Could a South Carolina clerk waive the arrest-record destruction filing fee because a person was indigent?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2000. Ask about yours and see what current South Carolina law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
In a short informal 2000 opinion, a South Carolina assistant deputy attorney general addressed whether the $35 filing and processing fee for an order destroying arrest records could be waived for indigence. He found no indigence-waiver provision in §8-21-310 (21) or elsewhere in an applicable statute he had located.
That was a narrow answer. The letter noted that the fee did not apply in certain other circumstances specified in the same paragraph, such as when the defendant was found not guilty. It enclosed an earlier opinion on fees and indigence but did not reproduce its analysis in the letter's text.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2000. 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 this opinion find an indigence exception to the arrest-record destruction filing fee? A: No. The author reported finding no such exception in the provision or any other applicable statute he located.
Q: Did the fee apply to every order to destroy arrest records? A: No. The letter said the statute listed other exceptions, including a case where the defendant was found not guilty.
Q: Did the letter decide a particular applicant's ability to pay? A: No. It answered the clerk's statutory question and described no individual applicant's finances.
Background and legal framework
The Greenville County clerk asked about the fee for filing and processing an arrest-record destruction order. The opinion read the fee provision for an indigence exception and distinguished the exceptions it expressly listed. The letter said it was the assistant deputy attorney general's informal opinion, not a formal opinion personally reviewed by the Attorney General.
Citations and references
- §8-21-310 (21): the filing-fee provision discussed in the letter.
- An earlier Attorney General opinion concerning fees and indigence: mentioned as an enclosure.
Official title
Asking whether the $35.00 filing fee “for filing and procession an order for the Destruction of Arrest Records” under S.C. Code Ann. § 8-21-310 may be waived for reasons of indigence.
Requester
The Honorable Fletcher C. Mann, Jr., Clerk of Court, Greenville County Courthouse
Source
- Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-26-2000/
- Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00april-26-mann.pdf
Original opinion text
The State of South Carolina
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 26, 2000
'
L
The Honorable Fletcher C. Mann, Jr.
Clerk of Court
Greenville County Courthouse
305 East North St.
Greenville, SC 29601-2120
Dear Mr. Mann:
You have asked whether the $35.00 filing fee "for filing and processing an order for the Destruction of Arrest Records" under S.C. Code Ann. §8-21-310 (21) (Supp. 1999) may be waived for reasons of indigence. This provision and the statute in which it is set forth contain no provisions for waiver of this particular fee for reasons of indigence, and I have located no other applicable statutory exception based upon indigence; however, paragraph 21 of §8-21-310 does provide that the fee does not apply under other circumstances specified therein such as when the defendant is found not guilty. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a previous opinion of this Office which contains some discussion related to fees and indigence which may be of guidance. Ops. Atty. Gen. March 26, I 986. This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.
If you have further questions, please let me know.
y~m-
/f~;,,;th, 1:7
1
Assistant Deputy .:!tt'orney General
a
., GI' r i h
RE .~11lf'HT C. DL;-NIS ~1 : 11.n1s1;
'7<1
y
r-V
77';-;. '
•
POST 01+1 CF Bo:\ 11~..\lJ
•
C ol.l:\1111 ,. S.C. 2'!211-154<1
•
TL!J: l'llONE: XOJ-734- .1 970
•
F,"·,1 :v111L XOJ-2.'i.1-o2XJ
What does South Carolina law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2000. Ezel checks the current South Carolina statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace