What does North Carolina's law requiring department heads to report criminal misuse of state property to the State Bureau of Investigation actually require, and how does a department head decide what counts as 'information or evidence' worth reporting?

Plain-English summary

N.C.G.S. § 114-15.1 was enacted in 1977 to make sure that when allegations of criminal misuse of state-owned property cross the desk of a state department head, the SBI hears about it quickly. The statute says that any state department head receiving "any information or evidence" of criminal misuse of state-owned personal property "shall within a reasonable time, but no later than 10 days from receipt thereof, report such information in writing to the Director of the State Bureau of Investigation."

Senator R. L. Clark wrote to AG Mike Easley about how the statute should be applied in practice, specifically in the context of his June 16, 1998 letter to NCDOT Secretary E. Norris Tolson concerning unspecified allegations. Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., the AG's General Counsel, responded with the office's interpretation.

Three points came out of the opinion. First, although the statute's text is broad ("any information or evidence"), the AG had consistently advised department heads to make a threshold credibility determination. The threshold is "admittedly low," but a department head can decline to report bare rumor that has no factual underpinning. Second, if the department head cannot determine within 10 days whether the allegation is credible, the SBI must still be notified within the 10-day period. The reporting clock does not pause for credibility assessment. Third, the AG flagged an unresolved ambiguity: the statute applies to "all state employees," but the AG did not believe the General Assembly intended to include legislators themselves within that phrase. He left the answer open.

The opinion was issued in real time with an ongoing SBI investigation. The SBI had been made aware of the allegations on July 1, and Secretary Tolson had responded by letter dated July 15. The AG's opinion gave department heads a practical playbook for the next case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. N.C.G.S. § 114-15.1 has been amended since 1998. The State Office of the Auditor and the State Office of the Inspector General have evolved roles in criminal-misuse-of-state-property cases. Modern compliance officers should consult the current statute and any updates to SBI policy on reporting protocols.

Background and statutory framework

§ 114-15.1 is one of NC's mandatory-reporting statutes for public corruption. It was enacted in 1977, a period when the General Assembly was tightening oversight of state agency property and travel. The statute is short and unambiguous on its time limit (10 days) and on the form of the report (written, to the SBI Director), but it is ambiguous in two ways the AG had to address: how low the credibility threshold is, and whether the duty extends to legislators.

The AG had been giving oral advice on these questions for over twenty years before this 1998 written opinion. The 1998 letter was the first formal expression of those answers. It was prompted by Senator Clark's request for clarity in the context of a specific NCDOT investigation.

The credibility-threshold reading is essentially a gloss on the statute's term "information or evidence." A literal reading would include every anonymous tip, including those obviously frivolous. The AG read into the statute a minimal credibility-assessment step to prevent the SBI Director from being inundated with junk reports, but kept the threshold low enough that any plausible allegation triggers the duty.

The clock rule is a backstop. Department heads cannot use the credibility-determination step as a delay tactic. If 10 days runs out and they don't yet know whether the allegation is credible, they must report.

The "all state employees" question came up because § 114-15.1 references the broader set of state employees, and a literal reading would extend the duty to legislators. The AG's view, not formally adopted in this letter, was that legislators were unlikely intended targets but the statute's text did not exclude them. He left the question for a future opinion or legislative clarification.

Common questions

Does a department head have to investigate before reporting?

No. The statute requires a written report to the SBI within 10 days, with a low threshold credibility determination. The department head does not have to prove the underlying allegations before reporting. The SBI then investigates.

What counts as "state-owned personal property"?

The statute covers personal property (as distinct from real property). Examples include state vehicles, computers, equipment, supplies, fuel, and similar items. The opinion did not enumerate categories.

Does reporting expose the department head to liability if the allegation turns out to be unfounded?

The statute requires reporting in good faith based on a credibility threshold determination. The opinion did not address whether good-faith reports trigger any immunity, though general principles of statutory and qualified immunity would likely apply to a department head acting under mandatory-reporting statutes.

Did this opinion address legislators directly?

No. The AG noted that legislators are arguably included in "all state employees" but did not commit to a final interpretation. The opinion suggested that this was a question the General Assembly might want to clarify.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/department-heads-to-report-possible-violations-of-criminal-statutes/

Citations

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 114-15.1

Original opinion text

July 24, 1998

The Honorable R. L. Clark
North Carolina State Senate
Room 118, Legislative Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

RE: Advisory Opinion; Department Heads to Report Possible Violations of Criminal Statutes involving Misuse of State Property to State Bureau of Investigation; N.C.G.S. § 114-15.1

Dear Senator Clark:

I reply to your July 14, 1998 letter to the Attorney General concerning your June 16, 1998 letter to E. Norris Tolson, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. You request our opinion on the meaning and intent of N.C.G.S. § 114-15.1, particularly as that statute applies to department heads who receive information alleging criminal misuse of state property.

N.C.G.S. § 114-15.1 requires that when the head of any state department receives "any information or evidence" of criminal misuse of any state-owned personal property, the head of the department "shall within a reasonable time, but no later than 10 days from receipt thereof, report such information in writing to the Director of the State Bureau of Investigation."

No court has ever interpreted § 114-15.1. Nor has our office ever issued a formal or advisory opinion on its meaning. Since the statute was enacted in 1977, I have on numerous occasions orally advised department heads whenever they receive any credible information or evidence that state property has been criminally abused or misused they should notify the Director of the SBI in writing as soon as possible and within the 10 day period. Although the statute is somewhat ambiguous in this regard, I have always advised that the department head may exercise some judgment that the information or evidence has some credibility, although the threshold is admittedly low.

As you and I discussed in our telephone conversation this past Tuesday, July 21, another ambiguity in the statute is whether it applies to members of the General Assembly. The reporting requirements of the statute apply to "all state employees." Although I do not believe that the Legislature intended to include its members within the broad classification of "all state employees," it is a possible interpretation.

As we further discussed in our telephone conversation, the SBI was made aware on July 1 of the allegations contained in your June 16 letter and is presently investigating those allegations. Moreover, Secretary Tolson responded to your inquiry by letter dated July 15, 1998, and copied SBI Director Coman.

In the future, it would be our advice that any time a department head receives an allegation of possible criminal misuse of state-owned property, the threshold determination of credibility should be made within the 10-day period referenced in the statute. If the allegation appears credible, the Director of the SBI should be notified in writing immediately. If the department head is unable to determine whether the allegation is credible or not within 10 days, the SBI still should be notified of the allegation within the 10-day period.

I hope this answers your inquiry. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.
General Counsel