Could the South Carolina officer who swore out an arrest warrant also serve it in 1998?

Plain-English summary

A Greer police sergeant asked whether statutes governing warrant service applied only to civilians specially deputized by a magistrate or also to sworn law enforcement officers. The Attorney General responded by reaffirming a 1980 AG opinion: the officer who supplied the affidavit for an arrest warrant should not serve that warrant. The letter said this remained the office's position under § 22-5-180.

The 1998 letter quoted the relevant part of the earlier opinion and cited a line of earlier AG opinions and South Carolina cases. It referred to enclosing the 1980 opinion; the linked archive PDF contains the two-page 1998 letter, so this page describes only what the letter itself says. The letter was designated informal.

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.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG's rule apply to sworn police officers?
A: Yes. The question specifically asked about sworn officers, and the answer said an officer who was the warrant's affiant should not serve it.

Q: Was the problem that the officer signed the affidavit for the same warrant?
A: Yes. The letter framed the limitation around an officer acting as the affiant in obtaining the warrant and then serving that warrant.

Q: Did the letter reproduce its cited 1980 opinion in full?
A: No. It quoted the passage giving the office's conclusion and referred to an enclosure that is not part of the linked archive PDF.

Background and statutory framework

The request named Sections 22-5-150, 22-5-160, and 22-5-180. The AG grounded its response in the office's reading of § 22-5-180 and quoted its 1980 conclusion against service by the officer who supplied the warrant affidavit.

Citations and references

• § 22-5-180, the provision the AG used to reaffirm its warrant-service position.
• May 22, 1980 AG opinion, quoted in part by the 1998 letter.

Official title

Regarding the service of warrants by sworn law enforcement officers who are the affiant on the warrant.

Requester

Sergeant Jolene Vancil, City of Greer Police Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-21-1998-3/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/98april21vancil.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

April 21, 1998

I

Sergeant Jolene Vancil
City of Greer Police Department
Staff Services and Planning
101 West Poinsett Street
Greer, South Carolina 29650

Re: Informal Opinion
Dear Sergeant Vancil:
You note that your Department "is receiving differing interpretations" of S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 22-5-180. Therefore, you are requesting an opinion regarding the service of warrants by sworn law enforcement officers who are the affiant on the warrant. Your specific question is as follows:
[d]o SC Statutes 22-5-150, 22-5-160, and 22-5-180 apply to law enforcement officers sworn by the powers of their jurisdiction, or are they only applicable to a civilian [whom] a Magistrate has deputize[ d] as a special officer for the service of a specific warrant? I am enclosing a copy of an Opinion dated May 22, 1980 for your review which answers your question. In that Opinion, we stated as follows:
... this Office in several previous opinions has consistently held that pursuant to Section 22-5-180, supra, a magistrate should not authorize and a law enforcement officer should not serve an arrest warrant issued upon such officer's affidavit. (See 1958 Op. Atty. Gen., p. 269, 1958 Op. Atty. Gen., p. 211, 1936 Op. Atty. Gen., p. 111, 1927 Op. Atty. Gen., R E~ BERT

c. DENNI S B UI LDI NG

. 1r,J . yr~

•

POST OFFICE Box J 1549

•

C OLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211 -1 549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

F ACSIM ILE: 803-253-6283

Sergeant Vancil
Page 2
April 21, 1998
p. 93.) Early opinions of the South Carolina Supreme Court have also recognized this principle. (See, e.g., State v. DuPre, 134 S.C. 268, 131 S.E. 419 (1926); State v. Prescott, 125 S.C. 22, 119 S.E. 637 (1923) (dis. op. Watts); State v. Williams, 76 S.C. 135, 56 S.E. 783 (1907); State v. Culbreath, 121 S.C. 89, 113 S.E. 476 (1922). Therefore, pursuant to Section 225-180, supra, the law enforcement officer who acts as the affiant in obtaining an arrest warrant should not serve such warrant. (emphasis added).

I
I

This Opinion remains the Opinion of this Office. Accordingly, as we consistently advise, pursuant to § 22-5-180, "... the law enforcement officer who acts as the affiant in obtaining an arrest warrant should not serve such warrant." This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I am Very truly yours,

f~

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/an
Enclosure