Did South Carolina’s 2001 seat-belt law prohibit teenagers from riding in a pickup bed?

Plain-English summary

A police chief asked whether someone aged 17 or younger could ride in a pickup bed under South Carolina’s newly amended seat-belt law. The August 2001 informal opinion said pickups were covered. In the assistant AG’s view, an unrestrained passenger in the bed would violate the law if a seat with a belt was available in the cab. The cited exception applied where no safety belt was available because other occupants were using all the belts.

The letter addressed younger children separately. For a child five or younger, the then-current child-restraint provision required an appropriate restraint, subject to an exception where every restraint-equipped seat was occupied by children under six, with priority based on age. The letter also noted a new primary-enforcement provision for certain visible violations involving drivers or passengers 17 or younger. It described the 2001 law, not a present-day pickup-bed rule.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. 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.

Historical summary

Drivers and young passengers

The opinion treated pickup trucks as covered motor vehicles and tied the bed-passenger answer to whether a belted cab seat was available. It did not describe an unconditional ban for everyone under 18.

Drivers carrying small children

The letter applied the separate child-restraint requirement to children five or younger and described the exception when all equipped positions were occupied by children under six.

Common questions

Was riding in a pickup bed automatically illegal under this letter? A: The AG said an unrestrained passenger appeared to violate the seat-belt law unless no belt was available because others used them all.

Did the same rule cover a five-year-old child?
A: The letter also applied the child-restraint statute; absent its limited exception, a driver allowing a child under six in the bed violated that provision.

Could police stop a driver solely for an unbelted minor?
A: The letter quoted a 2001 exception permitting a stop where an officer had probable cause from a clear, unobstructed view of an unrestrained driver or occupant aged 17 or younger.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted §56-5-6520 on the driver’s and occupants’ seat belts, Section 56-5-6530(7) on unavailable belts, Section 56-5-6410 on child restraints, and Section 56-5-6420 on the all-seats-occupied exception. It noted the 2001 change to enforcement for minors.

Citations and references

• §56-5-6520: occupant seat-belt requirement.
• Section 56-5-6530(7): exception for unavailable belts.
• Section 56-5-6410 and Section 56-5-6420: child-restraint rule and exception.

Official title

“on the new seat belt law in reference to persons 17 and under required to be in safety restraints. Specifically, whether it would be against the law for anyone 17 and under to ride in the back of a pick up truck?”

Requester

John G. Brown, Chief of Police

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-23-2001/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01aug23brown.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 23, 2001

John G. Brown, Chief of Police
Great Falls Police Department
P.O. Box 177
Great Falls, South Carolina 29055

Re: Your Letter of July 30, 2001
Dear Chief Brown:

In your above-referenced letter, you ask this Office to "render an opinion on the new seat belt law in reference to persons 17 and under required to be in safety restraints. My questions is, since it is against the law for 17 and under to ride without being restrained would it be against the law for anyone 17 and under to ride in the back of a pick up truck?"

.

Effective July 3, 2001, S.C. Code Ann. §56-5-6520 was amended to read as follows: The driver and every occupant of a motor vehicle, when it is being operated on the public streets and highways of this State, must wear a fastened safety belt which complies with all provisions of federal law for its use. The driver is charged with the responsibility of requiring each occupant seventeen years of age or younger to wear a safety belt or be secured in a child restraint system as provided in Article 47 of this chapter. However, a driver is not responsible for an occupant seventeen years of age or younger who has a driver's license, special restricted license, or beginner's permit and who is not wearing a seat belt; such occupant is in violation of this article and must be fined in accordance with Section 56-5-6540. Pursuant to Section 56-5-6510, '"Motor vehicle' means a passenger car, truck, van, or recreational vehicle required to be equipped with safety belts by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), manufactured after July, 1966." Clearly, pick up trucks would be covered by South Carolina's mandatory seat belt law. One exception which may apply to passenger's in the bed of a pick up truck is found in Section 56-5-6530(7). That subsection provides that the mandatory seat belt laws "do not apply to ... an occupant for which no safety belt is available because all belts are being used by other occupants." Therefore, it would appear that unless no seat with a seat belt is available in the cab of a pick up truck, an unrestrained passenger in the bed of the truck would be in violation of Section 56-5-6520.
/l REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING
lb , d
~
h

,,.. .

cV-..-c._

•

POST 0FACE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Chief Brown
Page2
August 23, 2001

I
I

Further, Section 56-5-6410, South Carolina's "Child Passenger Restraint System" law provides that "[e]very driver of a motor vehicle (passenger car, pickup truck, van, or recreational vehicle) operated on the highways and streets of this State when transporting a child five years of age or younger upon the public streets and highways of the State must provide an appropriate child passenger restraint system ... " Section 56-5-6420 provides an exception, however, and states "if all the seating positions with restraint devices are occupied by children under the age of six years, a child may be transported and the driver of the motor vehicle is not in violation of the provisions of this article, but priority must be given to children under the age of six years, according to their ages." Therefore, just as with the seat belt laws referenced above, unless there is an applicable exception, a driver of a pickup truck allowing children under six years of age to ride in the bed is in violation of Section 56-5-6410. Lastly, it should be noted that 200 I South Carolina Laws Act 65 (effective July 3, 2001) had the effect of changing from secondary to primary violations of the provisions involving drivers and passengers seventeen years of age and younger. Specifically, Section 56-5-6540(8)(1) now provides that "[a] law enforcement officer must not stop a driver for a violation of this article in the absence of another violation of the motor vehicle laws except as follows ... when the officer has probable cause for a violation of this article based on his clear and unobstructed view of a driver seventeen years of age or younger or an occupant of the motor vehicle seventeen years of age or younger who is not wearing a safety belt or is not secured in a child restraint system as required ... " I have provided for your review a copy of Act 65 which contains all of the amendments to our seat belt and child restraint statutes. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General and not officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. Sincerely,

J

Assistant Attorney General
DKA/an
Enclosure