Must Rock Hill release police officers' names and badge numbers under South Carolina FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Rock Hill police received a request for the names and badge numbers of officers who worked openly with the public. The AG said the state's Freedom of Information Act specifically made public-body employees' names public information. Because the department was a public body, he concluded that it should provide the requested names and badge numbers, assuming no statutory limitation restricted access in a particular situation.

The condition mattered: the opinion cited several sections that could limit access but did not decide whether any exception applied to an individual officer's information. Its conclusion addressed the described officers and request, not every type of law-enforcement personnel record.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. 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.

Common questions

Q: Were the officers' names public under the FOIA provision the AG discussed? A: Yes. The opinion quoted the provision listing public employees' and officers' names among information specifically made public, subject to the chapter's restrictions.

Q: Did the AG also say the requested badge numbers should be provided? A: Yes. His conclusion expressly included the badge numbers of the described Rock Hill officers, unless another FOIA provision limited access in a particular case.

Q: Did the opinion rule out every possible exception? A: No. It conditioned disclosure on the absence of a restriction under the sections cited in the opinion; it did not decide a particular exception dispute.

Background and statutory framework

The AG quoted S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-50's list of public employee information and noted that the police department met the FOIA definition of a public body. He relied on earlier AG opinions and South Carolina court descriptions of FOIA's disclosure purpose, while preserving the statute's express limitations.

Citations and references

Statutes discussed: S.C. Code Ann. §§ 30-4-50 and 30-4-20(a). Restrictions identified in the opinion: Sections 30-4-20, 30-4-40 and 30-4-70.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-2-2008/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/fields-k-os-8573-4-2-08-foia-names-and-badge-numbers-of-officers.pdf

Original opinion text

April 2, 2008

Ken Fields, Investigator
Office of Professional Standards
City of Rock Hill Law Center
120 East Black Street
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Dear Investigator Fields:
In a letter to this office you indicated that you have received a request to provide the names and badge numbers of all officers employed by the Rock Hill Police Department who work openly with the public. S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-50, a provision of this State’s Freedom of Information Act, states that (A) Without limiting the meaning of other sections of this chapter, the following categories of information are specifically made public information subject to the restrictions and limitations of Sections 30-4-20, 30-4-40, and 30-4-70 of this chapter: (1) the names, sex, race, title, and dates of employment of all employees and officers of public bodies.... The Rock Hill Police Department would be within the definition of a “public body” as defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-20(a). A prior opinion of this office dated September 30, 1993 stated that
[a]ssuming that one of the listed limitations does not restrict access to the enumerated information, the names, race, sex, title, and dates of employment of employees and officers of public bodies would be disclosable. As stated in an opinion of this office dated January 24, 2007,

Investigator Fields
Page 2
April 2, 2008
Our Supreme Court recently surmised: “The purpose of the FOIA is to protect the public by providing a mechanism for the disclosure of information by public bodies.” Sloan v. Friends of Hundley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 26, 630 S.E.2d 474, 478 (2006). In addition, the Supreme Court instructed: “FOIA is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed to carry out the purpose mandated by the legislature.” Quality Towing, Inc. v. City of Mytle Beach, 345 S.C. 156, 161, 547 S.E.2d 862, 864-865 (2001). Consistent with the above, in the opinion of this office, this State’s Freedom of Information Act would require that upon request, you should provide the names and badge numbers of officers employed by the Rock Hill Police Department, assuming, of course, that no other provision, specifically Sections 30-4-20, 30-4-40 or 30-4-70, would restrict access to that information in a particular situation. If there are any questions, please advise. Sincerely, Henry McMaster Attorney General

By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

______
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General