Could the Colleton County coroner also serve as the county EMS director?

Plain-English summary

Colleton County's coroner asked whether he could also become county EMS director. The AG said the coroner's elected position was a public office, but earlier opinions treated a comparable EMS director position as a salaried job without enough sovereign power to count as a second office. Assuming this EMS director role was similar, the constitutional dual office rule posed no absolute bar. The requester had not supplied a job description, so the conclusion rested on that assumption.

The AG identified a separate possible conflict: the coroner might have to investigate a death in which the EMS service he supervised had attempted resuscitation. It quoted an earlier opinion noting that a duly appointed deputy coroner could hold an inquest in that situation. The opinion did not say the potential conflict made the combined roles categorically unlawful.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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: Did the AG prohibit a county coroner from becoming EMS director?
A: No. It found no absolute dual-office prohibition on the understanding that this EMS director job resembled those considered in earlier opinions.

Q: Why did the dual-office rule not apply to both roles?
A: The AG classified the coroner as an officer but described the comparable EMS director role as a salaried position that did not appear to exercise state sovereign power or require an oath.

Q: What conflict did the opinion flag?
A: A coroner who directed EMS could face an investigation of a death involving the actions of EMS employees he supervised. The opinion noted a deputy coroner's ability to conduct an inquest.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied South Carolina's constitutional two-office prohibition using Sanders v. Belue and State v. Crenshaw. It relied on earlier AG opinions classifying coroners as officers and comparable EMS directors as outside that classification, while separately discussing the possible investigative conflict.

Citations

• Sanders v. Belue
• State v. Crenshaw

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-5-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04feb5harvey.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsn:R

February 5, 2004

ATrORNEY GENERAL

The Honorable Richard M. Harvey
Colleton County Coroner
Post Office Box 2264
Walterboro, South Carolina 29488
Dear Coroner Harvey:

In a letter to this office you indicated that you are currently the coroner for Colleton County and have been asked to consider the position of Colleton County EMS director. You have asked whether you, as an elected official, can accept the EMS director position as well. Article XVII, Section I A 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, a 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 offices which have duties involving an exercise ofsome portion of the sovereign power ofthe 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).

L,
/,;

This office has indicated on numerous occasions that the position of coroner or deputy coroner are offices for dual office holdings purposes of the State Constitution. See: Ops. Atty. Gen. dated October 16, 2000;0ctober 23, 1991; February 10, 1984. You did not provide a job description or comment specifically on the responsibilities and duties ofthe position ofEMS director. However, other opinions of this office have concluded that a county EMS director would not be considered an office for dual office holding purposes. See: Ops. Atty. Gen. dated October 16, 2000; April 20, 1987. The April 20, 1987 opinion noted that the EMS director referenced in that opinion received a salary but was not required to ta1ce an oath and did not appear to exercise the sovereign power of the State. Based upon such a similar understanding as to the position of EMS director in your situation and consistent with the previously referenced opinions, it is our opinion that there would not be any dual office holding considerations if you as coroner accepted the additional position as County EMS director.

r'

i

The April 20, 1987 opinion did point out one area of potential conflict if both positions of coroner and County EMS director were held by the same individual. The question was raised as to

1

.

/C{ {~/~ C. ~y~5~osr OmCE Box 11549 • CoUJMBJA, S.C. 29211-1549 •

TEL.EPHONE: 803-734-3970

• f ACSIMll..E.: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Richard M. Harvey
Page2
February 5, 2004

a possible problem that could emerge if the county coroner should be required to investigate a death where the EMS was involved in trying to revive an individual. That opinion noted such "complicating factor" and "cause for concern"

I
I

... since the coroner as director ofthe... (county) ... EMS potentially could be placed in the position of having to justify his own actions or those of an employee whom he supervises in the course of his investigating the cause of death in a particular case. If the coroner should be so employed and such a situation should arise, it should be noted that a duly-appointed deputy coroner would be authorized to hold an inquest. Consistent with the above, it is our opinion that there is no absolute prohibition for you as coroner to assume the position as County EMS director. However, as noted above, certain situations may present themselves which could be possibly construed as a conflict of interest. As a result, consideration must be given to accommodating those potential conflicts of interest if they present themselves. Sincerely,

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
I

V/n

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General