The Real Amber Hulse

Over the past couple years, I have learned something uncomfortable about local government in South Dakota:

Transparency is often praised in public, but much harder to find in practice.

I recently asked a local sheriff’s department for bodycam footage from a public road district meeting attended by a deputy while on duty. I was initially told I would need to subpoena the footage. Later, I was told there actually was no footage because the deputy never turned the camera on.

To be clear, I have no evidence the department is lying to me, and at this point I have no reason to believe they are. The deputy may very well have decided the meeting “didn’t warrant” activating the camera. My concern is not centered on one deputy. My concern is the broader issue of transparency, accountability, and how difficult it has become for ordinary citizens to get clear answers from government entities.

I contacted State Senator Amber Hulse because she publicly presents herself as pro-transparency. I asked where she stood on bodycam footage being treated as public record, with reasonable exceptions for active investigations, minors, privacy concerns, and similar issues.

Initially, she responded:

“I am all for transparency…”

She also stated:

“From my understanding you can FOIA for the videos…”

and later:

“You can submit a request without needing a subpoena.”

That matched my understanding as well.

However, after I later shared a photo of a business-card-sized handout distributed by another law enforcement agency, the conversation changed. The card stated:

“South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL 1-27-1.5), Records that are developed or received by law enforcement agencies are exempt from public records that are open to inspection and copying.”

After seeing that card, Senator Hulse replied:

“That information on the card is correct.”

Here is the problem.

That is not actually what the statute says.

The actual law, SDCL 1-27-1.5(5), says records developed or received by law enforcement agencies are exempt IF they are part of an examination, investigation, intelligence information, citizen complaint or inquiry, informant identification, or strategic or tactical information used in law enforcement training.

That missing “if” matters.

Without it, the public is left with the impression that any record touched by law enforcement is automatically exempt from public inspection. Those are two very different interpretations.

This issue may sound minor to some people, but it is part of a much larger pattern many of us in Custer County have experienced.

For years, multiple citizens have raised concerns regarding road districts, special maintenance fees, Open Meetings violations, oath-of-office issues, and lack of oversight. Again and again, people are told privately that concerns may be valid, but almost nobody wants to put anything in writing.

Citizens are repeatedly told:
“Hire a lawyer.”

That sounds reasonable until you realize many ordinary people cannot afford years of litigation simply to force local governments to follow laws already on the books.

Meanwhile, these districts can continue collecting money and exercising authority over residents while accountability mechanisms appear weak or nonexistent.

I am not writing this because I hate law enforcement. I do not.

I am not writing this because I think every public official is corrupt. I do not.

I am writing this because transparency should not depend on whether asking questions is politically convenient.

If elected officials campaign as supporters of transparency, then citizens have every right to expect careful attention to the actual wording of public records laws — not broad shorthand interpretations that favor secrecy.

The public also has a right to ask difficult questions:

Should bodycam footage from public meetings generally be accessible?

Should agencies hand citizens cards implying virtually all law enforcement records are exempt?

Should citizens have to spend thousands of dollars on attorneys just to challenge basic procedural violations?

Should local governments continue operating in legally questionable ways simply because ordinary residents lack the resources to fight them?

These are not partisan questions.

They are accountability questions.

And voters deserve to know how elected officials respond when those questions become inconvenient.