Could a South Carolina private security guard direct traffic on a public road miles from the assigned site?

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General concluded that a private security guard hired for a particular property lacked authority to direct traffic on a public roadway, even if the road was near the assigned site. The statute limited the guard's arrest authority to the property where the guard was employed, and earlier opinions rejected private security law enforcement powers on public streets.

The police chief's example involved a guard operating several miles away. The office said distance did not change the answer: the public-roadway location was outside the guard's statutory jurisdiction.

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

Q: Could a guard direct traffic on a public road near the site being protected? A: The opinion said no. It treated a public roadway as outside the property where the guard's authority applied.

Q: Would the answer change if the road was several miles away? A: No. The office said a guard had no traffic-direction jurisdiction on a public roadway regardless of the distance from the assigned property.

Q: What property did the statute cover?
A: The opinion quoted a provision limiting a licensed guard's arrest power to the specific property on which the guard was employed.

Background and statutory framework

Blacksburg's police chief asked whether a private guard could direct roadway traffic and whether distance from the assigned site mattered. The office applied the private security statute and earlier opinions limiting guard law enforcement authority to the protected property.

Citations and references

The original opinion text below quotes Section 40-18-110 of the South Carolina Code.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-1-2010/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ham-j-p-os-9009-2-1-10-jurisdiction-private-security-guard.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

February I, 2010

Jamie P. Ham, Chief of Police
Blacksburg Police Department
Post Office Box 517
Blacksburg, South Carolina 29702
Dear Chief Ham:
In a letter to this office you questioned whether a private security guard has jurisdiction to direct traffic on a public roadway. You also questioned whether there is a jurisdictional limit in distance for a private security guard from the original location for which he is hired to provide security services. You particularly referenced the situation of a security guard directing traffic at a distance of several miles from a location for which he is hired to provide security guard services.

As to private security guards licensed by SLED pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.§§ 40-18-20 et seq., Section 40-18-110 states
[a] person who is registered or licensed under this chapter and who is hired or employed to provide security services on specific property is granted the authority and arrest power given to sheriffs deputies. The security officer may arrest a person violating or charged with violating a criminal statute of this State but possesses the power of arrest only on the property on which he is employed. (emphasis added). A prior opinion of this office dated September 29, 2006 determined that " ... private security guards have no authority to exercise law enforcement authority except on the private property they are hired to protect. .. (citing Section 40-18- 110) . ... " Another opinion dated April 2, 1980 concluded that ~, ... a private security guard is not authorized ... to exercise the power of arrest on public property." Citing these prior opinions, another opinion of this office dated April 7, 2008 held that " ... a county would not be authorized to contract with a private security company for law enforcement purposes even though services ... would constitute private security." See also: Op. Atty. Gen. dated June 8, 1993 (" .. .it does not appear that a county could contract with a private security firm to serve as guards at a county detention facility."); Op. Atty. Gen. dated April 2, 1980 (" ... a municipality is not authorized to contract with a private security agency to provide the personnel of the private agency the power of arrest on public streets and public property."). Consistent with the above, in the opinion of this

REMBERT c. D ENNIS B UILDING •

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, SC 2921 L-1549

• TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

Chief Ham
Page2
February 1, 2010

office, a private security guard would not have jurisdiction to direct traffic on a public roadway regardless of the distance from the original location which they are hired to protect. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

dJ,r!(JZJ_~
By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

l'7~r:l) G-J~
I

Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General