ROLLA, N.D.-North Dakota's head investigation agency has closed the case on the Rolette County shooting that took the life of a sheriff's deputy, but the state's attorney there says the case is still ongoing and that Marsy's Law prevents him from releasing the names of those involved, including the shooter's.

The state Bureau of Criminal Investigation has released reports that detail the death of Rolette County Deputy Colt Allery, 29, who was fatally shot by 29-year-old Melvin Gene Delong of Belcourt. The documents list more than a dozen people, including officers involved and relatives of the deceased, who were informed about victim's rights measure Marsy's Law. If anyone invokes the rights, it would "prevent the disclosure of information or records that reasonably could be used to locate or harass you or your family," according to the law.

The law approved by voters in November is causing confusion on what can be released to the public, and the interpretation of who is considered a victim differs from county to county, attorneys have argued. Though law enforcement have trained officers to comply with the changes, it will take time and challenges to completely define the law, North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said.

"Some of the development of what Marsy's Law means is going to have to come from the court," he said. "A lot of areas, I just have to tell you, are uncertain."

Releasing names

listen live watch live

The Grand Forks Herald received the documents highlighting what happened during that January shooting when Delong shot Allery before being fatally shot by law enforcement. Allery didn't fire his weapon before he was shot by Delong, who was sitting in a stopped stolen Chevrolet pickup, according to the BCI report.

Until recently, the names of all those involved hadn't been officially released. Since the BCI considers the matter closed, it legally can release the report with information on those involved.

Though the BCI identified Delong as the shooter, officials in Rolette say they can't release his name or others involved, citing Marsy's Law and the "ongoing and open" nature of the case, Rolette County State's Attorney Ryan Thompson said.

"You will notice that the designation of a victim becomes pretty general and all-encompassing especially in circumstances involving a decedent," Thompson said of how Marsy's Law affects the case. "My position is that these protections are in place in both cases you have inquired about."

The second case refers to a home intrusion just days after Allery was shot. The home intruder was killed Jan. 22 at a home in rural Rolette County. The names of the intruder and shooter have not been released for the same reasons as in the Allery case.

Grand Forks County Sheriff Bob Rost said certain facts of any case cannot be released if a case is pending. Guidelines from Stenehjem office suggest Marsy's Law does not prevent agencies from releasing the names of a victim or a victim's family unless in certain cases, such as in human trafficking or sex crimes.

"They probably should have released the name," he said. "Once notification has been made to next of kin, I think they should have notified everyone."

Rolette County Sheriff Gerald Medrud did not return multiple messages left seeking comment. A message left with Marsy's Law for All, a national advocacy group for Marsy's Law, was not returned.

Defining a victim

A "victim" is defined as "a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm" because of a crime, according to Marsy's Law. If the victim is deceased, those rights can extend to family.

For Grand Forks Police Deputy Chief Jim Remer, that definition is pretty clear.

"The officers have a working knowledge of what (a victim) is," he said. "The victim of a crime is someone who has been victimized."

Remer said his officers have received training on how to comply with the law, reaching out to attorneys for advice and keeping up to date on changes.

"We wanted to take some time to make sure we do it right," he said. "I think right now we are in a good place with it."

A victim does not include the accused person in the case, according to Stenehjem's guidelines, but officers may not know who can be considered a victim until an investigation is complete.

"I think law enforcement needs to walk a very careful line because they try to make a judgement call at the time they are making an arrest or an investigation to determine whether someone is a victim or not," Stenehjem said. "Sometimes they err on the side of being overly cautious."

Mark Friese, a defense attorney with Vogel Law Firm in Fargo, disagreed that the law is clear on who can be considered a victim. He described a situation in which officers wonder if they need to hand out a Marsy's Law card to a store manager in a shoplifting case or a stadium full of "victims" who witness someone streaking across the field during a football game.

"Treating everything and everyone as a victim is just a bad policy," Friese said, describing Marsy's Law as a mess. "It's creating havoc in day-to-day operations of the courts. It's resulting in cases being drug out."

Interpretations

Jack McDonald, an attorney for the North Dakota Newspaper Association, said different agencies are interpreting the law inconsistently because there are "no real guidelines." It's possible some law enforcement agencies are defining a "victim" too widely, he said.

"How they might be interpreting in Rolla might be different from what they are doing in Grand Forks, and that might be different from what they are doing in Fargo," he said. "They are giving out victim cards to everyone involved. That's like getting a $5 bill. Of course, you are going to use it."

Rost, who backed Marsy's Law before it was passed, said the law's interpretation can change day to day, but he feels the law is working to protect victims, especially in sex crime cases.

"I don't like to see victims revictimized," he said, saying extra work to protect victims is justified. "I think it needed to be done."

Stenehjem said he felt Marsy's Law has worked well, but there will be gray areas that need to be sorted out in court, he added.

"It is going to create confusion until case law, and eventually opinions, I suppose, from my office, sort them out," he said.