Did Beaufort County’s unattended-animal ordinance prohibit police from leaving a cared-for K-9 in a vehicle?

Plain-English summary

A Beaufort County sheriff’s lieutenant asked whether the county ordinance barring animals left “unattended” in vehicles applied to police K-9 officers who kept dogs in their vehicles. The April 2001 informal opinion found no state law specifically addressing that situation. It said the county ordinance could mean either a strict ban or a protection against leaving an animal without care.

The AG said the ordinance’s distress-removal language supported the animal-care reading. On that reading, a K-9 left with appropriate care, such as an operating climate-control system, would not necessarily be “unattended.” Because both readings were possible, the letter suggested asking the county attorney to clarify the council’s intent rather than claiming a definitive exemption.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. 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.

Historical summary

Police K-9 units

The letter said proper care of a dog left in a vehicle could matter to whether it was “unattended.” It did not decide that all police dogs were exempt from the county rule.

Animal control and county officials

The AG identified county council intent as the key to the ordinance’s scope. The distress language made a humane-treatment reading reasonable, but the office did not choose a definitive construction.

Common questions

Did the AG declare a blanket exception for police K-9s?
A: No. It said the ordinance had two possible readings and a cared-for dog was not necessarily unattended.

Was there a similar statewide ban on dogs left in cars?
A: The letter said it found no state law specifically covering that situation; it separately noted a general ban on transporting animals cruelly.

Who could clarify whether the local rule covered K-9 officers? A: The AG suggested consulting the Beaufort County Attorney about the council’s intended purpose.

Background and statutory framework

The letter quoted Beaufort County’s ordinance and noted S.C. Code Ann. §47-1-50 on cruel or inhumane animal transport. It treated the meaning of “unattended” and the ordinance’s distress clause as central to the local question.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. §47-1-50: general animal-transport provision noted by the AG.

Official title

On a “Beaufort County statute…that states that no dog shall be left unattended in a vehicle.”

Requester

Lieutenant Scott Johnson, Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-27-2001-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01april-27-johnson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

April 27, 2001

Lieutenant Scott Johnson
Beaufort County Sheriff's Office
P.O. Box 1758
Beaufort, South Carolina 29901

Re: Beaufort County Ordinance - "Animal locked in vehicle"
Dear Lieutenant Johnson:
In a letter to this Office, you have requested an opinion on a "Beaufort County statute ...that states that no dog shall be left unattended in a vehicle." You inquire as to the existence of a similar state statute and question the application of the County ordinance to the practice of the police officers on the K-9 unit. First of all, I can locate no State law specifically covering dogs or other animals left in vehicles. 1 Secondly, the scope of your local ordinance is dependent upon the intent of the Beaufort County Council in enacting the law. 2 The ordinance you have provided reads as follows:

Animal locked in vehicle. It shall be illegal for any person to leave an animal(s) unattended in a vehicle. The Animal Control Officer assisted by another Law Enforcement Officer will remove the animal( s) when the Officers' opinions are that the animal(s) is(are) in distress. The application of the ordinance to K-9 Officers who leave their dogs in their vehicles depends on whether the County Council intended to strictly ban the practice or intended to insure the humane

1

S.C. Code Ann. §47-1-50 provides that a person may not carry an animal in a vehicle "in an unnecessarily cruel or inhumane manner." 2

The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent the governing body. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987).
~DE~~·

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Lieutenant Johnson
Page 2
April 27, 2001
treatment of the animal. 3 Reading the ordinance as a whole, the latter interpretation would not be unreasonable as it is apparent the Council was concerned with "animal(s) .. .in distress." Further, such an interpretation would be consistent with one of the commonly understood meanings of the word "unattended." According to the Encarta World English Dictionary, "unattended" can mean "not cared for: not taken care of or seen to." It is my understanding that K-9 officers always take steps to insure that their dogs are maintained properly while left in their vehicles (ex. the engine is left running with the appropriate climate control activated). Accordingly, such dogs would not necessarily be "unattended" because they have been "taken care of or seen to." As the ordinance is capable of two interpretations, I would suggest that your Office contact the Beaufort County Attorney in an attempt to clarify its intended purpose. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General and not officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

David K. Avant 1
I
Assistant Attorne)"General
'

i

DK.A/an

mM

I

3

I have enclosed state statutes similar to the ordinance in question from Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont. These statutes all make clear that the overriding intent is the insurance of the animals health and safety.