When did South Carolina’s violent-crime driver-license code apply, and could the DMV disclose it?

Plain-English summary

In 2011, the South Carolina Attorney General answered three implementation questions about Act 277 of 2010, which called for an identifying code on the back of a license or identification card after a qualifying violent-crime conviction or plea. The AG said the trigger was the date of conviction or plea on or after July 1, 2011, not the date of the offense. It read the act's savings clause as preserving pending cases from repeals or amendments without changing that express trigger.

The DMV proposed the letters “CVO” for the code. The AG declined to approve or reject that choice because developing the code was an administrative function for DMV, while noting the act's definition used “a symbol, number, or letter of the alphabet.” It also concluded that DMV would have to disclose the identifying code to the public under South Carolina FOIA: unlike the personal license details protected by cited exemptions, the code disclosed a conviction or plea, and the office identified no applicable exemption.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. 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

Did the code depend on the crime's date or the conviction's date? A: The AG chose the conviction or qualifying plea date. Under the act's wording, that event had to occur on or after July 1, 2011.

Did the AG approve “CVO” as the DMV's identifying code? A: No. It said the code's design was an administrative decision for DMV rather than a legal question for the AG to answer.

Would the DMV have to release the identifying code under FOIA? A: The AG said yes. It contrasted the code with protected personal details such as photographs and Social Security numbers and found no specific exception for the code.

Background and statutory framework

Act 277 linked the code to a conviction or guilty or no-contest plea for a crime of violence as defined in § 16-23-10(3). The opinion compared that express trigger with a savings clause, quoted the act's code definition, and reviewed FOIA's disclosure policy and exemptions for personal license information.

Citations and references

The opinion discusses Act 277, Section 16-23-10(3), and S.C. FOIA provisions including §§30-4-160 and 30-4-165.

Official title

Concerning the implementation of Act 277 of 2010, which requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to place an “identifying code” on the back of the driver’s licenses of persons convicted of a “crime of violence.”

Requester

Mr. Kevin A. Shwedo, Executive Director, SC Department of Motor Vehicles

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-5-2011/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/shwedo-k-a-os-9230-4-5-11-person-convicted-of-crime-of-violence-code-drivers-license.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN Wn..soN
ATTORNEY G ENERAL

April 5, 2011

Mr. Kevin A. Shwedo
Executive Director
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
P.O. Box 1498
Blythewood, SC 29016
Dear Director Shwedo:
We are in receipt of your letter regarding questions which have arisen at the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") concerning the implementation of Act 277 of2010, which requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to place an "identifying code" on the back of the driver's licenses of persons convicted of a "crime of violence." Your first question asks whether the identifying code applies to convictions that occur on or after July I , 2011 , the effective date of the Act, or only offenses that occur on or after the effective date. Section 1 of Act 277 specifically states that the Act is triggered "[w]hen a person is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a crime of violence as defined in Section 16-23-10(3) on or after July 1, 2011 ...."(emphasis added) Your letter expressed concern that the "savings clause" in section 6 of the Act may modify the meaning of the plain language of the statute. In the opinion of this Office, the standard "savings clause" language in Section 6 of the Act ensures that any repeal or amendment by the Act of any law does not affect cases which are pending on July I, 2011. However, the savings clause does not alter the specific language of the Act. Accordingly, the identifying code applies to persons who are convicted of or plead guilty or nolo contendere to a crime of violence as defined in section 16-23-10(3) of the South Carolina Code on or after July I , 2011. Your second question requests an opinion as to whether using the three letters ("CVO") for the identifying code meets the requirements of the statute. According to Section 2(A) of the Act, "'identifying code' means a symbol, number, or letter of the alphabet developed by the department to identify a person convicted of or pleading guilty or nolo contendere to a crime of violence ... on or after July 1, 2011." As stated in the Act, it is the responsibility of the DMV to develop the identifying code in accordance with the Act. It is the opinion of this Office that the

REMBERT c. DBNNIS BUILDING • Posr OFPICB Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • Tui..BPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMll..B 803-253-6283

Director Shwedo
Page2
April 5, 2011

development of said code is an administrative function of the DMV and not a question of law appropriate for an opinion of this Office. However, this Office notes that the plain words of the Act define "identifying code" as ''a symbol, number, or letter of the alphabet." See Act 277, § 2(A) (emphasis added). Your third question addresses whether the identifying code will be public information the DMV would be required to reveal in response to public or media requests pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (S.C. CODE ANN. § 30-4-10, et seq.). The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act provides: The General Assembly finds that it is vital in a democratic society that public business can be performed in an open and public manner so that citizens shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in the formulation of public policy. S.C. CODE.ANN.§ 30-4-15. Any exemptions from or exceptions to the Act's applicability are to be narrowly construed, and this Office has strongly favored a policy of disclosure should any doubt exist in that regard. E.g., Op. S.C. Att' y Gen. (January 24, 1990). Although this Office recognizes that the Freedom of Information Act specifically prohibits the sale and/or disclosure of certain information contained in a person's driver's license or special identification card, see S.C. CODE ANN. § 30-4-160 and § 30-4-165, these code sections refer to personal information, such as height, weight, race, social security numbers, photographs, and signatures. In contrast, the "identifying code" simply discloses that a person has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a violent crime. This Office has previously opined that "convictions and sentences are matters of public record specifically subject to disclosure under section 30-4-50(3) of the Code." Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. (January 24, 1990). Accordingly, as this Office is unaware of any specific exemption or exception which would apply to the "identifying code" at issue and pursuant to our policy of strongly favoring disclosure in cases of doubt, e.g., Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. (May 17, 2010), it is our opinion that the DMV would be required to disclose the identifying code to the public. Conclusion

First, pursuant to the plain language of the statute, it is the opinion of this Office that the "identifying code" to be placed on a driver's license or special identification card applies to persons who have been convicted (or pied guilty or nolo contendere) to a crime of violence as defined by S.C. CODE ANN. § 16-23-10(3) on or after July 1, 2011. Further, the development of said code is an administrative function of the DMV and not a question of law to be answered by

Director Shwedo
Page3
April 5, 2011

this Office. Finally, it is our opinion that the DMV would be required to disclose the identifying code to the public pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Very truly yours,

~~er ~M.Mt ~~
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~~

fRobertD.cook

Deputy Attorney General