Could Bamberg enforce its open-container ordinance in an unposted private parking lot open to the public?

Plain-English summary

Bamberg police asked whether their open-container ordinance could be enforced in a grocery-store parking lot that lacked signs giving notice of police jurisdiction over traffic offenses. The Attorney General concluded in 2008 that the signs were not required for this ordinance.

The opinion read the posting statute as addressing laws about unlawful operation of motor vehicles. Bamberg’s ordinance instead prohibited carrying an open alcoholic beverage in specified public places and private areas open to public use. Because the ordinance was not a traffic-operation law, the AG said its enforcement did not depend on parking-lot signs under that statute.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. 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 an unposted parking lot prevent Bamberg’s open-container charge? A: The AG said no. The statutory sign condition concerned traffic-operation offenses, while the city’s open-container ordinance covered the lot independently.

Q: What did the parking-lot sign statute cover?
A: The opinion said the statute extended police authority in public-use lots for laws and ordinances relating to unlawful operation of motor vehicles, effective after required signs were posted.

Q: Did the AG decide every issue in the driver’s case?
A: No. It answered whether the absence of parking-lot signs barred enforcement of the cited open-container ordinance.

Background and statutory framework

An officer followed a driver into a grocery-store lot and made an open-container charge. The AG compared the ordinance’s express coverage of private areas open to public use with the narrower sign statute for traffic offenses, and concluded that the lot did not need to be posted for the ordinance to apply.

Citations and references

Statutes: The opinion interpreted S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-15.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-21-2008/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/morris-g-os-8633-8-21-08-bamberg-city-ordinance-o.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 21, 2008
Chief George Morris
Bamberg Police Department
P. O. Box 300
Bamberg, South Carolina 29003
Dear Chief Morris:
In a letter to this office you questioned whether the Bamberg city ordinance prohibiting an open container can be enforced in a parking lot that is not posted pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-115. Such provision states:
[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. 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. 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 public streets and highways immediately adjoining or connecting to the parking area. You referenced a situation where an officer followed a driver into a parking lot of a grocery store and made an open container charge. According to the incident report, the driver was found to be grossly intoxicated with open half pints of liquor in the car. The driver was charged pursuant to Bamberg ordinance 05-01 which states:
[n]o person shall drink, or carry for the purpose of immediate consumption, beer, wine or any alcoholic beverages upon the streets, sidewalks, parks, public parking lots, public school property or other public property except where authorized or permitted by the owner or owners thereof. Any person carrying an open cup, can, glass, bottle or other similar drinking vessel containing beer, wine or any alcoholic beverages upon the streets, sidewalks, parks, public parking lots, public school property or other public property except where authorized by law, or upon any private parking lot or other private areas that are open to public use, except with the permission or REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING ● POST OFFICE BOX 11549 ● COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 ● TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 ● FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

Chief Morris
Page 2
August 21, 2008
consent of the owners or owners thereof, shall be in violation of this section. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days. (emphasis added). As set forth in an opinion of this office dated October 15, 2004, Section 23-1-15 referenced above states that as to the areas posted pursuant to that provision, “[i]n 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 public streets and highways immediately adjoining or connecting to the parking area. (emphasis added). As the opinion concluded, pursuant to that provision, “...any offense ‘relating to the unlawful operation of motor vehicles’ can be cited in such circumstances.” See also: Ops. Atty. Gen. dated January 20, 1998 (Section 23-1-15 “...provides for the posting of private parking lots for enforcement of laws and ordinances regarding the unlawful operation of motor vehicles on public streets and highways so as to bring the lots within the jurisdiction of the police.”); August 15, 1995 (Section 23-1-15 “...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 relating to littering, etc., the fact that such offense occurs on private property, whether or not posted pursuant to Section 23-1-15, is irrelevant.”). In the opinion of this office, Bamberg’s open container ordinance referenced above is not a law “...with regard to the unlawful operation of motor vehicles” in a parking lot as specified by Section 23-1-15. Instead, the ordinance prohibits the carrying of a container containing alcoholic beverages at various specified places including “...upon any private parking lot or other private areas that are open to public use, except with the permission or consent of the owners or owners thereof....” Therefore, in the opinion of this office, a parking lot would not have to be posted pursuant to such provision in order for the ordinance to be enforced. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

By:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
_______
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General