statute (“any person ... who has suffered pecuniary damages as a result of the defendant’s criminal activities.... ” SDCL 23A-28-2(5)). See State v. Wildman, 296 N.J.Super. 565, 687 A.2d 340, 341 (1997) (extradition costs cannot be recovered by county under the guise of restitution as county does not qualify as victim who has sustained a loss); State v. Schmaling, 198 Wis.2d 756, 543 N.W.2d 555, 557 (Ct.App.1995) (restitution to the county cannot be ordered where county was not “actual victim of crimes”); State v. Maupin, 166 Ariz. 250, 801 P.2d 485, 488 (Ct.App.1990) (“extending the term ‘victim’ to include a county seeking reimbursement for extradition costs would strain the commonly accepted meaning of the word ‘victim’ ”). See also State v. Sprecher, 2000 SD 17, 606 N.W.2d 138 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 11.] State argues in the alternative that
holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint holding that victims must have suffered an actual pecuniary loss holding that there must be a causal connection between the loss and defendants criminal acts sprechers maintaining a public nuisance on his property did not cause countys pecuniary loss in abating the nuisance where it acted on its own initiative holding that  1109a requires causal connection between breach and loss holding that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation where their only allegation was the payment of artificially inflated prices for defendants securities and their complaint failed to provide defendants with notice of what plaintiffs relevant economic loss might be or of what the causal connection might be between that loss and the alleged misrepresentation at issue 