Could a South Carolina jail keep holding someone based only on another agency’s unproduced warrant?

Plain-English summary

Spartanburg County's jail director asked about arrests based on another agency's report of an outstanding warrant when the arresting officer did not bring the warrant to jail. The director described a practice of holding the person briefly if the agency sent a faxed warrant and confirmed an agent was coming, and releasing the person if the warrant or pickup could not be confirmed and no other charge justified detention. The Attorney General said the director was reasonable in expecting a warrant to continue a hold. Indefinite detention without a warrant or other court order could expose a jailer to a false-imprisonment claim and could prevent the timely bond hearing the statute required.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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: Was an agency's statement that a warrant existed enough for an indefinite jail hold?
A: The opinion said holding someone indefinitely without a warrant or other court order legitimizing the hold could create a false-imprisonment claim against the jailer.

Q: Why did the missing warrant matter for a bond hearing?
A: The AG said the lack of a warrant or other charging document could prevent access to the timely bond hearing required by state law.

Q: Did the AG condemn the director's practice of requiring warrant confirmation?
A: No. It expressly called the director's expectation that a warrant be supplied before continued detention reasonable.

Background and statutory framework

The director described NCIC confirmation procedures, possible delays in probation warrant records, and the jail's response to faxed warrants or an agent coming to serve or collect the prisoner. The opinion cited Section 22-5-510 for the bond-hearing requirement and decisions about false imprisonment. Its conclusion addressed continued detention without adequate legal authority; it did not set a new universal holding period for every warrant confirmation.

Citations

• Section 22-5-510
• Gist v. Berkeley County Sherifrs Department
• Jones v. City of Columbia
• Garvin v. Muir
• Warren v. Parrish

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-17-2004-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04aug-17-Powers.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
lliNRv McMAsTER
ATI'ORNEV GENERAL

August 17, 2004

Larry W. Powers, Jail Director
Spartanburg County Detention Center
950 California Avenue
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29303-2184
Dear Mr. Powers:

I
~

L

I

ln a letter to this office you referenced the situation where law enforcement officers are arresting and transporting individuals to jail based upon information that the person is wanted in another jurisdiction where no warrant is in the officer's possession. The jail is then asked to hold the indjvidual up to forty-eight hours and, in some cases, longer until someone can get to the jail to pick the individual up. You referenced that a problem exists where there is the lack of an arrest wa.ITant and there is the requirement that an individual admitted to jail appear at a bail bond hearing. You indicated that there are typically two bail bond hearings scheduled each day but the individual cannot appear because there is no arrest warrant. You also referenced that under NCIC guidelines, an officer may detain a person until they confirm a hit, usually ten minutes, and the jail may bold the person up to one hour to confinn that the hit is valid. In such instances, under NCIC rules, the requesting agency must have a staffed position 24 hours per day that can confirm that a "want" is still valid. You indicated that most of these situations involve out of state offenses and the arresting officer obtains a fugitive warrant which allows the jail staff to take the offender before a magistrate who then sets bond where appropriate. However, you indicated that you have run into problems involving the State Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. Each ofits offices maintain its own "warrant files" and only the info1mation that a warrant exists is sent to Central Records at the State Department of Corrections whose staff places the information into the NCIC computer system. When a hit occurs, the individual at Central Records confirms the hit. However, the warrant could have already been served and the computer system has not " caught up" with the result that the individual is arrested twice for the same offense. You indicate that as a result, your jail has adopted a policy whereby if the probation office sends a faxed copy of the warrant with the confirmation that an agent is enroute to serve the original warrant, or in the event that is an out of county warrant, that they are enroute to pick the individual up, then the jail will hold the individual a reasonable period of time. Othetwise, if neither situation can be confirmed, then the individual will be released provided there are no other valid charges holding him. You indicate that these situations have left some "hard feelings" with other agencies.

~~jER~~~ING • Posr OFFICE Box 11 549 • COLUMBL~, s.c. 292 11-1 549 •

T ELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSlMU.E: 803-253-6283

Mr. Powers
Page2
August 17, 2004

You indicated that it is your understanding that if an individual is arrested in good faith, the arresting officer is shielded from liability. However, you indicate that it is also your understanding that the individual holding the person arrested is responsible for any unreasonable delays in talcing the arrested person before a court and for any subsequent false imprisonment claims. As outlined above, your apparent concerns deal with situations where no warrant is available and where you expected to hold an individual even though the warrant is not available.

