The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.South Dakota requires sealing of dismissed or frivolous protection order court files
Last action · March 30, 2026: Signed by the GovernorSponsors: Mike Stevens and 11 others
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Does
South Dakota law requires the immediate ing of court files and supporting documents when a protection order petition is dismissed without a hearing, and mandates sealing denied petitions if found to be , harassing, or without a basis in law or fact.
People involved in dismissed or unsupported protection order proceedings see their court files and associated law enforcement records removed from public view, affecting record transparency and privacy for both petitioners and respondents.
- Protection orders are civil court orders issued to protect individuals from domestic abuse, stalking, or physical harm. context
Who It Affects
Groups the bill's text affects, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
Unified Judicial System
Must update electronic record maintenance procedures to apply court file sealing retroactively.
law enforcement
Must make any record of sealed protection order petitions nonpublic upon receiving notification from the court.
petitioners and respondents
Subject to having case files sealed from public view when petitions are dismissed without a hearing or denied as frivolous.
Key Facts
You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does the court automatically seal a protection order file?
What happens if a protection order petition is denied after a hearing?
Are older electronic court records affected by this law?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
Current status: Signed into law.
Procedural history
14 actions- Mar 30, 2026HouseEnrolledSigned by the Governor
- Mar 11, 2026HouseEnrolledDelivered to the Governor
- Mar 10, 2026SenateSigned by the President
- Mar 9, 2026HouseSigned by the Speaker
- Mar 5, 2026SenateCommitteeDo Pass Amended
- Mar 3, 2026SenateCommitteeDo Pass
Show 8 earlier actions
- Mar 3, 2026SenateScheduled for hearing
- Feb 20, 2026SenateCommitteeReferred to
- Feb 19, 2026SenateIntroducedFirst Reading Senate
- Feb 18, 2026HouseCommitteeDo Pass Amended
- Feb 11, 2026HouseCommitteeDo Pass Amended
- Feb 11, 2026HouseMotion to amend
- Feb 11, 2026HouseScheduled for hearing
- Jan 22, 2026HouseIntroducedFirst read in House and referred to
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →Voting Record
Do Pass Amended
Total
70
- Yes
- 58
- No
- 9
- Present
- 0
- Not voting
- 0
- Abstain
- 0
- Other positions
- 3
How they voted (1)
Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Sponsors
Show 7 more sponsors
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Retroactive Sealing for Electronic Records
The legislation explicitly mandates retroactive application to electronically maintained records across the state Unified Judicial System.
Connected Entities
Sources
sdlegislature.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance60How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy35Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment5Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz20Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools
