Jackley's Lips Sealed on Crime Reporting

James Bialota | Investigation | Oct. 5, 2026

Does the South Dakota Attorney General's office under Marty Jackley cover up crime reporting and South Dakota corruption?

A recently released recording of a phone call appears to show just that ( https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1C52C7A4Pk/ ).

In the phone call, a crime victim appears to have been attempting to report crimes committed by members of a state agency. The Attorney General's staff refused to identify herself, but demanded the caller's name and phone number. In South Dakota, a crime victim has the right to remain anonymous per the SD Constitution, Article 6, Section 29 (Marsy's Law), Subsection 6.

The Attorney General's staff then refused to transfer the crime victim to an attorney in the Attorney General's Office, violating Marsy's Law Subsection 10, which states the crime victim has "The right, upon request, to confer with the attorney for the government." That didn't happen, as the Attorney General's staff refused to allow the crime victim to speak to an attorney at the AG's office.

Then to make matters worse, the shy and coy Attorney General employee who was obviously trying to hide her identity and delay answers to reasonable questions, hung up on the crime victim without ever taking a criminal report.

Marsy's law allows very few remedies for these violations, and allows crime victims to go to court to enforce these rights. However, would you want a Judge to order people who have obviously shown no care to suddenly believe you matter? I certainly wouldn't trust them.

I have seen the report of this hang-up in an email from the crime victim to South Dakota Department of Criminal Investigation (DCI) Agent Hank Prim. Prim's response promised to look into the 'hang-up artist,' but the victim never received a follow-up regarding the hang-up complaint or the originally desired criminal report. And, you guessed it, Marsy's Law requires that.

Hank Prim of DCI and AG Marty Jackley have repeatedly been named in several recent whistleblower complaints.

Consider Renae Randall's termination after she sought whistleblower protection from the South Dakota Investment Council (SDIC). Hank Prim of DCI sits on the SDRS Board that offered Renae Randall money to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the state. Randall turned the money down. Such an agreement would have prevented Randall from telling anyone, including the press or the public, anything about the alleged State Retirement losses, fraud, or the bad trade model being employed.

Randall sought an attorney, Sarah Frankenstein of Gunderson Palmer. Little did Randall know, at the time Jackley allegedly had a building ownership stake in his former law practice, Gunderson Palmer, the same firm from which Jackley famously defended Denny Sanford on child pornography allegations.

Jackley was required to take the complaint about his own employee. Does anyone else see the conflict of interest?

The same names in cover-ups keep surfacing; not the cream rising, but more like a floater needing a second flush.

When will they go down? When will they be held accountable?

This all begs the question: Why would someone report directly to the SD Attorney General? Well, the South Dakota Attorney General's Office is the official office to report certain crimes to. For Instance, the new SD whistleblower reporting law SDCL 3-6c-28 states, "Upon receipt of a reporter's good faith report, a supervisor shall submit information provided by the reporter to the attorney general and auditor-general in a required report pursuant to § 3-6C-29." This all passed as part of SB 62 in 2025. The law specifically requires reporting state corruption and crimes to the AG's office. Per SDCL 3-6c-28, a supervisor failing to take a report or failing to submit the report to the AG and auditor-general is punishable by up to a year in jail.

Even before SB 62 passed in 2025, the Attorney General's office reviewed complaints to see if they involved major state felonies, multi-county crimes, or state agency interests, which, in this call, the caller reported that the crime involved a state agency. The South Dakota AG's office also has several additional direct reporting entities, including Human Trafficking Reporting, Law Enforcements Standards Commission, & Consumer Protection.

So why did the Attorney General's Office Staff hang up and disregard a caller reporting crimes by officials or employees acting with the authority of a state agency?

I have a couple ideas.

Was the office asked to cook the books on crime statistics? Since Jackley was preparing a run for Congress, could this be possible? Does the SD AG's office use caller ID and already know who the caller was? Maybe. If it's a false complaint, it's a crime, and they could charge the caller. That doesn't appear to be the case. Were they told not to take this specific report? If so, why? Is the AG's office covering for political allies? I believe it's quite possible, as it appears political allies are protecting Marty Jackley from his own criminal complaints.

We've exposed the truth that the AG office is not doing its job, and the recent Government Operations and Accountability Committee (GOAC) just learned the same. Of the 47 criminal complaints under the new law SDCL 3-6c, the Attorney General's office has investigated only 14. The report filed with GOAC ( https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/307471.pdf ) even admitted to substantiated felony claims that the AG did not prosecute, meaning the AG investigated, determined the report was valid, and did NOTHING.

Who are these favorable few who received a pass on felony crimes? Do they have to donate to a campaign to avoid facing felony charges? If so, how much are they paying?

I have a serious plan and idea for addressing this corruption. Stay tuned.

Pictured at top: Marty Jackley