No person may, except as authorized by law: (1)Trespass on property with intent to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; or (2)Install in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in such place, or uses any such unauthorized installation. A person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The provided legal document pertains to the crime of theft by insufficient funds check in South Dakota. It states that any person, acting for themselves or as an agent or representative of another, who passes a check drawn on a financial institution with the intent to defraud, knowing that there are insufficient funds in the account, is guilty of theft by insufficient funds check. The offense is punishable as theft according to chapter 22-30A.

Any person who, by use of a debit card or credit card issued to another person, without the consent of the person to whom issued, or by use of a debit card or credit card which has been revoked or canceled or has expired, or by use of a falsified, mutilated, altered, or counterfeit debit card or credit card obtains property or services, is guilty of theft. Source: SL 1977, ch 189, 59; SL 2005, ch 120, 57; SL 2014, ch 191, 5.

The terms defined in 22-40-19 to 22-40-26 of the South Dakota Codified Laws pertain to Identity Crimes. These terms include ‘Breach of system security,’ which refers to the unauthorized acquisition of unencrypted or encrypted computerized data and encryption key that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal or protected information. The term ‘Encrypted’ refers to computerized data that is rendered unusable without decryption. An ‘Information holder’ is any person or business that conducts business in South Dakota and owns or licenses computerized personal or protected information of residents of South Dakota.

This legal document, sourced from the South Dakota Codified Laws, pertains to the breach of system security. It requires information holders to disclose any breach of system security to residents of South Dakota whose personal or protected information was acquired by an unauthorized person. The disclosure must be made within sixty days of discovery or notification of the breach, unless a longer period is required for law enforcement purposes. However, if the information holder determines that the breach will not likely result in harm to the affected person, they are not obligated to make a disclosure.

A notification required under 22-40-20 may be delayed if a law enforcement agency determines that the notification will impede a criminal investigation. If the notification is delayed, the notification shall be made not later than thirty days after the law enforcement agency determines that notification will not compromise the criminal investigation. Source: SL 2018, ch 135, 3.

This legal document, sourced from the South Dakota Codified Laws, specifically addresses the types of notice that can be provided in the event of a breach of system security. The notice can be provided through written notice, electronic notice (if consistent with electronic records and signatures provisions), or substitute notice. Substitute notice can be used if the cost of providing notice exceeds $250,000, the affected class of persons to be notified exceeds 500,000, or if the information holder does not have sufficient contact information.

Notwithstanding 22-40-22 , if an information holder maintains its own notification procedure as part of an information security policy for the treatment of personal or protected information and the policy is otherwise consistent with the timing requirements of this section, the information holder is in compliance with the notification requirements of 22-40-22 if the information holder notifies each person in accordance with the information holder’s policies in the event of a breach of system security.

This legal document, part of the South Dakota Codified Laws, governs the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of elders or adults with disabilities. It defines key terms used in the chapter, including ‘adult with a disability,’ ‘caretaker,’ ’elder,’ ’emotional and psychological abuse,’ ’exploitation,’ ’neglect,’ and ‘physical abuse.’ An adult with a disability refers to a person aged eighteen or older who is unable to protect themselves or provide for their own care due to intellectual disability, infirmities of aging, advanced age, or physical dysfunctioning.

Any person who, having assumed the duty voluntarily, by written contract, by receipt of payment for care, or by order of a court to provide for the support of an elder or an adult with a disability, and having been entrusted with the property of that elder or adult with a disability, with intent to defraud, appropriates such property to a use or purpose not in the due and lawful execution of that person’s trust, is guilty of theft by exploitation.