your question, it does not involve any of the four exceptions set forth in SDCL 26-7A-27, above. Your question only goes to those situations in which law enforcement personnel are attempting to further the protective philosophy of the juvenile justice system.
The State Legislature has not defined in statute the term "public" as used in SDCL 26-7A-27; thus, the rules of statutory construction come into play. When interpreting a statute, one must rely on those principles. For example, the South Dakota Supreme Court has stated that one must presume that statutes "mean what they say and that the legislators have said what they meant." Crescent Electric Supply Company v. Nerison, 232 N.W.2d 76, 80 (S.D. 1975). In other words, it is inappropriate to conduct a strained search for a statute's impact because the Legislature assumedly has stated its intent directly.
Along that same line, it is improper to seek constricted interpretations for words used in statutes. Absent a specific definition set out in law, the language of a statute is to be given its common, ordinary meaning. American Rim and Brake, Inc. v. Zoellner, 382 N.W.2d 421, 424 (S.D. 1986); SDCL 2-14-1. In the instant matter, since the Legislature has not otherwise defined the term "public," its common, ordinary meaning must be used.
In SDCL 26-7A-27, the term "public" is used as a noun. The common, ordinary meaning of the noun "public" is set forth as the principal definition in the "American Heritage Dictionary," p. 1001 (2nd College Ed. 1982). There it is defined as "the community or the people as a whole." Inherent in that definition is the concept of a non-particularized entity or interest. In other words, if one holds a particular interest in a matter and holds a particular status in the community with relation to that interest, that person is no longer merely a member of the "public." See generally, Griffin v. S.W. Devanney & Co., Inc., 775 P.2d 555, 562 (Colo. 1989); Interco, Inc. v. FTC, 478 F.Supp. 103, 106 (D.D.C. 1979), appeal dismissed, No. 79-1423 (D.C.Cir. 1980).
In light of the protective intent of the juvenile laws, it is my opinion that information can be shared with personnel from the Department of Social Services and officials of state-certified schools, so long as it is for one of the purposes established in SDCL 26-7A-5 (to protect the child from abuse or neglect by the child's parents, guardian or custodian or to afford guidance, control and rehabilitation of a child in need of supervision or delinquent child) and as long as the best interests of the child are respected. Persons receiving such information in the course of their work should be reminded of the need to protect the child's confidentiality under state law. Therefore, with the restrictions outlined here, the answer to your question is, "yes."
MWB:JEH:clr