What happened during the child porn investigation tied to T. Denny Sanford in South Dakota
It's taken nearly two years for the public to get an answer about whether we should have the right to know about what evidence law enforcement had when search warrants were issued tied to billionare and philanthropist T. Denny Sanford in relation to a child porn investigation.
The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday the public does have that right to know such details about the 87-year-old namesake of the Sanford Health system and founder of First Premier Bank, and that those search warrant affidavits should no longer be hidden.
Barring any legal intervention, those affidavits are expected to be unsealed later this month, once a judge has had the chance to properly redact parts protected under law.
As South Dakota waits for those records, let's take a look back at how we made it to this point.
More: What to know about the South Dakota Supreme Court ruling against T. Denny Sanford
How the investigation and following Supreme Court cases unfolded
December 2019: The first warrant was issued related to an email account.
Four days prior to that search warrant being issued, Sanford Health was supposed to have thrown a birthday party for its namesake philanthropist, but that event had been abruptly canceled in late November.
The Argus Leader learned about the investigation in December, but because the sources of that information were anonymous, the paper's standards for publication had not been met.
March 2020: Four additional search warrants were issued related to internet and cellular providers, not specifically directed to Sanford himself.
Minnehaha Circuit Court Judge James Power had signed off on all five of the search warrants.
By then, the investigation had also expanded to beyond South Dakota. Sanford has residences in Arizona and California, and those states were included as well as Nebraska and Colorado.
Later that year, the investigation was brought back to South Dakota. By then it was a federal investigation because of the multiple states involved. The U.S. Attorney's Office in South Dakota, citing a conflict, punted the case to the Department of Justice for consideration of prosecution.
More: T. Denny Sanford lands among 1,000 richest people in world as wealth tops $3 billion
Summer 2020: Both the Argus Leader and ProPublica petitioned Power to release materials related to five search warrants that had been issued regarding the investigation into Sanford by the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation.
When asking for a search warrant from a judge, a law enforcement officer can submit an affidavit describing the reasons for why the warrant is needed. State law allows judges to seal those affidavits until the person under investigation is indicted or arrested.
But the law also explicitly says that other records related to a warrant cannot be sealed, including the disclosure that an affidavit has been filed, the contents of the warrant, the inventory and the warrant’s return.
July 2020: A reporter for ProPublica inquired with court clerks in Minnehaha County about accessing search warrant information related to the investigation. On July 17, then-Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg sent an email to Power to confirm if there had been a request. Power responded that day that there had been a request but no written request.
He also told Ravnsborg after reviewing the law, he had questions about his ability to seal all of the records related to the search warrant. He offered Ravnsborg the opportunity for his office to file a brief or appear in a hearing on the matter.
Ravnsborg responded on July 20. He questioned under what authority Power could hold a hearing.
"I will need to consult with the U.S. Department of Justice as there are multiple states and jurisdictions involved in this matter," he wrote.
Power replied he had the "inherent authority" to reconsider his orders. He invited Ravnsborg and the Department of Justice to submit briefs arguing why the information shouldn't be released, and he set an Aug. 19 deadline for submitting briefs.
August 2020: The Argus Leader learned about the potential for a hearing, and asked to intervene in the process on Aug. 17. Power granted that request, and on Aug. 19 issued a protective order that barred the two entities from reporting on aspects of the case while the matter of sealing the warrants was resolved.
ProPublica published a story on Aug. 28 detailing what it had learned about the investigation. That prompted the Argus Leader to publish a story it had first started writing in December. That story had been updated over the months as the paper learned more about the investigation.
Neither story mentioned that behind the scenes, ProPublica and the Argus Leader were parties to a motion to get the search warrants released to the public.
Oct. 7, 2020: Both media organizations participated in an oral argument before Power. The argument was closed to the public. Marty Jackley, a lawyer representing Sanford, and the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office led by Jason Ravnsborg at the time argued that the records at issue should remain sealed. Jackley is now at the helm of the AG's office, following election in November 2021, and has removed himself as Sanford's lawyer.
Oct. 15, 2020: Power ultimately ruled in favor of the Argus Leader and ProPublica. Sanford appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, and the seal on the case was extended. Following Power’s ruling, the Attorney General’s Office withdrew from the case.
Aug. 24, 2021: The matter went to an oral argument in front of the Supreme Court in a case that was bizarrely named "In the Matter of an Appeal by an Implicated Individual."
