Resident/ non Resident lawsuit. Aurora county.

Matt D

Member
First I had heard about it. Sure seems like a lot of money spent to investigate something that in the end didn’t lead to much? And in typical government fashion tow different brackes both saying the other was driving it?
 

reddog

Active member
Some interesting comments here, some of which are mine.

Maybe Im not seeing this clearly, but I dont think the GFP wanted this cat out of the bag. How can they write a requirement for Aurora county only? Does My Chamberlain cabin qualify? Does Duxdogs bunkhouse qualify for him. Its kind of a moot point for me, because Im moving to SD anyway as soon as my Iowa acreage sells.

https://www.keloland.com/news/local...HJ4laaF2-Y3jUwSwQplO3OqtYobbk-ib4YUErbzA9dOss

Sorry, thats just the same article, without alot of the advertising.

https://www.facebook.com/keloland/

The comments are on the facebook site, and you have to scroll down to find it now. I'm not smart enough to copy the actual facebook link to the article, I guess. :)
 
Last edited:

hunter94

Active member
sounds like GF&P was simply "showing their ass"......bad publicity for them and SD at a time hunting and tourism is suffering.
 

Golden Hour

New member
sounds like GF&P was simply "showing their ass"......bad publicity for them and SD at a time hunting and tourism is suffering.
The state pursued this case to set precedent. There are a number of individuals "claiming" residency based on things like vacation homes and mailing addresses. Factor in the ease of obtaining a driver's license, and it's a real mess.

Based on the prior encounters with this individual, the GFP decided to try to set precedent in this case. And ended up with egg on their face. Hunting and tourism needs to be promoted, but to receive the perks of a resident, you need to live here. I think it's pretty clear that the defendant does not live in South Dakota, but the language of the law doesn't technically define him as a non-resident either.

EDIT: As I reread this thread, I wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to sound argumentative to your post hunter94. I agree with what you say.
 
Last edited:

reddog

Active member
My thoughts exactly Golden Hour. Im betting he knew all along and chose to press the issue, and from what it looks like, even though he pled guilty to a lesser charge, still won his residency status. For me, Im on the side of Officer Geulke but the laws are written as such that this is how it is for now. I wonder if they will change the language eventually, and how many disconnected land that live one state away are investigating residency options..
 

Dakotazeb

Active member
For the money the doctor spent on legal fees he could have bought a heck of a lot of non-residence lincenses. From my point of view the doctor is guilty. He was trying to gain South Dakota residency while still being a permanent resident of Colorado. Where was his main residence? Colorado. Just because people like him have the money to buy some property in SD doesn't make them a resident of the state.

I will site my own experience from 1982. I had moved from SD to Minnesota earlier in the year but still owned my house in SD and still had a SD driver's license when I purchased a hunting license for 1982. That fall I returned to SD to hunt with my "resident" license. Opening weekend I got stopped in a game check and by then had MN plates on my vehicle so they questioned why I had a resident license. I explained the above situation of when I bought my license. They didn't buy it. I was charged with hunting in SD without a proper license. They said that once you move from SD with the intent to make your residence in another state that your license was null and void even if you had purchased it legally. At the time it didn't state that in the Handbook but shortly after my case it was changed and added. I tried to fight it but lost. Cost me $1,000 in legal fees and fines plus I lost hunting privileges in SD for a year.

Point is, unless you intend to make SD your state of residence and live here for the required time you are not a resident.
 

reddog

Active member
That's the problem Zeb. There is no criteria for how many days you need to live there, only how long you own a residence that qualifies. Hooked to sewer and water. Heated year round. Working kitchen etc. The issue isnt the licenses that a non resident can buy, it's the licences that a resident is able to get that a NR cannot. Mostly ER Any Deer licences, or the waterfowl license which is currently a lottery for NRs but highly sought after.
 

Dakotazeb

Active member
No doubt the law needs some clarification. But don't you think the real issue is "where is the individuals primary or principal residence"? Of course that also needs to be clearly defined. I think it's clear that this individual was trying to get around the law in order to purchase a resident license in SD. And I'd like to know what type of hunting license he was buying in Colorado?? My money says he was also buying a resident license in CO. You can't have it both ways. You're a resident in one state only.
 

reddog

Active member
"After the case, Steele took the unusual step of authoring a new set of residency guidelines called, “Prosecution standards for part time residents seeking SD hunting licenses.”

