# Hart v. Miller

> South Dakota Supreme Court · April 19, 2000 · 609 N.W.2d 138

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514797

## Case

- **Full name:** Erin Colleen HART, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ronald MILLER, Jim Jones, Paul Christensen, Warren Anderson, Les Sterling, Tom Dravland, Gene Abdallah, and Various John Does, Defendants and Appellees
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 19, 2000
- **Citations:** 609 N.W.2d 138; 2000 SD 53; 2000 S.D. LEXIS 52
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Sabers
- **Judges:** Miller, Konenkamp, Sabers, Amundson
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514797

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the failure to submit authority on an issue constitutes a waiver of the argument on appeal

## Opinion text

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[¶ 49.] I concur in Issues 1, 2 and 4.
[¶ 50.] I dissent on Issue 3 concerning Hart’s state law claims against Miller for false imprisonment, assault and invasion of privacy.
[¶ 51.] Certainly there are genuine issues of material fact as to all three of these claims when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Hart. Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Co., 83 S.D. 207 , 157 N.W.2d 19, 21 (1968).
[¶ 52.] Patrolman Miller had legal authority to investigate but not at that time and place, under those circumstances. There was no free and voluntary consent by Hart to let Miller enter her apartment - only a forced, coerced, intimidated will overcome by a pushy officer intent on “doing his thing.”
[¶ 53.] Miller falsely imprisoned Hart for 15 minutes. He assaulted her sexually - it is not necessary to touch her for assault as that would be battery, not assault.
[¶ 54.] Miller also clearly invaded Hart’s privacy after 11:00 o’clock at night as that term is defined (at page 16 of Hart’s appellate brief) in Krueger v. Austad, 1996 SD 26, ¶ 33 , 545 N.W.2d 205 , 215-16:
An actionable violation of the right of privacy has been acknowledged by this court to be:
The unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one’s personality, the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities, in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
(quoting Truxes v. Kenco Enterprises, Inc., 80 S.D. 104 , 119 N.W.2d 914, 916 (1963) (citation omitted)). Therefore, the majority’s claim that Hart failed to cite authority is clearly wrong.
[¶ 55.] Therefore, summary judgment on these state law claims should not have been granted and we should reverse and remand Issue 3 for trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514797. Public record. Not legal advice.