In this week's dip from the scumbucket, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled this week partially in favor of convicted child rapist and pornographer John A. Rolfe. Rolfe, who sits now in the State Penitentiary for drugging, sexually assualting, and photographing his girlfriend's 12-year-old daughter, appealed his conviction on two grounds. First, he argues that Seventh Circuit Judge Thomas Trimble violated his Sixth Amendment rights by closing the courtroom when the girl he abused testified. Second, Rolfe claims the State violated his Fourth Amendment rights by subpoenaing his personal information from Midcontinent Communications after finding an IP address associated with sharing child porn files.
In its ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court dismissed the latter argument. When you give your Internet provider your phone number and e-mail address, you surrender any expectation of privacy to that information. If you buy Internet service, the state will know who you are and how to find you.
But on the Sixth Amendment argument, the Court found Rolfe has a point. South Dakota has a law (SDCL 23A-24-6) that allows the judge to close the courtroom when a minor testifies about rape or child abuse. At the original trial, when asked to close the courtroom for the testimony of Rolfe's primary victim, Judge Trimble made an oral ruling that seemed to rely more on a separate statute that closes juvenile hearings:
Well, as everybody here knows, in juvenile matters we have a closed courtroom. Never been found to be unconstitutional when juveniles are involved. Those same people are allowed in the courtroom. Really nobody else. The outside general public are not allowed to be involved in juvenile matters, and since this is a juvenile testifying, the Court will follow the statute if it’s requested, which it is [Judge Thomas Trimble, oral ruling; quoted in State v. Rolfe, 2013 S.D. 2].
Judge Trimble's ruling failed to address the criteria for closing a court proceeding established by Waller v. Georgia (1984). Say our Justices:
Judge Trimble did not make specific findings on whether there was an overriding interest or substantial reason to justify total or partial closure. He also did not make specific findings about the breadth of the closure or the alternatives he considered in closing the courtroom. Further, he did not address any of the factors supporting closure or partial closure for child sexual abuse victims identified in Globe Newspaper Co., including the “victim’s age, psychological maturity and understanding, the nature of the crime, the desires of the victim, and the interests of parents and relatives" [State v. Rolfe, 2013 S.D. 2].
So does Rolfe walk? Not even close. The Supreme Court gives Judge Trimble a chance to redo his homework. He needs to "supplement the record with specific findings and reasoning." If he can satisfy Waller, Rolfe stays in the pen. If Judge Trimble can't do that, we erase this conviction and give Rolfe a new trial... and subject a young girl, probably 15 now, to one more ogling violation by this creep.