Steele told News Watch the guidelines are “an internal policy” in place only for Aurora County and that the policy was distributed only to Jencks, Peters, Officer Geuke and Steele’s staff.

Steele and new Aurora County State’s Attorney Rachel Mairose told News Watch the policy was discussed as part of the plea agreement with Peters and then written and provided to Peters, Jencks and Geuke after the case had ended."

How can they write new guidelines for Aurora county for "part time residents". Either you're a resident or you're not.
 

hunter94

Active member
The state pursued this case to set precedent. There are a number of individuals "claiming" residency based on things like vacation homes and mailing addresses. Factor in the ease of obtaining a driver's license, and it's a real mess.

Based on the prior encounters with this individual, the GFP decided to try to set precedent in this case. And ended up with egg on their face. Hunting and tourism needs to be promoted, but to receive the perks of a resident, you need to live here. I think it's pretty clear that the defendant does not live in South Dakota, but the language of the law doesn't technically define him as a non-resident either.

EDIT: As I reread this thread, I wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to sound argumentative to your post hunter94. I agree with what you say.
no offense taken. this is a sticky issue....i agree, you should live in SD to have state privileges, period. it's just how draconian the measures were taken to harass this guy, more than enforce the law...which as written is a mess. in the end GF&P gets the black eye....was it really worth it?
 

A5 Sweet 16

Member
My guess is there's more history there. Somebody had an axe to grind.
If the law allows or prohibits something I don't like, though, I better not look down my nose too much at people who take advantage of it. It becomes my responsibility to try to get the law changed.
So in order for a person to attempt to shoot my pheasants as a "resident", here's what should be added to the law:
"A person having multiple abodes, which are permanent structures, regardless of amenities, shall spend the most time at SD abodes.
Suspicion of violating this law isn't enough to make an arrest. An arrest warrant is required, & guilt shall be pretty much proven in order for a judge to issue the warrant."
Innocent until proven guilty. Tadaa!!
 

Golden Hour

New member
My guess is there's more history there. Somebody had an axe to grind.
If the law allows or prohibits something I don't like, though, I better not look down my nose too much at people who take advantage of it. It becomes my responsibility to try to get the law changed.
So in order for a person to attempt to shoot my pheasants as a "resident", here's what should be added to the law:
"A person having multiple abodes, which are permanent structures, regardless of amenities, shall spend the most time at SD abodes.
Suspicion of violating this law isn't enough to make an arrest. An arrest warrant is required, & guilt shall be pretty much proven in order for a judge to issue the warrant."
Innocent until proven guilty. Tadaa!!
Here is the language - You must have a fixed and permanent domicile in the state and have lived in the state for at least 90 consecutive days prior to making application. You must make no claims of residency in any other state or foreign country and have transferred your driver's license and all your motor vehicle registrations to South Dakota.

The guy had been ticketed before by the same gamey (IIRC). I think both sides said "prove it" and neither side won or lost. The state could have more easily changed their language than tried to establish precedent.

Basically, he argued that he met all the requirements and that there is no legal definition "claim of residency". I know the brain trust that is a cabal of pheasant hunters can determine who is and is not, and should be consulted to revise the legalese of the hunting handbook so that there is no question. Kinda like, "You don't like look yer from these parts, city boy!!" Boom, he has to buy a non-resident license. ;)
 

A5 Sweet 16

Member
Here is the language - You must have a fixed and permanent domicile in the state and have lived in the state for at least 90 consecutive days prior to making application. You must make no claims of residency in any other state or foreign country and have transferred your driver's license and all your motor vehicle registrations to South Dakota.

The guy had been ticketed before by the same gamey (IIRC). I think both sides said "prove it" and neither side won or lost. The state could have more easily changed their language than tried to establish precedent.