I
I

As determined by the State Court of Appeals in Gist v. Berkeley County Sherifrs Department, 336 S.C. 611, 521 S.E.2d 163 (Ct.App. 1999), false imprisonment is " ... deprivation of a person's liberty without justification." See also: Jones v. City of Columbia, 301 S.C. 62, 389 S.E.2d 662 (1990). As further determined by the Court in Gist. supra: In order to prevail on a claim of false imprisonment, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the defendant restrained the plaintiff; (2) the restraint was intentional, and (3) the restraint was unlawful... False imprisonment is an intentional tort; negligence is not an element. 521 S.E.2d 163, 167. A prior opinion of this office dated September 8, 1980 indicated that "a person who is neither active himself in the commission of the false imprisonment. .. nor responsible for the acts of others who are active in the commission of the tort is not liable for a false imprisonment."

I
L.

Generally, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 22-5-510 (Supp. 2003), "a person charged with a bailable offense must have a bond hearing within twenty-four hours of his arrest and must be released within a reasonable time, not to exceed four hours, after the bond is delivered to the incarcerating facility." As stated at 32 Am.Jur.2d False Imprisonment Section 31, "(a) jailer may be liable for false imprisonment for refusal to permit the prisoner to secure release on bail." As to the situation where there is the lack of an arrest warrant and the expectation ofproceeding with a bail bond arises, as set forth in 32 Am.Jur.2d False Imprisonment Section 48 A jailer is liable for false imprisonment if the jailer knows or should know that an arrest was illegal and there is no right to imprison the person arrested, whether the act is done officially or otherwise. Liability for unlawful imprisonment may also be predicated on a jailer's unreasonable delay in talcing the person arrested before a magistrate, on the refusal of a jailer to permit the prisoner to secure his release on bail, or on a policy ofinaction or deliberate indifference resulting in incarceration of a detainee without arraignment for a period of time well beyond the statutory maximum. Pursuant to Garvin v. Muir, 306 S.W.2d 256, 258 (1957), "(a) jailer has custody of the persons in the jail...and unless a jailer has legal authority in the form of a written mittimus or an

f
Mr. Powers
Page3
August 17, 2004

I
I

order of a court, he is liable for false imprisonment in holding a person in jail beyond a reasonable time for procuring such authority." An opinion of this office dated October 12, 1998 determined that generally " .... responsibility for insuring that an arrestee without a warrant be taken before a magistrate for prompt probable cause determination rests with jail officials. Indeed, there is case law which has found jail officials liable where the prisoner was not provided a speedy probable cause determination ... Thus, the principal responsibility for insuring that a prisoner arrested without a warrant is brought promptly before a judicial officer for a probable cause determination rests with jail officials." As stated in 35 C.J.S. False Imprisonment Section 35, "(a)lthough a jailer cannot be held liable for errors in a warrant of commitment which is fair and valid on its face, a jailer is liable for false imprisonment when a prisoner is held in jail without court order.... " As stated in Warren v. Parrish, 436 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Mo. 1969), the essence of a case of false imprisonment" .. .is the confinement, without legal justification, by the wrongdoer ofthe person wronged." In Salterv. State ofWashington, 86 P.2d 1159, 1162 (Wash. 2004), the court determined that "(i)t is well established that a jail is liable for false imprisonment if it holds an individual for an unreasonable time after it is under a duty to release the individual."

Referencing the above, in my opinion you are reasonable in expecting a warrant to be provided in order to continue to hold an individual picked up and transported to your jail. Otherwise, to hold an individual indefinitely without a warrant or other court order legitimizing the hold provides an opportunity for you as a jailer to face a possible charge of false imprisonment. Furthermore, as the State statute requires, an individual incarcerated, is entitled to a timely bond hearing and as to those situations where a warrant or other charging document is lacking, such may prevent access to that required bond hearing.

I

Sincerely,

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

.,,
j

){(tvt <[}' &~

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General