Karlen v. Janklow

339 N.W.2d 322, 1983 S.D. LEXIS 418
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 26, 1983
Docket14034
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 339 N.W.2d 322 (Karlen v. Janklow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Karlen v. Janklow, 339 N.W.2d 322, 1983 S.D. LEXIS 418 (S.D. 1983).

Opinion

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from a writ prohibiting the Governor from conducting a hearing pursuant to SDCL 3-17-3 concerning the removal of appellee police officers Kent Karlen, Richard J. Ackerson, and Thomas Schmitt from the Aberdeen, South Dakota Police Department. * We affirm.

Appellees are police officers of the City of Aberdeen and are governed by the Aberdeen Civil Service Ordinance. Revised Ordinances of Aberdeen No. 1567, §§ 21-43 through 21 — 85. SDCL 9 — 14—15 provides that policemen appointed under a civil service ordinance may be removed only pursuant to the provisions of that ordinance.

The Governor, however, maintains that he also has power of removal pursuant to the authority granted in SDCL 3-17-3:

The Governor shall have power, after notice and hearing, to remove from office any state’s attorney, sheriff, or police officer, or any deputy or assistant state’s attorney, or deputy sheriff who shall willfully fail, neglect, or refuse to perform any of the duties imposed upon him by, or to enforce any of the provisions of law *323 relating to intoxicating liquors, or who shall willfully fail, neglect, or refuse to perform any duties imposed upon them by law, or who shall be guilty of intoxication or drunkenness, or who shall be guilty of the violation of any law, or who shall assist or connive in the violation of any law, or who shall be grossly incompetent to perform the duties of his office.

There is obviously a conflict between the two statutes. Both are clear and unambiguous. SDCL 3-17-3 was enacted in its present form in 1923. SDCL 9-14-15 became law in 1939. Where conflicting statutes appear, it is the responsibility of the court to give a reasonable construction to both, and to give effect, if possible, to all provisions under consideration, construing them together to make them harmonious and workable. Welcome Wagon Intern. v. S.D. Dept. of Revenue, 318 N.W.2d 5 (S.D.1982); State v. Hoxeng, 315 N.W.2d 308 (S.D.1982); Matter of Sales Tax Refund Applications, 298 N.W.2d 799 (S.D.1980). Repeal by implication will be indulged only where there is a manifest and total repug-nancy. Id.; Department of Public Safety v. Cronin, 250 N.W.2d 690 (S.D.1977); Northwestern Public Serv. v. City of Aberdeen, 90 S.D. 627, 244 N.W.2d 544 (1976). If, by any reasonable construction, both acts can be reconciled, they should be. Matter of Sales Tax Refund Applications, supra; State v. Myott, 246 N.W.2d 786 (S.D.1976).

The circuit court avoided a repeal by implication by giving effect to both SDCL 3-17-3 and SDCL 9-14-15, whereby the Governor’s authority to remove law enforcement officials was construed as limited to officers not appointed under civil service ordinances. We approve this construction. It reconciles the two statutes, gives the fullest possible effect to each, and allows civil service employees the protection of the system while still providing a civil service procedure through which officers appointed under a civil service ordinance can be terminated when good cause exists.

After the instant dispute arose, the 1983 legislature amended SDCL 9-14-15 by including the following language: “Nothing in this section restricts the Governor’s authority, pursuant to § 3-17-3, to remove local law enforcement officers, including those appointed under any civil service ordinance.” Although there are no principles of construction which prevent using subsequent enactments or amendments as an aid in arrising at the direct meaning of a statute, the legislative adoption of a subsequent amendment is not binding on the court. It is not a controlling retroactive interpretation. Hot Springs, Etc. v. Fall River Landowners, 262 N.W.2d 33 (S.D.1978).

Accordingly, the circuit court’s disposition of this matter is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
*

An account of the factual background is available in the companion case, Matter of Ackerson, 335 N.W.2d 342 (S.D.1983).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Orthopedic Institute v. Sanford Health Plan, Inc.
2024 S.D. 9 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2024)
Goin v. Houdashelt
2020 S.D. 32 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Mundy-Geidd
2014 SD 96 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2014)
Amendment to Frawley
2002 SD 2 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2002)
Faircloth v. Raven Industries, Inc.
2000 SD 158 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2000)
Taylor Properties, Inc. v. Union County
1998 SD 90 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1998)
Andreson v. Brink Electric Construction Co.
1997 SD 104 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1997)
Delzer v. Penn
534 N.W.2d 58 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1995)
Whalen v. Whalen
490 N.W.2d 276 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1992)
In Re Farmers State Bank of Viborg
466 N.W.2d 158 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1991)
Brown v. Egan Consolidated School District 50-2
449 N.W.2d 259 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1989)
Tripp County v. Department of Transportation
429 N.W.2d 473 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1988)
Meyerink v. Northwestern Public Service Co.
391 N.W.2d 180 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1986)
Arcon Construction Co. v. South Dakota Cement Plant
349 N.W.2d 407 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1984)
In Re the Change of Bed Category of Tieszen Memorial Home, Inc., Marion
343 N.W.2d 97 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
339 N.W.2d 322, 1983 S.D. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karlen-v-janklow-sd-1983.