Did a South Carolina school board policy define which safety incidents administrators had to report to police?

Plain-English summary

A public safety director asked whether a South Carolina school board could define the reach of administrators' duty to notify law enforcement about conduct that might cause injury or a serious threat of injury. The Attorney General concluded in 2005 that the words “as defined in local board policy” attached only to the immediately preceding words “his property.” They did not let local policy define the rest of the reporting duty in § 59-24-60.

The opinion used the “last antecedent” rule and the statute's separate uses of “or” to reach that reading. It also addressed enforcement. Under § 59-63-335 as quoted in the opinion, failure to report criminal conduct or school related crime could subject an administrator and district to attorney fees and costs in a mandamus action to compel compliance. The opinion separately quoted § 59-63-350's requirement that local law enforcement contact the Attorney General's school safety phone line about specified offenses and crimes reported under § 59-24-60.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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 local board policy narrow every category of incident requiring a police report?
The AG said no. In the statutory sentence he examined, the policy phrase modified only “his property.”

What did the opinion identify as a remedy for an administrator's failure to report?
It quoted § 59-63-335, which addressed a mandamus action to compel reporting and liability for the resulting attorney fees and costs.

Did the opinion discuss a separate duty for responding officers?
Yes. It quoted § 59-63-350 on contacting the Attorney General's school safety phone line about specified crimes and reports.

Background and statutory framework

The requester focused on the grammar of § 59-24-60. The opinion interpreted its final policy phrase using South Carolina's rule that a qualifying phrase ordinarily refers to the nearest preceding phrase, then discussed the related school crime reporting provisions.

Citations and references

• § 59-24-60: administrator notification duty.
• § 59-63-335: mandamus, attorney fees, and costs provision quoted by the AG.
• § 59-63-330: quarterly district crime reporting provision.
• § 59-63-350: law enforcement phone line provision.

Official title

Questioning the applicability of the words “as defined in local board policy” as used in the provision of S.C. Code Ann. § 59-24-60. Particularly, whether the referenced phrase modifies the entire provision or just that part of the phrase “his property”.

Requester

Chief Charles E. McNair, Director of Public Safety, Cayce Department of Public Safety

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-1-2005/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05dec1mcnair.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER
ATl'ORt-: ~:Y GE:\ER.AL

December 1, 2005

Chief Charles E. McNair
Director of Public Safety
Cayce Department of Public Safety
Post Office Box 2004
Cayce, South Carolina 29171
Dear Chief McNair:
In a letter to this office you referenced the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 59-24-60 which state: In addition to other provisions required by law or by regulation of the State Board of Education, school administrators must contact law enforcement authorities immediately upon notice that a person is engaging or has engaged in activities on school property or at a school sanctioned or sponsored activity which may result or results in injury or serious threat of injury to the person or to another person or his property as defined in local board policy. You have questioned the applicability of the words "as defined in local board policy'' as used in such provision. You have particularly questioned whether the referenced phrase modifies the entire provision or just that part of the phrase "his property". When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation ofa statute should not be undertaken. Wal ton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Moreover, statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). In construing Section 59-24-60, it is my opinion that the rule ofstatutory construction termed the "last antecedent" rule is applicable. As referenced in a prior opinion of this office dated September 11 , 1996, such rule states that '' ...referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no

/J

RrMBERT~.~1s BU1LDING • POS'r OFFlce Box ll549 • C1iu1MB1A. S.C.292 11 · 1549 • TE1 .EPHONE: 803-7.34 -3<l70 • FAC'S1M11 F· stli,_...

~A .. ,., ,_,. Y. h / :. ,,-,. '

c;1_r.JR l

I

'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'

Chief McNair
Page 2
December 1, 2005

contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent." As stated in an opinion of this office dated February 5, 1980, The last antecedent consists of "the last word, phrase or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence" ... Referential and qualifying words, phrases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote .... " See also: Op. Atty. Gen. dated April 23, 1962 ("Referential and qualifying words and phrases where no contrary intention appears, refers solely to the last antecedent."). In this instance, the last antecedent is "his property". Therefore, the phrase "as defined in local board policy"is limited in applicability to the phrase "his property". Moreover, the statute was written in the disjunctive, using the word "or" several times to separate the words used in the provision. See: Op. Atty. Gen. dated July 20, 1979 ("The use of the word 'or' is presumed to be in the disjunctive sense."). Consistent with such, it is my opinion that the phrase "as defined in local board policy'' is applicable only to the words "his property" and does not apply to the remainder of the reporting requirements. You also questioned the proper avenue to address violations of the mandatory reporting requirement and what punislunent or penalties are applicable. It is provided by S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-335 that the (f)ailure of a school administrator to report criminal conduct as set forth in Section 59-24-60 or failure to report information concerning school-related crime pursuant to Section 59-63-330 shall subject the administrator and the school district to liability for payment of a party's attorney's fees and the costs associated with an action to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the administrator and school district to comply with Section 59-24-60 or 59-63-330. Section 59-63-330 states: On forms prepared and supplied by the State Department of Education, each school district in the State shall report school-related crime quarterly to the State Department of Education. The department shall compile the information received from the districts and annually, not later than January thirty-first of the year following the districts' final quarterly reports of the school year, make a report to the General Assembly on the findings. In addition, the State Department of Education shall, upon receipt, forward all information concerning school-related crime to the Attorney General's Office. This information shall be used by the Attorney General in the supervision of the prosecution of school crime. Moreover, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-350

Chief McNair
Page 3
December 1, 2005

!

L
I
I

Local law enforcement officials are required to contact the Attorney General's "school safety phone line" when any felony, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, crime involving a weapon, or drug offense is committed on school property or at a school-sanctioned or school-sponsored activity or any crime reported pursuant to Section 59-24-60.

If there are any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,

dCP1v?1v-fIL!_ J--Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Vfrp,~
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

i