Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Resident/ non Resident lawsuit. Aurora county.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    IaKota
    Posts
    1,076

    Default Resident/ non Resident lawsuit. Aurora county.


  2. #2

    Default

    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?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    IaKota
    Posts
    1,076

    Default

    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-...b4YUErbzA9dOss

    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 by reddog; 02-25-2020 at 08:01 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,315

    Default

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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    NESD
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hunter94 View Post
    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 by Golden Hour; 02-25-2020 at 04:07 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    IaKota
    Posts
    1,076

    Default

    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..

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Dakota / Arizona
    Posts
    6,141

    Default

    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.
    Janee's August Breeze - Bree
    7/6/2016
    http://gundogcentral.com/view_pedigr...&generations=5

    Godfather's Dakota Elle - Elle
    1X NSTRA Champion
    11/16/2008 - 11/22/2016
    http://gundogcentral.com/view_pedigr...&generations=5

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    IaKota
    Posts
    1,076

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Dakota / Arizona
    Posts
    6,141

    Default

    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.
    Janee's August Breeze - Bree
    7/6/2016
    http://gundogcentral.com/view_pedigr...&generations=5

    Godfather's Dakota Elle - Elle
    1X NSTRA Champion
    11/16/2008 - 11/22/2016
    http://gundogcentral.com/view_pedigr...&generations=5

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    IaKota
    Posts
    1,076

    Default

    "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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •