Dear South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, Many of us citizens have taken notice of the fact that you are allowing a law enforcement officer to get away with breaking numerous South Dakota Laws. Your office is also ignoring the purposeful attempt by other law enforcement agencies, including your own, to make sure the officer is not held accountable for his unlawful act of killing a dog. Your office seems to think because this issue concerns an animal, then it is no big deal. We see it differently, we see it as a huge problem. If your agency and other law enforcement authorities will go to this much trouble to make sure a fellow officer is not held accountable for his acts against an animal, imagine what steps they would they take to cover for such officer's who commit crimes against humans. The South Dakota Laws and Administrative Rules seem very clear to us. Officer Magee violated SDCL 40-1-21 because his description of the dog being "mangy looking" and "infested with fleas and ticks" does not meet the criteria for "Authorized Euthanasia". Line (9) of General Authority SDCL 40-1-25 clearly states that the procedures and criteria for the euthanasia of animals can be found in SDCL 40-1-13 {injured or diseased past recovery} Officer Magee also violated SDCL 34A-7-6 when he improperly disposed of the animals remains. And if he wants to stand by his ridiculous claim that the dog was dangerous because he feared he was diseased, Officer Magee also broke SDCL 40-5-1, and 40-5-7 Not to mention many more. Your office suggest this is a civil matter. We, as law abiding citizens, know it to be both a civil matter and a criminal matter. We expect your agency to do your job and handle the criminal issue. Officer Magee also broke Springfield city ordinance 6.0202 when he attempted to return to the owner and later let loose at a campground, a dog he identified as "dangerous" under ordinance 6.0102 Officer Magee also had a duty to impound the dog under city ordinance 6.0401. So for your office to claim they did not find any laws that the officer violated, is simply a falsehood and an avoidance on your part to hold an officer accountable for breaking laws. Sincerely, Duke Supporters