03/12/2025
South Dakota State Bar Complaint
Against Prosecutors of the Codington County State’s Attorney’s Office
For Violations of Ethical Standards, Due Process, and Prosecutorial Misconduct
To:
South Dakota State Bar Association
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
[Bar Complaint Office Address]
[City, State, Zip Code]
From:
Patrick Thomas Althoff, Pro Se
[Your Address]
[City, State, Zip Code]
[Your Email]
[Your Phone Number]
Date: [Insert Date]
Subject: Formal Complaint Against Prosecutors of the Codington County State’s Attorney’s Office for Ethical Violations, Misrepresentation, Suppression of Evidence, and Prosecutorial Misconduct
I. INTRODUCTION
I, Patrick Thomas Althoff, submit this formal complaint against members of the Codington County State’s Attorney’s Office, including but not limited to:
[Insert Name of Lead Prosecutor]
[Insert Name of Assistant Prosecutor(s)]
[Insert Name of Any Other Prosecutors Involved]
This complaint concerns multiple violations of ethical obligations, prosecutorial misconduct, misrepresentation of evidence, and suppression of exculpatory material in my criminal case (State of South Dakota v. Patrick Thomas Althoff, Case No. CR124-1085).
I request that the South Dakota State Bar conduct a formal investigation into these violations, impose appropriate disciplinary sanctions, and refer this matter for any necessary legal review.
II. SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS & MISCONDUCT
The prosecutors engaged in intentional misrepresentation, suppression of evidence, and misconduct, violating South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct and federal law. Their conduct includes, but is not limited to:
✅ Knowingly defending an illegal stop despite lacking reasonable suspicion (Fourth Amendment Violation)
✅ Misrepresenting the validity of the field sobriety test, which was improperly conducted (Fourteenth Amendment Violation)
✅ Allowing and defending a coerced blood draw, despite the officer threatening a warrant to obtain it (Fourth & Fifth Amendment Violation)
✅ Suppressing exculpatory evidence, including my request for a urine test, which was denied by law enforcement (Brady Violation)
✅ Mischaracterizing my refusal to answer interrogative questions as a sign of guilt, violating my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent
✅ Allowing false statements in legal filings and failing to correct false testimony (Giglio Violation)
✅ Defending illegal surveillance and a premeditated stop that was arranged before I even left the courthouse
✅ Knowingly failing to disclose key evidence to the defense, including facts showing law enforcement’s misconduct
These actions are severe violations of legal ethics and prosecutorial responsibility.
III. SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF MISCONDUCT
1. KNOWINGLY DEFENDING AN ILLEGAL STOP (Fourth Amendment Violation)
What the Prosecution Claimed:
“The officer had reasonable suspicion based on concerns raised by the probation officer.”
Why This is False:
✅ The officer admitted he was dispatched before I even left the courthouse, proving that the stop was premeditated and not based on observed impairment.
✅ The officer was already waiting at Dollar General, confirming the stop was arranged in advance.
✅ “Concerns” do not constitute reasonable suspicion under Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).
📜 Transcript Proof of False Pretext for the Stop:
Officer: “So, they called us. They had some concerns.”
Defendant: “Concerns? You can tell I’m not on m**h.”
Officer: “Well, they thought there might be some drugs involved.”
Defendant: “Go ahead, pat me down. I got nothing on me.”
🚨 Violation: The prosecution knowingly misrepresented this stop as lawful when it was premeditated and lacked reasonable suspicion.
2. KNOWINGLY DEFENDING A COERCED BLOOD DRAW (Fourth & Fifth Amendment Violation)
What the Prosecution Claimed:
“The defendant voluntarily consented to a blood draw.”
Why This is False:
✅ The officer explicitly threatened to get a warrant, making consent coerced and involuntary (Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)).
✅ The officer refused a urine test, which would have immediately cleared me.
📜 Transcript Proof of Coercion:
Officer: “So, we go to the hospital for the blood draw?”
Defendant: “I’m not willing to, you’re forcing me.”
Officer: “No, I’m not forcing you.”
Defendant: “You ARE because you’re going to get a warrant if I don’t. Let’s go.”
🚨 Violation: The prosecution knowingly misrepresented this coerced consent as voluntary and failed to correct this in legal filings.
3. SUPPRESSION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE (Brady Violation)
What the Prosecution Claimed:
“The defendant refused testing.”
Why This is False:
✅ I requested a urine test, but the officer denied it and forced a blood draw instead.
📜 Transcript Proof of Denial of a Urine Test:
Defendant: “I’ll take a p**s test! I’ll take one right now!”
Officer: “Too late.”
Defendant: “TOO LATE?! What do you mean ‘too late’? You just asked me for one!”
Officer: “Too late.”
🚨 Violation: The prosecution failed to disclose this evidence and falsely claimed I refused testing when I, in fact, requested one.
4. DEFENDING A PRETEXTUAL FIELD SOBRIETY TEST (Fourteenth Amendment Violation)
✅ The officer used the field sobriety test as an excuse to interrogate me about past drug use, rather than determine current impairment.
✅ The officer botched the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test and refused to correct it.
📜 Transcript Proof the Field Sobriety Test Was a Pretext for Arrest:
Defendant: “Stop asking me questions. Let’s do the test!”
Officer: “So when you use m**h, do you snort it, smoke it, or inject it?”
Defendant: “I’m not answering that. DO THE TEST!”
🚨 Violation: The prosecution failed to correct or acknowledge the officer’s failure to follow protocol.
IV. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS & INVESTIGATION
🚨 Prosecutorial misconduct is a serious violation of due process and legal ethics. 🚨
📖 Supporting Case Law for Sanctions:
Brady v. Maryland (1963) – Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence.
Giglio v. United States (1972) – Prosecutors cannot misrepresent evidence.
Napue v. Illinois (1959) – Using false testimony violates due process.
United States v. Agurs (1976) – Failure to disclose key evidence is misconduct.
Kalina v. Fletcher (1997) – Prosecutors lose immunity when acting as investigators.
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (1993) – Misconduct before trial is NOT protected by absolute immunity.
✅ REQUESTED ACTIONS:
✔ STRIKE the prosecution’s misleading brief.
✔ SANCTION the prosecutors involved for misconduct.
✔ SUPPRESS all illegally obtained evidence.
✔ DISMISS all charges with prejudice.
✔ FORMALLY RECORD all constitutional violations for future civil action.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick Thomas Althoff, Pro Se
[DATE]
Send a message to learn more
