Could two South Carolina police agencies temporarily transfer officers by signing an agreement without their councils?

Plain-English summary

In December 2003, South Carolina's Attorney General said a temporary transfer of law enforcement officers between local jurisdictions required a written agreement between the affected municipalities or counties. An agreement signed only by the police agencies did not satisfy the provision as the AG read it; the respective councils had to make the agreement.

The office contrasted a different statute for joint criminal investigations, which expressly permitted agreements among agencies and required notice to their governing bodies. That narrower agency-only route did not govern the temporary-transfer question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. 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

Councils and police chiefs

For the temporary transfer at issue, the AG read “the concerned municipalities or counties” to mean the local governments acting through their councils. It distinguished that from a statute expressly naming law enforcement agencies as the parties to an investigative agreement.

Common questions

Was a police-chief agreement alone enough for a temporary transfer?
No. The AG said the councils of the affected local governments had to agree.

Did the opinion forbid all agency-to-agency agreements?
No. It described a separate criminal-investigation provision allowing those agreements with notice to governing bodies.

Why did the AG distinguish the two statutes?
The temporary-transfer text named municipalities and counties as parties, while the investigation text named law enforcement agencies.

Background and statutory framework

Fort Lawn's police chief asked whether the town council had to take official action when two agencies signed a temporary-transfer agreement. The AG compared the wording of the transfer provision with the separate joint-investigation provision.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed Section 23-1-210 and Section 23-1-215.

Official title

Questioning whether official action by a town council is required when an agreement is signed between two law enforcement agencies pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 23-1-210 (1989).

Requester

Richard L. Smith, Chief of Police, Fort Lawn Police Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-15-2003-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/03dec-15-Smith.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER

December 15, 2003

ATIURNEY GENERAL

I
I

Richard L. Smith, Chief of Police
Fort Lawn Police Department
Post Office Box 37
Fort Lawn, South Carolina 29714
Dear Chief Smith:

In a letter to this office you questioned whether official action by a town council is required when an agreement is signed between two law enforcement agencies pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 23-1-210 (1989). Such provision allows for the temporary transfer oflaw enforcement officers between municipalities and counties. Section 23-1-210 states (A) Any municipal or county law enforcement officer may be transferred on a temporary basis to work in law enforcement in any other municipality or county in this State under the conditions set forth in this section, and when so transferred shall have all powers and authority of a law enforcement officer employed by the jurisdiction to which he is transferred. Subsection (B) states that Prior to any transfer as authorized in subsection (A), the concerned municipalities or counties shall enter into written agreements stating the conditions and terms of the temporary employment of officers to be transferred .... (emphasis added). Therefore, pursuant to subsection (B) there is to be a written agreement between the municipalities and counties affected. It appears that such agreement is to be between the respective councils for each affected municipality or county and not just the affected law enforcement agencies. Such construction is supported by language in S.C. Code Ann. Section 23-1215 (A) (1989) which provides for the execution of agreements for purposes of criminal investigation ''between or among the law enforcement agencies involved". Such provision further states further that

.2

n..:.L.,../c~

VJ
'-<:'.&k//.-d~ ·~; / /#

BUIWING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COUJMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549 • TELEPl!ONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Chief Smith
Page2
December 15, 2003

(D)The agreement authorized by this section may be terminated in writing at the discretion of any of the law enforcement agencies involved ... (E) The respective governing bodies ofthe political subdivisions. wherein each ofthe law enforcement agencies entering into the agreement authorized in subsection (A) is located, must be notified by its agency of the agreement's execution and termination.

I
L

(emphasis added). Therefore, the language in Section 23-1-215 which only requires notification of the governing bodies of the agreement between the affected law enforcement agencies stands in contrast to the language in Section 23-1-210 which provides for agreements between ''the concerned municipalities or counties". As a result, it is our opinion that for the temporary transfer of law enforcement officers pursuant to Section 23-1-210, there must be an agreement between the councils of the affected municipalities or counties. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours,

d wJY-1/llJ,._
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General