When did a South Carolina town have to pay a county jail for its prisoners?

Plain-English summary

Fairfax’s police chief asked whether Allendale County could charge towns with police departments for jail housing and whether a town should pay when a case belonged in general sessions court. The opinion did not decide fees merely by whether a town had its own police department. It reaffirmed prior office guidance dividing responsibility by the court with jurisdiction over the charge: municipal court matters generally fell to the town, and state-law charges within general sessions jurisdiction fell to the county. Because the towns and county had no written fee agreement, the author recommended a specific contract within those general guidelines.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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 a town have to pay for every person its police brought to the county jail?
A: The opinion tied responsibility to the charge and the court with jurisdiction, rather than simply to the arresting department.

Q: Who generally paid for a prisoner whose state-law case belonged in general sessions court?
A: The opinion assigned care and maintenance to the county for that category.

Q: How did the office suggest resolving jail housing fees?
A: It recommended a specific contract between city and county, using the earlier jurisdiction-based guidance.

Background and statutory framework

The author relied on prior South Carolina AG opinions from 1979 through 1992. Those letters described a general split between municipal-court prisoners and state-law charges triable in general sessions court, while recommending negotiated jail arrangements where legislation did not squarely settle the matter.

Citations and references

• Custody provisions discussed in prior guidance: Sections 24-3-20 and 24-3-30.

Source passage:

“Accordingly, the
question of fees for housing municipal prisoners in a county facility should be resolved
by specific contract typically within the general guidelines set forth above.”

Official opinion PDF

Official title

Inquiring whether or not it is proper for the towns of Allendale and Fairfax to be charged a jail fee by Allendale County, even though they are the only two municipalities in the county with their own police departments.

Requester

John R. Sullivan, Chief, Fairfax Police Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-22-1996/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96aug22sullivan.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES iv1oLO~Y CoNDO:"i

ATT()RNEY GENERAL

August 22, 1996

John R. Sullivan, Chief
Fairfax Police Department
Post Office Drawer 810
Fairfax, South Carolina 29827
Re: Informal Opinion
Dear Chief Sullivan:
You state the following situations:
Allendale County has six or more municipalities and three law enforcement agencies. Fairfax Police Dept., Allendale Police Dept. and Allendale County Sheriffs Office. The Allendale Police Dept. also has to pay a prisoner fee when someone is arrested in [their] jurisdiction to the county. Other Municipalities such as Sycamore, Ulmer and Martin, have no police dept. and come under the Sheriffs Office. When the Sheriffs Office make arrest in those municipalities ... my question here, is it proper for the county to charge a jail fee, to the towns of Fairfax and Allendale just because of having a police department? There are no \Vritten contracts between the County and Towns as to having to pay a jail fee. Everything was done by word of mouth [a] long time ago. But should you find it proper for the county to charge a jail fee, my next question would be, it is proper for the county to charge us a jail fee for the housing of prisoners with charges that have to be tried in

RL\l!H-RT ('_J)L'.'.;iJ'> Bt ILD!'.\;

A-'.n,-, ... #-. "/--~~~~

•

POST 0F-FJCf- Bo_\ ! 1549

•

COU"\1BI,\< S.C. 292 l 1- ! 5--l-9

•

TEU_J'HO'\F: SO?.- 734--3970

•

PAC\i\li!_i . (.(()_1-253-h2S3

Chief Sullivan
Page 2
August 22, I996

General Sessions Court? As you know, any fines [etc.] go to the county and not back to the municipality. Your questions are answered by previous opinions of this Office. I am enclosing copies of opinions issued January 9, 1992, March 6, 1990, July 22, 1986, March 21, 1983 and September 6, 1979. The January 9, 1992 opinion, quoting the March, 1990 opinion stated:
... a municipality is responsible for the care and maintenance of prisoners arrested and/or convicted of state or municipal violations within the jurisdiction of the municipal court if these prisoners are lodged in a county jail. However, ... a county is responsible for the care and maintenance of prisoners charged with state law violations within the jurisdiction of the court of general sessions. And in the March 6, 1990 opinion, we stated:
[a]nother opinion of this Office dated March 21, 1983 commented that generally a municipality is responsible for the care and maintenance of prisoners arrested and/or convicted of state or municipal violations within the jurisdiction of a municipal court if these prisoners are lodged in a county jail. However, the opinion further provided that a county is responsible for the care and maintenance of prisoners charged with State law violations within the jurisdiction of the court of general sessions. See also: Op. Atty. Gen. dated September 6, 1979. One basis for an opinion dated July 23, 1980 which reached a similar conclusion was the fact that revenues generated by general sessions court offenses and municipal offenses are treated differently. In the March 21, 1983 opinion, we concluded:
[i]t is the opinion of the Office that the Town of
McCormick is responsible for the care and maintenance of prisoners arrested and/or convicted of violations of ordinances or of state criminal offenses within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, if those prisoners are lodged in the County

Chief Sullivan
Page 3
August 22, 1996

Jail. The county is responsible for the care and maintenance of individuals charged with a violation of State law and the case is within the jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions. Within these guidelines, we have also stressed the importance of resolving the question of fees for housing prisoners by means of a contract between the city and county. In the March 6, 1990 opinion, for example, we stated: in most jurisdictions the matter of a county jail's responsibility to accept prisoners from a municipality and which entity is financially responsible for their care has been resolved by contract. Therefore, in the absence of legislation expressly responsive to such issue, consideration should be given to resolving this matter contractually. In determining any responsibilities, consideration could be given to the manner in which income generated by fines is handled depending upon whether an offense is triable in a municipal court or court of general sessions. Also, in reviewing such responsibilities, attention may be given to other provisions, such as Sections 24-3-20 and 24-3-30 of the Code which provide for the designation of certain prisoners as being in the custody of the State Board of Corrections. You should contact your city attorney in resolving this matter with the county. These opinions remain in effect and the opinions of this Office. Accordingly, the question of fees for housing municipal prisoners in a county facility should be resolved by specific contract typically within the general guidelines set forth above. As was stated in the 1983 opinion, the town is generally responsible for the care and maintenance of prisoners arrested and/or convicted of violations of ordinances or of state criminal offenses within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court if these prisoners are lodged in the County Jail" and the "county is responsible for the care and maintenance of individuals charged with a violation of State law and the case is within the jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions." This letter is an informal opm10n only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney

Chief Sullivan
Page 4
August 22, 1996

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 Very truly yours,

01~

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/an