Could South Carolina deputies enforce littering laws in a posted private shopping-center lot in 1995?

Official title

Concerning problems Union County Sherriff’s Office is having with young people parking in the Wal-Mart parking lot after hours.

Requester

Captain Roger W. Gregory, Union County Sherriff’s Office

Plain-English summary

Union County’s sheriff’s office asked about young people returning to a shopping-center parking lot after hours and leaving trash. The 1995 informal opinion distinguished general criminal enforcement on private property from the special statute extending traffic enforcement to posted public-use parking lots. It said deputies could enforce littering and other generally applicable offenses on the lot regardless of posting.

Because the lot was posted under the parking-lot statute, the letter also said officers could enforce traffic offenses whose elements required operation on a public highway. The special posting requirement did not limit enforcement of offenses that could occur on private property.

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 deputies address littering on a private shopping-center lot? A: The letter said yes. Private ownership and posting status did not remove general authority to enforce littering laws there.

Q: What did parking-lot signs change?
A: Under the 1995 statute described, posting extended police authority for traffic offenses requiring operation on a public highway.

Q: Did the parking-lot statute eliminate ordinary arrest powers on private property? A: No. The opinion said it did not affect enforcement of offenses that could be committed on private property.

Background and statutory framework

The shopping center had posted signs placing its lot under sheriff’s office jurisdiction. The letter read Section 23-1-15 as a traffic provision and cited earlier AG opinions and general arrest statutes to explain deputies’ separate authority over other crimes.

Citations and references

• Section 23-1-15 and § 17-13-30, as quoted or discussed in the letter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-15-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/95aug15gregory.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
AITORNEY GE:>:ERAL

August 15, 1995

I
I

Captain Roger W. Gregory
Union County Sheriffs Office
P. 0. Box 971
Union, South Carolina 29379
Dear Captain Gregory:
You note that you are "having problems at the Wal-Mart parking lot concerning young people parking after hours." They are throwing their trash, cans, etc. on the lot and the tenants of the shopping center are having to have it cleaned daily. The Sheriffs Office here in Union County receive calls each night to run them off. We tell them to leave and after we leave, they return. Section 23-1-15 deals with parking lots under police jurisdiction. The way I understood this section , it only deals with traffic law enforcement. Signs are posted at all entrances to lot which state, "Property under Sheriffs Office Jurisdiction." S. C. Code Ann. Section 23-1-15 provides:
[a]ny real property which is used as a parking lot and is open to use by the public for motor vehicle traffic shall be within the police jurisdiction with regard to the unlawful operation of motor vehicles in such parking lot.

RE\IBERT

c. DE,'-:IS BLILDl'-:G

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Captain Gregory
Page 2
August 15, 1995
Such parking lots shall be posted with appropriate signs to inform the public that the area is subject to police jurisdiction with regard to unlawful operation of motor vehicles. The extension of police jurisdiction to such areas shall not be effective until the signs are posted.

I
I

In any such area the law enforcement agency concerned shall have the authority to enforce all laws or ordinances relating to the unlawful operation of motor vehicles which such agency has with regard to p:ublic streets and highways immediately adjoining or connecting to the parking area. (emphasis added). In Op. Attv. Gen. 88-90 (December 21, 1988), this Office discussed the authority of a deputy sheriff to enforce the law and make arrests upon private property. We noted, quoting 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 52 at p.123, that (g)enerally, a lawful arrest may be made any where, even on private property or in a home. This rule is applicable both where the arrest is under a warrant, and where there is an arrest without warrant in case of hot pursuit.. .. We also noted that Section 23-13-60 of the Code provides (t)he deputy sheriffs may for any suspected freshly committed crime, whether upon view or upon prompt information or complaint, arrest without warrant and, in pursuit of the criminal or suspected criminal, enter houses or break and enter them, whether in their own county or in an adjoining county. Further, we recognized that§ 17-13-30 of the Code authorizes sheriffs and their deputies to
... arrest without warrant any and all persons who, within their view, violate any of the criminal laws of this State if such arrest be made at the time of such violation or immediately thereafter. Thus, we noted that this Office in an opinion dated August 7, 1974 determined that pursuant to such arrest authority, the fact than an offense occurs on private property is immaterial. See also § 16-25-70 (law enforcement officer may arrest upon probable cause

Captain Gregory
Page 3
August 15, 1995

f

I

I
I

I

~

I

for criminal domestic violence a person at his residence or elsewhere); § 23-13-70 (deputy sheriffs shall patrol the entire county to detect crime or make arrest); Op. Atty. Gen. No. 88-90 supra (sheriff is chief law enforcement officer of county and deputy has full law enforcement authority in any area of his county, including an area under the protection of a properly licensed private security guard.); Op. Attv. Gen. October 2, 1985 ("[t]he distinction as to whether property is private or public is irrelevant to the question of the authority of a law enforcement officer to make arrests or investigate crimes generally.") Consistent with these authorities is Op. Atty. Gen. No. 92-45 (August 14, 1992) wherein we concluded that § 23-1-15 did not preclude law enforcement officers as enforcing the relevant fire lane requirements at a shopping mall which had not been posted pursuant to that Section of the Code. We noted therein that§ 23-1-15 had no effect "on a traffic offense in which the commission on public property is not an element, such that certain traffic offenses ~ DUI) may be committed and are enforceable on private property regardless of whether the property is posted." In short, § 23- l - l 5's posting requirements only affect those traffic offenses where the operation of a motor vehicle on a public highway is a required element of the offense. Accordingly, since the mall in question has been posted, this entitles law enforcement officers to enforce all traffic offenses where the operation of a motor vehicle on a public highway is a required element of the offense. With respect to all other offenses, including ordinances or statutes related to littering, etc., the fact that such offense occurs on private property, whether or not posted pursuant to § 23-1-15, is irrelevant. A deputy sheriff has full authority to enforce these laws on this property. 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. With kind regards, I am Vety truly yours,

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/ph