Could one Saluda employee handle both police paperwork and municipal court clerking?

Plain-English summary

In a 1996 informal opinion, an assistant attorney general addressed Saluda's proposed clerk assignment. The employee would help the town clerk-treasurer and police department while also preparing municipal court docket sheets, taking traffic-fine payments, and typing warrants. The author said simultaneous work for the police and the court was inappropriate. It would create the appearance that one person served both the town's prosecutorial unit and its judicial unit, exposing the court to legal challenge and conflicting with their independence.

The clerk-treasurer also asked whether an assistant municipal judge could do court paperwork, including accepting traffic payments. The author said Court Administration had advised that this was common practice and deferred to its judgment. He did not prescribe a complete staffing structure for the town's court.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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

Q: Could a town employee assist both the police and municipal court?
A: The author said that arrangement was inappropriate because it created an appearance of combined prosecutorial and court employment.

Q: Was the concern limited to handling cash?
A: No. The request included docket sheets, fine payments, and warrants; the author focused on the employee's simultaneous police and court roles.

Q: Did the opinion forbid an assistant judge from receiving traffic-ticket payments?
A: No. On that separate question, the author deferred to Court Administration's statement that the practice was common.

Background and legal framework

Saluda contemplated a clerk who would assist the clerk-treasurer, police department, and municipal court. The author cited decisions and earlier AG advice supporting separation of prosecutorial and judicial functions. He said the office could not dictate how Saluda structured the court but considered dual police-and-court work inconsistent with that separation. For assistant-judge paperwork, he relied on Court Administration rather than issuing a separate rule.

This was an informal opinion signed by an assistant attorney general, not a formal opinion personally reviewed by the Attorney General.

Citations and references

• The letter discussed judicial and prosecutorial independence and referred the assistant-judge paperwork question to Court Administration.

Official title

Advising that the Town of Saluda is contemplating hiring a clerk and asking whether the Assistant Judge can do any and all the paperwork in relation to the Municipal Court.

Requester

Mary Burnett, Clerk-Treasurer, Town of Saluda

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-5-1996/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96dec5burnett.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF T HE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

December 5, 1996

Mary Burnett
Clerk-Treasurer
Town of Saluda
Saluda, South Carolina 2913 8
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Ms. Burnett:
This Office has received your opinion request. Your request poses two questions. First, you advise that the Town of Saluda is contemplating hiring a clerk. Apparently, this clerk would assist you in your position of Clerk-Treasurer and assist the Saluda Police Department in filing and completing reports. Your question is whether that clerk may be permitted to do general paperwork, set up docket sheets, and receive payment for traffic fines for the Municipal Court and type warrants for the Assistant Judge. Secondly, you ask whether the Assistant Judge can do any and all the paperwork in relation to the Municipal Court. You advise that this would include receiving payment for traffic tickets. In regards to your first question, in my opinio~ it would not be appropriate for an individual to work simultaneously for the Police Department and the Municipal Court. Although, as I understand, the individual hired wculd primarily assist you in your position as Clerk-Treasurer, the individual's assistance to the Police Department would create the appearance that the individual is employed by the prosecutorial unit of the Town of Saluda. In South Carolina, it is well accepted that law enforcement officers may prosecute misdemeanor cases in municipal court. City of Easley v. Cartee, 309 S.-C. 420, 424 S.E.2d 491 (1992). In addition, the individual's assistance to the Municipal Court would create the appearance that the individual is employed by the court system. This Office has recognized in an opinion dated January 25, 1995,
[c]learly the prosecutor must, at all times avoid the appearance or reality of a conflict of interest. State v. Capps, 276 S.C. 59, 275 S.E.2d 872 (1981). l) _ _

RE \ mERT_C. Qi,..;Slllrn.1>1:-(;

~

Oil""'"~~

•

PnsT OPFJC"E Box 11549

•

CowMBJ A.

s.c. 2921 > 1549

•

T ELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSl~HLE: 803-253-6283

Ms. Burnett
Page 2
December 5, 1996
Moreover, it has been stated elsewhere that
[t]he need to keep the prosecutorial function separate from the judicial function is obvious if we are to have an impartial judiciary. In re Pending Cases, Augusta Jud. Dist., 234 Ga. 264, 215 S.E.2d 473 (1975)[dissenting opinion]. Another authority has recognized that a court "must not violate the basic principle that in our system of justice the judicial and prosecutorial functions are separate and distinct and are not to be merged." U.S. v. Jacguillon, 469 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1972). The same principle requiring separation is applicable to court employees who must "maintain a disinterested attitude." 21 C.J.S., Courts, § I 07. This Office cannot tell the Town of Saluda how its municipal court system must be structured. I can only comment generally that when an individual works for the Police Department and the Municipal Court, such will subject the Municipal Court to legal attack and is inconsistent with the principle of judicial and prosecutorial independence. As a general rule, prosecutorial functions should be kept completely separate from judicial functions and should be performed by different persons. In regards to your second question, this Office has been advised by Court Administration that this is a common practice in South Carolina and I defer to their judgment in this matter. If you are in need of any further clarification on this subject, I would recommend that you contact Court Administration at (803) 734-1800.

This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated assistant 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. With kindest regards, I remain Very truly yours,

RJ.Al.J

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General