Basically, he argued that he met all the requirements and that there is no legal definition "claim of residency". I know the brain trust that is a cabal of pheasant hunters can determine who is and is not, and should be consulted to revise the legalese of the hunting handbook so that there is no question. Kinda like, "You don't like look yer from these parts, city boy!!" Boom, he has to buy a non-resident license. ;)
Right. Just add my previously suggested language, plus this. "Cases & resulting penalties shall be decided by a bunch of people who firmly believe they are SD residents & have the old hunting licenses to back it up."
 

jonnyB

Active member
In MN, for tax purposes, one must spend over 6 month's out of the state, in order to avoid paying MN State taxes. And you have to keep records to prove you were out of the state: gas receipts, rent receipt et al.

This assumes you have two residences, say one in AZ and one in MN.

It appears SD doesn't have this defined; I don't believe they have a state income tax in SD so it's probably not an issue...at least until now!
 

jmuller19

Member
The guy knew what he was going. He claimed homestead in Colorado for pete sake. He was playing in the grey area of the law hoping to skate by and he got caught. Shame on him.
 

reddog

Active member
The guy knew what he was going. He claimed homestead in Colorado for pete sake. He was playing in the grey area of the law hoping to skate by and he got caught. Shame on him.

I agree with this. It seems like the Hunting handbook eliminated the clause of living in the state 90 consecutive days, in lieu of owning a property that qualified for 90 days. I think that is where the state failed, and expect this loophole to be closed. I have often read the quote that Golden Hour posted in the past, and that alone stopped me from testing the waters on my Chamberlain cabin. I wouldve gladly changed my residency status, but could not meet the criteria for 90 consecutive days in the state, But deep down, I doubt that anyone that relocates stay in the state 90 consecutive days with travel, family etc. Maybe because of that reason alone, they eliminated that wording.

Americas Mailbox is a campground in Box Elder SD that specializes in working around residency issues. Its an interesting option.

But this is from their website:
"Selecting a domicile state can be quite easy, and the requirements for establishing residency can be quite minimal. However, it is worth noting that if at some point in time you are called upon to prove in court that your chosen state is your true domicile rather than a different state where you might have more ties, you may face an uphill battle if you own large assets like real estate and/or spend a lot of time in a state that isn’t your chosen domicile state".

https://roadslesstraveled.us/americ...cle-registration-legal-domicile-south-dakota/

Box Elders population surged from 3000 to almost 7000 in one year.. Hmmm..
 

jackrabbit

New member
Americas Mailbox is a campground in Box Elder SD that specializes in working around residency issues. Its an interesting option.

But this is from their website:
"Selecting a domicile state can be quite easy, and the requirements for establishing residency can be quite minimal. However, it is worth noting that if at some point in time you are called upon to prove in court that your chosen state is your true domicile rather than a different state where you might have more ties, you may face an uphill battle if you own large assets like real estate and/or spend a lot of time in a state that isn’t your chosen domicile state".

https://roadslesstraveled.us/americ...cle-registration-legal-domicile-south-dakota/

Box Elders population surged from 3000 to almost 7000 in one year.. Hmmm..
Might be related to this, but I faintly recall reading an article a few years ago about how South Dakota has the highest number of "residents" that have never actually lived in the state. It was mostly retired people that live in/travel in RV's and claim SD as their residency due to no income tax.
 

goldenboy

Active member
Just prior to the trial, Jencks said he was contacted by Steele, the prosecutor, offering to drop the higher charges and instead offer Peters a plea deal with no jail time, a small fine and no loss of hunting privileges. It was also agreed that Peters would be able to hunt as a resident moving forward.

So according to this statement he is no considered a resident and can buy resident hunting licenses?! So he was guilty before but now he is legal? How does this work?When will they change the law again? Will they notify him prior to changing the regs? I have more questions than answers on this one. Is he playing in grey areas? Absolutely, but if he is abiding by all of their requirements then they need to change the residency requirements before they try to persecute (that is right I meant to say that and not prosecute). Vague laws make everyone unsure of themselves. I don't have all the answers but it seems like they spent a lot of money for a misdemeanor charge.
 

UplandHntr

Active member
If I lived in a motor home 12 months out of the year and traveled year round..whats states drivers license would I get? I spend 30 days in 12 different states.
 
Top