While other media outlets who were not parties to the case were free to identify Sanford as the implicated individual, neither the Argus Leader nor ProPublica could do so.
Oct. 28, 2021: The Court issued a unanimous 5-0 opinion, authored by Justice Mark Salter, rejecting Sanford's arguments. The provisions in state law, Salter wrote, “at least as far as they relate to the issue here, are easily reconciled using the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation—simply read the text and apply it.”
However, the seal was extended another 20 days, the timeframe that Sanford had to file a motion for a re-hearing. When Sanford didn't do that, the warrant information became public on Nov. 17.
What remained sealed however, were the affidavits explaining what evidence existed to issue the search warrants.
Nov. 17, 2021: Sanford's name was revealed in court documents released publicly after a victory ruling by the South Dakota Supreme Court for the Argus Leader and ProPublica.
The documents unsealed included the contents of the warrants, the return of the warrant and the inventory. Not included in the release were affidavits submitted by law enforcement detailing the need for the warrants. Those remained sealed under state law.
January 2022: The South Dakota Attorney General’s Office confirmed the existence of an ongoing investigation into Sanford. Meanwhile, a lawyer for Sanford had filed court documents that argued Sanford’s email accounts were hacked, which led to a child pornography investigation into Sanford.
April 2022: Sanford lands among the 1,000 richest people in the world, according to Forbes' annual survey. He landed as the 883rd richest person. Last year, he was ranked at 1,111.
May 2022: Power declined to release the affidavits that were used to justify issuing search warrants into T. Denny Sanford's electronic communications.
Power ruled that because there was an ongoing child pornography investigation into the billionaire philanthropist, he felt he should defer to law enforcement officials who think that releasing the affidavits would harm the investigation.
Power was responding to a request from the Argus Leader and ProPublica, who had made motions last year to release the affidavits and to compel the Attorney General's office to disclose whether the investigation that started in December of 2019 was still open.
Besides the law enforcement argument that the investigation might be harmed, Power was also sympathetic to an argument made by Sanford's lawyer at the time that Sanford had privacy rights to consider.
"I believe it's also appropriate to consider the Implicated Individual's interests," he said.
Power also rejected the media's request to release redacted versions of the affidavits, saying, "You'd have to take such a conservative approach, and there would be nothing left."
At the end of the hearing, Power noted that while he was leaving the affidavits sealed for now, that could change at some point in the future.
More: T. Denny Sanford won't face child porn charges in South Dakota
May 27, 2022: The South Dakota Attorney General's Office announced it would not pursue criminal charges against the state's leading philanthropist in relation to the case.
Assistant Attorney General Brent Kempema said the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation had concluded an investigation of T. Denny Sanford and determined that "there are no prosecutable offenses within the jurisdiction of the state of South Dakota."
The conclusion of the DCI's investigation did not result in charges being filed in South Dakota. It remains unclear if similar investigations into Sanford in other jurisdictions remain open.
More: Argus Leader, ProPublica argue for release of T. Denny Sanford affidavits: 'This absurdity must end'
"Mr. Sanford appreciates the public acknowledgement by the South Dakota Attorney General's Office that the DCI has concluded its investigation and they have found no prosecutable crime," Jackley said in a statement to the Argus Leader at the time.
May 31, 2022: Power delayed the release of affidavits that were submitted by law enforcement to justify issuing search warrants in the investigation. Power said the affidavits would remain sealed until parties in the case seeking to unseal them have a chance to submit written briefs.
June 2022: Power ruled there was no basis for the documents to continued to be sealed.
However, Power said he would continue to keep those affidavits sealed until Sanford's representation, Jackley and Stacy Hegge, one of Sanford’s lawyers, decided if their client was going to appeal Power's decision to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
July 15, 2022: A lawyer for Sanford said an appeal would be filed with the Supreme Court to bar the release of affidavits that were used to authorize search warrants into a child pornography investigation.
Following notice that Sanford would appeal, Judge James Power said the affidavits would remain under seal until Sanford had exhausted his appeal remedies.
Earlier in the day, Power had refused to release the affidavits to Sanford's legal team. Earlier that week, Hegge asked Power to make the affidavits available to Sanford while excluding the Argus Leader and ProPublica, which had been fighting in court for two years to release the documents. Hegge argued that Sanford’s legal team couldn’t evaluate whether to appeal Power’s June 16 order unless it knew what information was contained in the affidavits.
