Could a South Carolina jail spend canteen and telephone proceeds on individual inmates or a staff party in 1995?

Official title

Concerning “what is legal or proper in handling funds generated from a canteen and telephone within [the Saluda County] jail facility.”

Requester

Mr. Donald B. Grooms, Jail Administrator, Saluda County

Plain-English summary

A jail administrator asked how to handle proceeds from the facility canteen and telephone. The 1995 informal opinion relied on an earlier letter about jail canteen profits as possible public funds. It said such profits should not be used for an individual inmate, while a program benefiting the inmate population as a whole could probably meet a public-purpose test, subject to county policies. It also repeated an earlier conclusion that canteen profits could not fund a facility Christmas party.

The response did not separately work through how telephone proceeds should be classified or used. Its concrete examples and quoted guidance concerned canteen profits.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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: Could canteen profits benefit one inmate?
A: The letter quoted prior guidance saying profits considered public funds should not be spent for individual inmates.

Q: Could the funds support all inmates?
A: The quoted earlier opinion said a program for the general inmate population could probably serve a public purpose, depending also on county rules.

Q: Could profits pay for a jail Christmas party?
A: No. The letter repeated an earlier view that public funds could not be used for that facility social event.

Q: Did the letter give separate rules for telephone proceeds? A: No. Although the request mentioned telephone proceeds, the response’s specific analysis addressed canteen profits.

Background and statutory framework

The letter summarized a June 1992 AG opinion on jail canteen profits and earlier views that institution-generated revenue could be public funds even if it was not deposited as state treasury money. It also quoted prior guidance on county employee social events.

Citations and references

• AG opinions dated June 1, 1992 and November 15, 1985, identified in the letter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-14-1995-3/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/95aug14grooms.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 14, 1995

I
I

Mr. Donald B. Grooms
Jail Administrator, Saluda County
205 E. Church Street
Saluda, South Carolina 29138
Dear Mr. Grooms:

IL

I
~
I

You have asked our advice as to "what is legal or proper in handling funds generated from a canteen and telephone within our jail facility." Apparently, the jail has a fund the proceeds of which originate through use of a canteen as well as the telephone. The question thus is whether such funds are "public funds" and thus are to be used only for public purposes in the same way which other funds appropriated by County Council to the Sheriffs office are used. This Office addressed this precise question in an opinion dated June 1, 1992. There, the manner of handling jail canteen profits was discussed. The issue was "whether such funds should go to the general fund or is there discretion as to how such should be handled." We referenced therein a previous opinion dated November 15, 1985 which had determined that athletic, bookstore or canteen funds generated by State colleges or universities were "public funds" and, thus, must be expended in a manner consistent with State law. That opinion determined that while these funds were not necessarily "State funds", thereby requiring transfer to the State Treasurer, they were subject to such Legislative directives and restrictions "as the General Assembly may provide." We have also previously concluded that "...there is no Constitutional or statutory power for state agency to give public funds to a private foundation or other corporation or individual exc ept in payment for goods and services." REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Mr. Grooms
Page 2
August 14, 1995

Specifically, with respect to jail canteen funds, the June I, 1992 opinion further stated:

I
I

•
• J,

I

I am unaware of any State statute or regulation which provides for the manner of use of jail canteen profits. Consistent with the prior opinions cited above [referenced herein], it appears that such profits could be considered "public funds" and accordingly should not be used for individual inmates. Inasmuch as such profits may be considered public funds, utilization of such profits for the entire inmate population could probably be authorized. A program benefiting the welfare of the general inmate population could be construed as meeting a public purpose test. Of course, in evaluating the use of such profits, consideration must be given to relevant county ordinances or policies which may control. Therefore you should also refer your question to your county attorney . As to your further question of whether canteen profits could be used for a facility Christmas party, a prior opinion of this Office dated May 27, 1989 stated that expenditures of public funds for picnics and social events for county employees and members of the governing body were improper. Therefore, canteen profits could similarly not be used for a facility party. I am enclosing copies of these referenced opinions for your review and guidance. 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.

Mr. Grooms
Page 3
August 14, 1995
With kind regards, I am
Very truly yours,

~

I
I

I,

L.

I

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/ph
Enclosures