Could a South Carolina sheriff keep a computer network separate from the county’s?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, the Dorchester County sheriff asked whether his department could maintain a computer network apart from the county's. A county administrator had rejected a proposed Justice Assistance Grant application for consulting support. The Attorney General said the sheriff's department was authorized to maintain an independent information-technology network. It read section 4-9-33 as keeping access to restricted law-enforcement databases under the sheriff's supervision and noted other laws limiting access to certain records.

That authority did not require the county to support the requested funding application. The AG said the decision whether to support the grant remained within the county's discretion. The opinion thus answered the network-authority and grant-support questions separately.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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: Could the sheriff keep an independent network for restricted records?

A: The AG said yes. It linked a separate network to the sheriff's statutory supervision of access to criminal-record and similar restricted databases.

Q: Did that mean the county had to back the proposed grant application?

A: No. The AG said it knew of no requirement that the county support the Justice Assistance Grant application and left that choice to the county.

Q: Did the opinion say every sheriff record was confidential?

A: No. It cited particular restrictions and exemptions for criminal and juvenile records, while addressing the sheriff's control over database access.

Background and statutory framework

Section 4-9-33 assigned supervision of access to restricted law-enforcement databases to the sheriff or a designee, subject to its stated exception for transferred law-enforcement functions. The AG read that rule alongside records provisions and limits on a county administrator's control of elected officials.

Citations and references

• Section 4-9-33: supervisory control of access to specified databases.
• § 4-9-650: limit on a county administrator's authority over elected officials.
• § 20-7-8515: confidentiality and separation of juvenile law-enforcement records.

Official title

Regarding whether the Dorchester County Sheriff’s Department may maintain a fully independent information technology network separate from the County.

Requester

The Honorable Ray Nash, Sheriff, Dorchester County

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-20-2006-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06apr20-Nash.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
•..TT'OR."\EY GESER..\L

April 20, 2006

I

The Honorable Ray Nash
Sheriff, Dorchester County
212 Deming Way
Summerville, South Carolina 29483
Dear SheriffNash:

Tn a letter to this office you requested an opinion regarding whether the Dorchester County Sheriff's Department may maintain a fully independent information technology network separate from that of the County.

I

l.

