Joe Boever: one death, three different questions of accountability

What the criminal case resolved

On September 12, 2020, Ravnsborg’s car struck and killed Boever, who was walking on the shoulder near Highmore. Ravnsborg was then South Dakota’s attorney general. He called 911, said he had hit something, and searched briefly with the sheriff. Boever’s body was found when Ravnsborg returned the next day with his chief of staff.[1]

North Dakota investigators became involved because South Dakota’s Division of Criminal Investigation answered to the attorney general. The investigation found that Ravnsborg’s vehicle was outside its travel lane. It also found substantial phone use during the drive, while both phones were locked at the collision. Those are separate findings; earlier phone activity does not establish that he was looking at a screen at impact.[1]

In 2021 he pleaded no contest to two traffic misdemeanors: using a mobile electronic device while driving and improper lane driving. A careless-driving charge was dismissed. The court’s account also records a confidential civil settlement with Boever’s estate. Neither the traffic convictions nor that settlement was a criminal homicide conviction.[1]

Removal from office answered another question

The legislature then addressed Ravnsborg’s fitness to remain in office. The House approved two impeachment articles in April 2022 despite a select committee majority’s recommendation against impeachment. On June 21 the Senate convicted him under both articles, removing him and permanently barring him from public office in South Dakota. Those were impeachment convictions, distinct from the earlier criminal case.[1]

The disciplinary case that followed concerned his professional obligations as a lawyer. Its focus was his conduct after the collision. The Supreme Court explained that attorney discipline protects the public and the legal system, preserves professional integrity and deters similar misconduct. Its task was not to decide a new homicide prosecution or to repeat the legislature’s vote.[1]

Why the phone records mattered again

Ravnsborg challenged the misconduct allegations, and an appointed referee rejected the dishonesty charge. The Supreme Court disagreed. The relevant findings depended on recorded interviews and other documents, rather than an advantage gained from watching live testimony. The justices therefore examined that documentary evidence independently.[1]

In the second investigative interview, Ravnsborg initially denied phone use during the return drive apart from calls to his father. Investigators then confronted him with records showing email and website activity. His explanation changed. The court found dishonesty in that evolving account of the journey, even though the phones had been locked when the collision occurred.[1]

The opinion expressly recognized his right to remain silent. Its finding concerned the misleading answers he chose to give. It also rejected his explanation that he thought only phone use at the instant of the crash mattered: investigators had asked about the drive. That distinction keeps an important constitutional right separate from the court’s assessment of his actual statements.[1]

The recommendation was not the result

The disciplinary board proposed a 26-month suspension running retroactively from his removal. The referee instead recommended a public censure. The Supreme Court adopted neither proposal. It found violations involving dishonesty, interference with the administration of justice and misuse of his official title, and ordered a six-month suspension beginning with entry of the suspension order.[1]

The opinion did not find that the two traffic misdemeanors themselves established the separate rule violation concerning crimes that reflect on fitness to practice law. Its disciplinary judgment rested on the misconduct it actually found. Reading all three proceedings together shows why the name of a process matters: traffic liability, public office and professional trust were related issues, with different decisions and different consequences.[1]