Could a Clemson University patrol officer also serve on a South Carolina town council?

Plain-English summary

A Clemson University patrolman asked whether he could also serve on the Liberty town council. The February 2001 informal opinion said the constitutional dual office restriction appeared not to bar these particular roles. The officer said his police authority came solely from a state constable commission, and the Constitution excepted constables from its dual office prohibition.

The AG treated town council membership as a public office but analyzed the patrolman's role under the constable exception. The letter recommended checking whether SLED had relevant rules and noted that the state Supreme Court was then considering another police officer's dual office case. It did not decide how that pending case would end.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. 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

Campus patrol officers

The result depended on the stated source of this patrolman's authority: a commission as a constable. The opinion did not analyze every type of campus police position.

Town council members

The AG said municipal council service counted as an office, but a second position covered by the constitutional constable exception did not violate the dual office rule on these facts.

Common questions

Could this Clemson patrolman serve on Liberty's council?
A: The AG said it appeared the dual office ban would not be violated because the patrolman's power came solely from a constable commission.

Did the opinion cover every university police officer?
A: No. It relied on the requester's statement about his own constable commission.

Did the AG settle possible SLED restrictions?
A: No. The letter recommended contacting SLED about any rules or regulations on the combination.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied Article XVII's dual office clause and constable exception. It said campus security departments were staffed by constables commissioned under Section 23-1-60 and drew on earlier AG opinions about council seats.

Citations and references

• The AG said the patrolman's law enforcement powers were “derived solely from the constable commission.”

Official title

Concerning whether a dual office holding situation exists if a member of the Clemson University Police Department serves simultaneously as a town councilman.

Requester

Mark H. Durham

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-26-2001/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01feb-26-durham.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CormoN
ATTOR."<EY GENERAL

Februaiy 26, 2001

Mr. Mark H. Durham
211 0 'Dell Street
Liberty, South Carolina 29657
Dear Mr. Durham:
By your letter of February 12, 2001, you have requested an opinion of this Office concerning dual office holding. Specifically you ask if you may serve simultaneously as a Clemson University Police Department Patrolman and a town councilman. Article XVII, Section 1A of the State Constitution provides that "no person may hold two offices of honor or profit at the same time .. .," with exceptions specified for an officer in the militia, member of a lawfully and regularly organized fire department, constable, or notary public. For this provision to be contravened, a person concurrently must hold two public offices which have duties involving an exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of the State. Sanders v. Belue, 78 S.C. 171, 58 S.E. 762 ( 1907). Other relevant considerations are whether statutes, or other such authority, establish the position, prescribe its duties or salary, or require qualifications or an oath for the position. State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d 61 (1980). This Office bas advised on numerous occasions that a member of a city or town council would be considered an officer for dual office holding purposes. See, as representative of those numerous opinions, OPS. ATTY. GEN. April 12, 1998; June 12, 1995; Feb. 4, 1994; July 23, 1993; July 24, 1991.

Regarding your position as a Patrolman for the Clemson University Police Department, you state that your law enforcement authority is derived solely from a State constable commission signed and issued by the Governor and the Chief of SLED. State law provides that campus security departments are staffed by constables commissioned pursuant to Section 23-1-60 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. See S.C. CODE ANI. § 59-116-20. TI1erefore, since your law enforcement powers are derived solely :from the constable commission, the position must be analyzed for dual office holding purposes in the same manner as any other constable position. As such, the position would faJl under the exception provided for constables found in the Constitution. See also OPS. ATTY. GEN. Jan. 25, 1999; JW1e 3, 1998.

REMBERT C. DEN~1s BUll.DING
/ ) P/) ,,

hA'-/. -,. . .J~

•

Posr Omen Box 11549

•

CoLL"MBIA, S.C. 292 l l-1549

•

Ter.EPAONE: 803 -734-3970

•

FACSIMl1. E: 803-253-6283

Mr. Durham
February 26, 2001
Page 2of2

L

I

Based on the foregoing, due to the exception found in the Constitution for constables, it would appear that the dual oft1ce holding prohibitions would not be violated if you were to serve as a Clemson University Patrolman and a councilman for the town of Liberty. However, I would recommend that you contact SLED to detem1ine whether that agency possesses any rules and regulations on this subject. Also, you may be interested to know that the Supreme Court of South Carolina is currently reviewing the dual office holding question in regards to a Mount Pleasant police officer who also serves on the Berkeley County Council. Although presently only at the briefing stage, the Court may ultimately provide further guidance on this question and clarify how positions of law enforcement fit within the dual office holding provisions of the Constitution. 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 question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officialJy published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I remain Very truly yours,

I

Susannah Cole
Assistant Attomey General