I

In your letter you indicated that the Dorchester County Administrator had denied an application from the Sheriffs Department for a Justice Assistance Grant for consulting support for a fully independent information technology network. You indicated that the network was denied on the basis that "a fully independent information technology network is not a requirement under S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-33." Such provision states: A county council may provide for E-911 services as provided for in Chapter 47 of Title 23; provided, however, that access to criminal records databases and other similar restricted databases relating to law enforcement functions must remain under the supervision of the sheriff or his designee unless law enforcement functions are transferred to a county police department pursuant to a reforendum provided for in this section. (emphasis added). Such provision is quite specific in indicating that access to criminal records databases and other similar restricted databases regarding law enforcement are to remain within the supervisory authority of the sheriff or his designee unless otherwise authorized. In my opinion, in order for access to criminal records databases to remain under the supervision of the sheriff: such databases should be separate from any other databases. The provisions of Section 4-9-33 requiring that criminal records databases and other similar restricted databases related to law enforcement functions remain separate and under the supervision of the sheriff is in keeping with other provisions that restiict accessability to certain law enforcement

~~~1~c

•

PosT Ornn Box 11549 • CnLUMB T1. SC :?.92 l 1- 1549 •

T ELEPH• >NE 803-734-3970

•

FAC'ST~ILE 303-25~-6283

The Honorable Ray Nash
Page2
April 20, 2006

records. Certain criminal record information may be considered confidential. For example, pursuant
to S.C. Code Ann.§ 30-4-40,
(a) A public body may but is not required to exempt from disclosure the following
information:

f

I
I

(3) Records of law enforcement and public safety agencies not
otherwise available by state and federal law that were compiled in the
process of detecting and investigating crime if the disclosure of the
information would harm the agency by:
(A) disclosing identity of informants not otherwise known;
(B) the premature release of information to be used in a prospective
law enforcement action;
(C) disclosing investigatory techniques not otherwise known outside
the government;
(D) by endangering the life, health, or property of any person; or
(E) disclosing any contents of intercepted wire, oral, or electronic
communications not otherwise disclosed during a trial.
Also, peace officers' records relating to children are not open to public inspection. S.C. Code Ann.
§ 20-7-8515 provides that
(A) Except as provided herein, law enforcement records and information identifying
children pursuant to this article are confidential and may not be disclosed directly or
indirectly to anyone, other than those entitled under this article to receive the
information.
(B) Law enforcement records of children must be kept separate from records of
adults. Information identifying a child must not be open to public inspection, but the
remainder of these records are public records.
Prior opinions of this office have also commented on the confidential status of certain criminal
documents. See, e.g., Ops. dated August l, 1989 (search warrants prior to service); February 23,
1989 (prefiled indictments).
The determination that certain records of a sheriff are to be kept separate from those of other
county officials is in keeping with the provisions of S.C. Code Ann.§ 23-15-20 which requires that
the sheriff maintain certain books of record, namely, a "writ book", an "execution book", and a "sale
book". Pursuant to subsection (B) of such provision

fi

The Honorable Ray Nash
Page3
April 20, 2006

Any public records required to be kept by the sheriff in separate books under the
provisions of this section may be maintained in a computer system or may be
transferred to a microfilm system provided that a second or back-up copy of the
records is maintained in the event of destruction or unavailability of the records
maintained by the computer or microfilm system.

I
I

As to a county's control over a sheriffs department, generally, a sheriff is considered the
chieflaw enforcement officer of a county. See: Ops. Atty. Gen. dated March 1, 2005; May 8, 1989.
A prior opinion of this office dated August 6, 1991 recognized that "the internal operation
of the sheriff's office.. .is a function which belongs uniquely to the chieflaw enforcement officer of
the county."
The office of sheriff is also recognized as an elected, constitutional office. See: Article V,
Section 24 of the State Constitution ("There shall be elected in each county by the electors thereof .. a
sheriff. ... "). In an opinion dated May 13, 1980, this Office stated that
[t]he office of sheriff is a constitutional office and can be regulated
only in a manner prescribed by the State Constitution. Article V,
Section 20, South Carolina Constitution. [now Section 24]. That
section provides that the General Assembly shall provide by law for
the duties and compensation of the county sheriff. Therefore, it must
be said that the duties and powers of the sheriff may be varied,
abridged or increased only at the pleasure of the Legislature.
A county council is generally considered as having only limited authority in dealing with the
authority or duties of an elected official, such as a sheriff. See: Op. Atty. Gen. dated August 6, 1991
(the authority of a county pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-160 to provide for a centralized
purchasing system for the procurement of goods and services which would be applicable to an
elected official such as a sheriff). Moreover, it is specifically recognized pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.
§ 4-9-650 that
[w]ith the exception oforganizational policies established by the governing body, the
county administrator shall exercise no authority over any elected officials of the
county whose offices were created by the Constitution or by the general law of the
State.
See: Eargle v. Horry County, 344 S.C. 449, 545 S.E.2d 276 (1999) (county administrator did not
have authority under the Home Rule Act to suspend three employees of county auditor inasmuch as
auditor was an elected official). Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-30(7), a county government is
authorized to

The Honorable Ray Nash
Page 4
April 20, 2006

[

I
I

(7) to develop personnel system policies and procedures for county employees by
which all county employees are regulated except those elected directly by the people,
and to be responsible for the employment and discharge of county personnel in those
county departments in which the employment authority is vested in the county
government. This employment and discharge authority does not extend to any
personnel employed in departments or agencies under the direction of an elected
official or an official appointed by an authority outside county government.
In Heath v. County of Aiken, 295 S.C. 416, 418, 368 S.E.2d 904, 905 (1988) the Supreme Court,
recognizing that a deputy sheriff serves at the pleasure of the sheriff, agreed that " ... commissioned
deputies are not county "employees" for purposes of Section 4-9-30(7)'s personnel policies and
grievance procedure"

As set forth, Section 4-9-33 specifically states that " ... access to criminal records databases
and other similar restricted databases relating to law enforcement functions must remain under the
supervision of the sheriff. ... " Such supervisory requirement by a sheriff is in keeping with other
provisions thatrestrictpublic accessibility to certain law enforcement records and documents. Also,
a sheriff's control of criminal records databases and other databases relating to law enforcement is
in keeping with other examples of the paramount authority and power of a sheriff as an elected,
constitutional office holder as set forth above and the limited authority of a county as to the duties
of that office. Therefore, in my opinion, a sheriff's department would be authorized to maintain a
fully independent information technology network separate from that of the county. However, while
the computer records of a sheriff may be kept separate, I am unaware of any requirement that a
county necessarily support a JAG application for funds related to an independent information
technology network. In my opinion, any decision regarding such is solely within the discretion of
the county.

If there are any questions, please advise.

Cll~vrl~

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~p;i,c~s;

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General