Must a police agency reimburse training costs when it hires an officer fired by the agency that trained him?

Plain-English summary

In 2010, Simpsonville's police chief asked whether a law enforcement agency that hired an officer shortly after another agency fired him had to repay the first agency's mandatory training costs. The South Carolina Attorney General said the hiring agency was responsible when the officer was hired within two years after completing that training. Section 23-23-120 made the subsequent governmental employer responsible and contained no exception based on why the officer left the first agency.

The opinion quoted the statute's different reimbursement amounts for hiring within the first year and during the second year, as well as its limits on recovering more than the training cost. The AG relied on an earlier opinion finding that an interruption in law enforcement employment did not erase the reimbursement obligation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. 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

Did the officer's termination cancel the next agency's training reimbursement duty? A: The AG said no. The rule turned on satisfactory training and a subsequent governmental hire within two years, not the reason for leaving the first job.

Did a gap between agency jobs matter?
A: The AG cited an earlier opinion saying the statute had no exception for an interruption of service during its stated period.

Who paid under the statutory reimbursement scheme?
A: The subsequent hiring governmental agency reimbursed the agency that employed the officer during mandatory training. The statute also said the officer could not be required to assume those costs.

Background and statutory framework

Section 23-23-120 addressed reimbursement when one South Carolina governmental entity trained an officer and another hired that officer within two years. The AG applied its ordinary wording and a 1998 opinion about officers who left the first agency for other reasons.

Citations and references

The opinion quoted Section 23-23-120 of the South Carolina Code and cited a September 28, 1998 AG opinion on subsequent agency reimbursement.

Official title

Reimbursement of mandatory officer training costs after termination and rehire

Requester

Charles Reece, Chief of Police, Simpsonville Police Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-21-2010/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/reece-c-os-9179-12-21-10-reimbursement-training-costs-hi.pdf

Original opinion text

H ENRY M CMASTER
ATTORNEY G ENERAL

December 21 , 2010

Charles Reece, Chief of Police
Simpsonville Police Department
405 East Curtis Street
Simpsonville, SC 29681
Dear Chief Reece:
In a letter to this office you referenced the provisions of S.C. Code Ann.§ 23-23-120 which provides for reimbursement for training costs when hiring certified law enforcement officers. Such provision states: (A) For purposes of this section, "governmental entity" means the State or any of its political subdivisions. (B) After July 1, 2007, every governmental entity of this State intending to employ on a permanent basis a law enforcement officer who has satisfactorily completed the mandatory training as required w1der this chapter must comply with the provisions of this section. (C) If a law enforcement officer has satisfactorily completed his mandatory training while employed by a governmental entity of this State and within two years from the date of satisfactory completion of the· mandatory training a different governmental entity of this State subsequently hires the Jaw enforcement officer, the subsequent hiring governmental entity shall reimburse the governmental entity with whom the law enforcement officer was employed at the time of attending the mandatory training: ( 1) one hundred percent of the cost of training the officer, which shall include the officer's salary paid during the training period and other training expenses incurred while the officer was attending the mandatory training, if the officer is hired within one year of the date of satisfactory completion of the mandatory training; or

REMBERT

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

Chief Reece
Page 2
December 21, 2010

(2) fifty percent of the cost of training the officer, which shall include the officer's salary paid during the training period and other training expenses incurred while the officer was attending the mandatory training, ifthe officer is hired after one year but before the end of the second year after the date of satisfactory completion of the mandatory training. (D) If the law enforcement officer is employed by more than one successive governmental entity within the two-year period after the date of satisfactory completion of the mandatory training, a governmental entity which reimbursed the governmental entity that employed the officer during the training period may obtain reimbursement from the successive governmental entity employer for: (1) one hundred percent of the cost of training the officer, which shall include the officer's salary paid during the training period and other training expenses incurred while the officer was attending the mandatory training, if the officer is hired within one year of the date of satisfactory completion of the mandatory training; or (2) fifty percent of the cost of training the officer, which shall include the officer's salary paid during the training period and other training expenses incurred while the officer was attending the mandatory training, ifthe officer is hired after one year but before the end of the second year after the date of satisfactory completion of the mandatory training. (E) The governmental entity that employed the officer during the training period or a governmental entity seeking reimbursement from a successive governmental entity employer must not be reimbursed for more than one hundred percent of the cost of the officer's salary paid during the training period and other training expenses incurred while the officer was attending the mandatory training. (F) A governmental entity, prior to seeking any other reimbursement, must first seek reimbursement from the subsequent hiring governmental entity under the provisions of this section. In no case may a governmental entity receive more than one hundred percent of the cost of the officer's salary paid during the training period and other training expenses incurred while the officer was attending the mandatory training. (G) No officer shall be required to assume the responsibility of the repayment of these or any other related costs by the employing agency of the governmental entity of the employing agency in their effort to be reimbursed pursuant to this section.

Chief Reece
Page 3
December 21, 2010

(H) Any agreement in existence on or before the effective date of this section, between a governmental entity and a law enforcement officer concerning the repayment of costs for mandatory training, remains in effect to the extent that it does not violate the provisions of subsections (E), (F), or (G). No governmental entity shall, as a condition of employment, enter into a promissory note for the repayment of costs for mandatory training after the effective date of this section. You have questioned whether in circumstances where a law enforcement officer was terminated from the law enforcement agency where the officer was employed at the time of mandatory training and then was subsequently hired by another law enforcement agency within the two year period following successful completion of the mandatory training, is the subsequent hiring agency responsible for the reimbursement training costs pursuant to Section 23-23-120? 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). Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose of limiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning and statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991); Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). A prior opinion of this office dated September 28, 1998 dealt with the situation where law enforcement officers resigned their positions for the reason of "intolerable working conditions ... (where) ... those officers had reason to believe that their jobs were in jeopardy and that termination was inevitable." The question raised was whether under any circumstances, does the one or two year reimbursement provision apply? The opinion concluded that the statute providing for reimbursement
... reveals no specific exception covering the situation where a police officer leaves his current employment with one police agency out of frustration or dissatisfaction, and subsequently takes a job with another law enforcement agency within the prescribed time following a brief tenure in non-law enforcement employment. The statute expressly states that if the law enforcement officer satisfactorily completes his training while employed with one agency and "within two years from the date of satisfactory completion of mandatory training", the "subsequent hiring governmental entity shall reimburse the governmental entity with whom the law enforcement officer was employed at the time of the mandatory training" in the manner prescribed. The obvious purpose of the statute is to insure that the costs incurred for

Chief Reece
Page4
December 21, 2010
training the officer by one agency are reimbursed to that agency by the "subsequent hiring governmental entity." The reasons the officer left the first agency in a particular instance -- be it for more money, greater opportunities or dissatisfaction with the present job are simply not spoken to by the statute. Neither is there recognized an exception for an interruption of service. The statutory provision simply sets a mandatory period of time within which an officer's being hired by a second agency results in that agency's incurring costs of the training. In such instance, the training costs of such officer must be reimbursed to the first agency by the subsequent hiring entity. Therefore, in the opinion of this office, in circumstances where a law enforcement officer was terminated from the law enforcement agency where the officer was employed at the time of mandatory training and then was subsequently hired by another law enforcement agency within the two year period following successful completion of the mandatory training, the subsequent hiring agency would be responsible for the reimbursement training costs pursuant to Section 23-23-120. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

ad~4/llJ...._{....
By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

;~7_22,~p2__
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General