Could a South Carolina drug task force sell forfeited vehicles for salvage and keep the proceeds?

Plain-English summary

Fairfield County's drug task force held five vehicles transferred to the sheriff's office through consent orders of forfeiture. Some were not serviceable, and an officer asked whether the task force could appraise them, sell them together for salvage, and deposit the proceeds in the county drug fund.

The Attorney General said a vehicle transferred directly to a law enforcement agency through forfeiture should be disposed of under the county's ordinary surplus-property procedures when it becomes surplus. The opinion therefore treated the proposed salvage sale as subject to those local procedures, rather than approving a special sale method. It said money received from selling the vehicles would be deposited in the special fund recognized by Section 44-53-530 (g). The opinion also repeated limits on the use of forfeiture funds, including their use for drug enforcement and established procurement procedures for expenditures.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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 the task force sell the forfeited vehicles for salvage? A: The AG said their disposition should follow the county's procedures for surplus property. It did not independently approve the proposed appraisal or group-sale method.

Where would the sale money go?
A: The opinion said proceeds from the forfeited vehicles would be deposited in the law enforcement agency's special fund under Section 44-53-530 (g).

Could the sheriff's office spend the proceeds on any county expense? A: No. The opinion quoted restrictions on forfeiture funds, including use for drug enforcement activities and compliance with established procurement procedures.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion distinguished directly forfeited vehicles from a vehicle bought with drug-fund money, while drawing on earlier AG advice about both. It applied the prior surplus-property rule to the five vehicles and the statutory special-fund rule to their proceeds. It did not describe Fairfield County's particular surplus-sale procedures.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed Section 44-53-530 (g) and prior AG opinions dated May 1, 1995, and April 10, 1989. The official PDF reproduces their relevant conclusions.

Official title

Indicating that the Fairfield County Drug Task Force has five vehicles in the impound lot that have been “signed over from owners to the Fairfield County Sheriff Office by Consent Orders of Forfeiture.”

Requester

Lieutenant Keith Lewis, Fairfield County Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-2-1998/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/98dec2lewis.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL

December 2, 1998

I
I

Lieutenant Keith Lewis
Fairfield County Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force
P. 0. Drawer 1115
Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180

Re: Informal Opinion
Dear Lieutenant Lewis:
You indicate that the Fairfield County Drug Task Force has five vehicles in the impound lot that have been "signed over from the owners to the Fairfield County Sheriff Office by Consent Orders of Forfeiture." Furthermore, you state that "[ t]hese vehicles are not serviceable as some do not have engines." Your question is whether "we could have the vehicles appraised and sell said vehicles together for salvage." You note that ''[a]ny proceeds obtained through the sale would be placed into the Fairfield County Drug Fund."

I
Law/Analysis

In an Informal Opinion, dated May 1, 1995, we addressed the situation concerning the procedures involving the sale of a vehicle previously purchased with drug proceeds. There, we stated:
[p ]rior opinions of this Office have recognized that monies transferred to a law enforcement agency through forfeiture proceedings are "public monies" and therefore "should be maintained and spent in accordance with the laws and

/]

Rf'\IR·ER~". ~'·""" Bt;ll.Dl\1;

~(J<1#Y/J~,

•

POST OFFICE Box

11549

•

COLI '\lfl/A, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHll,\E: SO.i-7.H- <971)

•

F\C\1\111.1.

X03-2.'3-ri2.'

Lieutenant Lewis
Page 2
December 2, 1998
ordinances governing the custody and the use of public monies." Op. Atty. Gen. dated July 31, 1991. Therefore such monies could not be expended in a manner inconsistent with the use of public funds generally. Moreover, pursuant to subsection (I) of the referenced statute. " [aJn expenditure from these accounts must be made in accordance with the established procurement procedures of the jurisdiction where the account is established."

I
I

Pursuant to Section 44-53-530 (g), these funds may only be used for "drug enforcement activities." Moreover, in accordance with other provisions of that section, such funds
... must not be used to supplant operating funds in the current or future budgets. Expenditures from these accounts for an item that would be a recmTing expense must be approved by the governing body before purchase ....

I

"

Subject to the limitations set forth above regarding the use of forfeiture funds generally, funds generated by the sale of a vehicle purchased with drug fund assets would be placed back into the account established for the law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 44-53530 (g). In another opinion, Op. Atty. Gen., Op. No. 89-42 (April 10, 1989), we stated that "[i]f a vehicle which is directly transferred to the law enforcement agency pursuant to forfeiture proceedings later becomes surplus property, then disposition of that property should follow the procedures used by the agency for disposition of surplus property." Accordingly, it would appear to me, based upon the foregoing, that the procedure for disposition of the property in question would be in the same manner as generally established for the sale of surplus property in the particular county. Furthennore, any funds received from the sale of such property would be deposited in the special fund recognized in Section 44-53-530 (g). This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been vvritten by a designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney 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.

Lieutenant Lewis
Page 3
December 2, 1998
With kind regards, I am
Very truly yours,

!hr

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/ph