The request was opposed by lawyers for the Argus Leader and ProPublica, as well as the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office, which oversaw the investigation into Sanford.
October 2022: T. Denny Sanford fell out of the latest edition of the Forbes 400, a list of the wealthiest people in the United States. Sanford's net worth dipped to $2 billion, compared to last year's number of $3.4 billion. He ranked 1,388th in the world, Forbes said.
More: T. Denny Sanford falls out of Forbes 400 in latest wealth rankings
March 23, 2023: The South Dakota Supreme Court justices heard arguments Thursday in a case to unseal the affidavits.
"Being a representative of the general public does not make you an interested party for purposes" Hegge said in court at the time. "That has to mean something more than just allowing the general public an opportunity to come in and challenge."
Hegge argued the Argus Leader and ProPublica as media organizations should not be classified as interested parties in the lawsuit, and Sanford and his attorneys should have the opportunity to review the sealed documents to determine what should be redacted before their release.
Jon Arneson and Jeff Beck, lawyers for the Argus Leader and ProPublica, said the Supreme Court had already determined the search warrants should be unsealed.
April 6, 2023: The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled unanimously the search warrant affidavits concerning Sanford must be unsealed.
Release of the five affidavits are expected toward the end of April, barring any legal intervention by Sanford's attorneys.
Hegge told the Argus Leader she had no comment on whether the legal team would take further action.
More: Search warrant affidavits into T. Denny Sanford have been unsealed. Here's what we know
April 27: After no other action from Sanford's legal team, five search warrant affidavits were released publicly, revealing billionaire banker T. Denny Sanford was believed to have obtained 36 graphic images depicting child pornography in the summer of 2019.
The AG's office released the following statement Thursday in regard to the question of why Sanford wasn't charged or indicted:
"In 2019, the Division of Criminal Investigation began investigating whether T. Denny Sanford had possessed child pornography. Search warrants were issued. That investigative file was then forwarded to the United States Attorney office in South Dakota, which forwarded it to the Department of Justice. The file was also forwarded to the authorities in Arizona and California. To date, none of those authorities have lodged charges against Sanford. In 2022, after Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg was impeached and suspended, his administration issued a statement that it did not find probable cause for criminal charges in the state of South Dakota."
Investigators also indicated they were unable to accurately locate the individual using an email account tied to the images on Sanford's phone during the dates police identified in the affidavits, because the account pinged in multiple locations across multiple states.
More: Supreme Court: T. Denny Sanford search warrant affidavits in child porn case must be unsealed
What did the released search warrants show?
Once records were released in November 2021, the caption titles on the warrants identified Sanford as the target of the investigation. During a closed court hearing, Jackley identified the Implicated Individual as Sanford. The Argus Leader was prevented from reporting on the hearing because it was conducted under seal.
Both Jackley and the South Dakota Attorney General's Office argued the caption titles should not be released. The attorney general argued the captions were errors wrongly identified Sanford as the target.
The captions are titled "State of South Dakota v. Thomas Denny Sanford." Sanford is listed as a defendant on the warrants. Two of the five say the investigation pertains to a matter of possession and distribution of child pornography in Minnehaha County.
More: Why South Dakota billionaire T. Denny Sanford has never been charged in 2019 child porn case
Who was served a warrant?
The first warrant in December 2019 sought records relating to both a Hotmail email address as well as an AOL email.
The records included the identity of the person behind the addresses, mobile phone numbers, read and unread emails, connection times, data transfer times and IP addresses The warrant was served on Oath Inc., the owner of AOL, and the request was for records dating back to Jan. 1, 2019.
“Oath Inc. is prohibited from notifying the user of the AOL email address listed above of the existence of the search warrant or that the search warrant had been served to Oath Inc.,” the warrant read.
The warrant was sought by Jeff Kollars, an agent with the Division of Criminal Investigation. Kollars requested that his affidavit be sealed. Kollars noted that the investigation "involves multiple online accounts."
The subsequent search warrants were served on MidCo, related to an IP address used on June 27, 2019. Three warrants were served on Verizon Wireless. One for data related to a redacted cell phone used on June 27, 2019, one for a phone on May 29, 2019, and one for records for a phone used on May 28, 2019.
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: How the child porn investigation tied to T. Denny Sanford unfolded
