Which court heard offenses in South Carolina’s three-mile municipal police service area?

Plain-English summary

Fort Lawn’s police chief asked which court would handle offenses in an area up to three miles beyond the town limits if the town and county agreed to police protection there. In April 2002, the South Carolina AG said the magistrate’s court would have jurisdiction in that outside area. The authority to provide police protection did not enlarge the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal court.

The AG explained that Section 5-7-30 allowed police protection in nearby areas on the governing body’s request and agreement, but also said it did not extend the effect of municipal laws beyond corporate boundaries. He cited earlier office advice that municipal-court jurisdiction followed the town’s corporate limits even where officers had authority to act beyond them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. 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

Municipal police and town officials

The letter distinguished the area where a town could provide police protection from the area where its municipal court could hear offenses. It recognized a statutory route for police service in nearby areas on the required agreement.

Courts and defendants

The AG concluded the magistrate’s court, rather than the municipal court, had jurisdiction over the outside three-mile area described in the request.

Common questions

Did a three-mile police area expand the town’s municipal court? A: No. The AG said the police authority did not extend municipal-court territory.

Which court did the AG identify for the area outside Fort Lawn? A: The magistrate’s court.

Did the police-service statute extend town laws outside the town? A: The opinion quoted Section 5-7-30 as expressly saying it did not.

Background and statutory framework

The letter discussed Section 5-7-30, which authorized agreed police protection in contiguous municipalities and nearby unincorporated areas, and Section 5-7-110, which addressed contracts for police protection outside corporate limits. It separated both provisions from municipal-court territorial jurisdiction.

Citations and references

• Section 5-7-30: police protection beyond municipal limits and express limit on municipal laws.
• Section 5-7-110: contracts for police protection beyond municipal limits.

Official title

Concerning the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal court. Specifically, the Town of Fort Law and the County of Chester are in the process of passing an ordinance to give the Fort Lawn Police Department Jurisdiction up to 3 miles outside the City limits.

Requester

Richard L. Smith, Chief of Police, Fort Lawn Police Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-3-2002/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02apr3smith.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

April 3, 2002

Richard L. Smith, Chief of Police
Fort Lawn Police Department
P.O. Box 126
Fort Lawn, South Carolina 29714

Re:

Your letter of February 25, 2002

Dear Chief Smith:
In the above-referenced letter, you request an opinion from this Office concerning the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal court. By way of background, you indicate that "[t]he Town of Fort Lawn and the County of Chester are in the process of passing an ordinance to give the Fort Lawn Police Department Jurisdiction up to 3 miles outside the City limits. State statute 5-7-30 says this can be done. The statute however does not say which court (Municipal or Magistrates) would have jurisdiction in the 3-mile limit." You also cite S.C. Code Ann. §5-7-110 as authorizing a municipality to contract for police services outside the city limits.

~~

You are correct in your assessment of Section 5-7-30 in that it does provide a municipality "the authority to provide police protection in contiguous municipalities and in unincorporated areas located not more than three miles from the municipal limits upon the request and agreement of the governing body of such contiguous municipality or the county ... " However, Section 5-7-30 also provides that "this shall not extend the effect of the laws of the municipality beyond its corporate boundaries." Additionally, while it is true that Section 5-7-110 provides that a " ... municipality may contract with any public utility, agency or with any private business to provide police protection beyond the corporate limits," this Office has consistently opined that '' ... the jurisdiction of the municipal court consists of offenses committed within the corporate limits of the municipality ... (and] ... the corporate limits of a municipality are considered as the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of municipality courts." SeeOP.ATTY.GEN.(DatedMay 14, 1996). Further, we opined that "the three mile limit of authority to make arrests granted an officer ... does not affect the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal court." Id.

)

REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

·~~~

•

POST OFFICE Box I 1549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Chief Smith
Page 2
April3,2002

Accordingly, as neither the authority to arrest nor Section 5-7-30 can extend the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal court, it is my opinion that the magistrate's court "would have jurisdiction in the 3-mile limit" referenced in your request. 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.

~~/!f;;­

(_?f)~

David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General
DKA/an

I

I