Could a South Carolina town let a shelter dispose of an unclaimed animal after three days?

Plain-English summary

In 2011, the South Carolina Attorney General concluded that a town or county ordinance generally allowing a shelter to dispose of an unclaimed impounded animal after three days conflicted with the state law's five-day minimum. Local governments had statutory power to regulate the care and control of animals, but that power did not let them shorten a mandatory state holding period. The AG expected a court to find the three-day rule invalid.

The state provision also had other conditions: the animal had to be unclaimed, shelter employees had to make the required good-faith effort to contact an identified owner, and certain animals had to be held pending related proceedings. The AG's answer assumed those additional conditions and focused on the local ordinance's attempt to shorten the time period.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. 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

Could a shelter dispose of an unclaimed animal after only three days under a local ordinance? A: The AG said a general three-day rule conflicted with the state statute requiring at least five days of impoundment.

Did local governments have any authority over animal shelters? A: Yes. The opinion quoted the statute permitting county and city animal care and control ordinances, but said local rules still had to be consistent with state law.

Was five days the only condition before disposition?
A: No. The opinion quoted requirements concerning an unclaimed animal, a good-faith owner contact effort, and animals held for a trial or hearing.

Who could finally set aside a conflicting ordinance?
A: The AG expressed the view that a court would find it invalid; the opinion itself was not a court judgment.

Background and statutory framework

Blacksburg's mayor asked whether a local shelter rule could shorten the state impoundment period. The AG applied the two-step local ordinance test: a locality needs power to regulate the subject, and its ordinance must not conflict with state law. It found animal-control authority but an irreconcilable conflict between three days and the state's five-day requirement.

Citations and references

The opinion quotes § 47-3-20 on local animal care authority and § 47-3-60(b) on the conditions and timing for disposition of impounded animals.

Official title

Concerning the validity of a county or municipal ordinance permitting animal shelters to dispose of unclaimed animals after they have been impounded for only three days, which you note is less than the five day statutory holding period set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-60(b).

Requester

The Honorable David A. Hogue, Mayor, Town of Blacksburg

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-29-2011/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/hogue-d-a-os-9321-8-29-11-animal-shelters-dispose-of-unclaimed-animals.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON
AITORNEY GENERAL

August 29, 2011

The Honorable David A. Hogue
Mayor, Town of Blacksburg
105 S. Shelby Street
Blacksburg, South Carolina 29703
Dear Mayor Hogue:
We received your letter requesting an opinion of this Office concerning the validity of a county or municipal ordinance pennitting animal shelters to dispose of unclaimed animals after they have been impounded for only three days, which you note is less than the five day statutory holding period set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-60(b). You state it is your understanding that ''the number of impoundment days could be changed to more than five, but not less than five, in accordance with the mandate that city or county laws can be more restrictive than state laws but not less restrictive." Law/Analysis As our Supreme Court explained in Bugsy's, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 340 S.C. 87, 93, 530 S.E.2d 890, 893 (2000): Detennining whether a local ordinance is valid is a two-step process. The first is to detennine whether the municipality had the power to adopt the ordinance. If no power existed, the ordinance is invalid. If the municipality had the power to enact the ordinance, the second step is to determine whether the ordinance is consistent with the Constitution and general law of the State. The Legislature has granted counties and municipalities the authority to "enact ordinances and promulgate regulations for the care and control of dogs, cats, and other animals and to prescribe penalties for violations." S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-20. Clearly, counties and municipalities have the power to adopt ordinances regulating the "care and control" of animals. The question then, as you indicate in your letter, is whether such an ordinance would conflict with State law. "In order for there to be a conflict between a state statute and a municipal ordinance, both must contain either express or implied conditions which are inconsistent and irreconcilable with each other. If either is silent where the other speaks, there is no conflict." Bugsy's, 340 S.C. at 95, 530 S.E.2d at 894.

REMBERT

c. DENNIS BmLDING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable David A. Hogue
Page 2
August 29, 2011

As provided in your letter, State law sets forth the conditions under which an impounded animal may be disposed of: After any animal has been impounded for five days and is unclaimed by its owner, and after the animal shelter employees have made a good faith effort to contact the identified owner as required by Section 47-3540, the animal shelter employees, unless the animal must be kept pending disposition of a criminal or civil trial involving the animal or a hearing on the disposition of the animal is held prior to the trial, may dispose of the animal by adoption or by euthanasia or the animal may be turned over to any organization established for the purpose of caring for animals, such as the Human society. S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-60(b) (emphasis added). Assuming all other conditions in the statute have been met, § 47-3-60(b) clearly contemplates the disposition of animals after a period of no less than five days impoundment. Therefore, an ordinance that generally allows for the disposition of unclaimed animals after only three days would clearly conflict with State law. Conclusion The Legislature's enactment of S.C. Code § 47-3-20 undoubtedly provides counties and municipalities the power to enact ordinances regulating the "care and control" of animals. However, counties and municipalities cannot enact ordinances that conflict with State law. S.C. Code§ 47-3-60(b) requires shelters to hold onto unclaimed animals for at least five days prior to disposition. Therefore, an ordinance allowing shelters to dispose of unclaimed animals after only three days would conflict with State law. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Office that a court would find such an ordinance invalid.

·son D. Brant
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Rol>ert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General