Could police charge someone found with a stolen car when nobody saw the theft in 1995?

Official title

Concerning a specific factual situation where a car was allegedly stolen from Honea Path and taken to Washington D.C. The opinion addresses whether there would be a sufficient case for grand theft auto against a person who was found in the car.

Requester

W.S. Hanks, Chief of Police, Honea Path Police Department

Plain-English summary

A police chief asked whether a person found in Washington, D.C., with a car allegedly stolen from South Carolina could be charged with vehicle theft despite no witness to the taking. The local solicitor had said the evidence was insufficient and would not extradite the person. The 1995 informal opinion did not decide whether charges were justified.

It referred the chief to an enclosed earlier opinion on possible stolen-car charges and said the circuit solicitor was responsible for weighing the evidence and likelihood of conviction in the specific case. The AG generally deferred to a solicitor’s decision after that assessment.

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: Did the AG decide that finding the person with the car proved theft? A: No. The letter left the evidentiary judgment to the circuit solicitor.

Q: Did the AG override the decision not to prosecute or extradite? A: No. It said the office generally deferred to the solicitor’s case-specific judgment.

Q: What factors did the letter identify for a charging decision? A: It identified the weight of the evidence and likelihood of conviction as matters for the solicitor.

Background and statutory framework

The request described an allegedly stolen car found in another jurisdiction and a local decision not to prosecute. The response referred to a March 28, 1995 enclosed opinion for possible charges, then focused on the solicitor’s discretion under an earlier AG opinion.

Citations and references

• AG Opinion dated March 28, 1995, identified as an enclosure
• 1989 Op. Attv. Gen. 181, cited in the letter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-14-1995-4/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/95aug14hanks.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL

August 14, 1995
r

!

I
I

W. S. Hanks, Chief of Police
Honea Path Police Department
30 N. Main Street
Honea Path, South Carolina 29654
Dear Chief Hanks:
You have asked about a specific factual situation where a car was allegedly stolen from Honea Path and taken to Washington, D.C. You wish to know whether there would be a sufficient case for grand theft (auto) against a person who was found in the car. You note also that "the suspect was involved in the same type case in 1991 where he stole a vehicle from our area and was captured in said vehicle in Washington, D.C. at that time." You further indicate that you "have been told by our local Solicitor Office that this is not enough proof to charge this subject because we have no witness(s) that [observed] him take the car and that they will not extradite this person for trial." I am enclosing for your information a copy of an Informal Opinion, authored by me, dated March 28, 1995. Therein, I describe in some detail the possible charges which could be brought for a stolen automobile. I also note that any criminal charge would, of course, depend upon the particular facts of the case. In 1989 Op. Attv. Gen. 181, we noted that the judgment call "as to whether to prosecute a particular individual is warranted, or is on sound legal ground in an individual case" is a matter within the discretion of the Circuit Solicitor. We specifically noted that factors which the Solicitor must always consider in determining whether or not to prosecute are the "likelihood of a conviction" and the "weight of the evidence". When a Solicitor has made such a judgment call in a particular case, this Office generally defers to the Solicitors judgment. The Solicitor is the person on the scene who RE\lBERT c. DENNIS Bt ILDl"G

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLL MBIA. S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Chief Hanks
Page 2
August 14, 1995
can weigh the strength or weakness of a particular case. Thus, while I can provide to you the relevant law in this area, and am happy to do so, I must defer to the Solicitor's judgment as to whether or not to prosecute this individual in question. 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.

I
I

With kind regards, I am
Very truly yours,
l

.l~;,.r?--/l/ .

,,

Robert D .~ cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/ph
Enclosure