October 12, 1994

Thomas L. Hennies, Chief of Police
Rapid City Police Department
300 Kansas City Street
Rapid City, SD 57701-2890

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