Could a South Carolina reserve police officer also work full time as a licensed hospital security guard?

Plain-English summary

A senator asked about a constituent who had been told to leave reserve police service after taking a full-time hospital security job requiring a SLED card. The AG concluded that simultaneously serving as a reserve police officer and licensed private security guard violated South Carolina's dual office holding prohibition under the law and prior opinions it reviewed in 2004.

The opinion treated both roles as public offices for this constitutional purpose and noted that an earlier AG opinion permitting the combination had been overruled. It also said a separate “moonlighting” statute did not provide an exception for this pairing.

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: Could a reserve police officer keep serving while working as a licensed hospital security guard?
A: The AG said no. It treated the simultaneous roles as two covered offices under the constitutional rule.

Q: Did the state’s moonlighting statute allow the combination?
A: The AG said the exceptions discussed under that statute were distinct from the dual-office question and did not alter its answer.

Q: Had the AG previously allowed this pairing?
A: The opinion said a 1980 view suggesting it might be permitted had been overruled by a 1991 opinion concluding the combination violated the constitution.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied the constitutional test for two offices involving an exercise of sovereign power and cited Sanders v. Belue and State v. Crenshaw. It relied on earlier AG opinions classifying reserve officers and private security guards as covered officers. It also discussed Section 23-24-10 when distinguishing moonlighting rules.

Citations

• Section 23-24-10
• Sanders v. Belue
• State v. Crenshaw

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-9-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04feb9hawkins.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsn:R

February 9, 2004

ATIORNEY GENERAL

..
The Honorable John D. Hawkins
South Carolina Senate, District 12
606 Gressette Senate Building
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Senator Hawkins:
Thank you for your recent request for advisory opinion from this Office concerning dual office holding. You have attached a correspondence from a concerned constituent who has been denied the opportunity to continue his service as a reserve police officer as the result of his taking a job as a full-time hospital security guard. The constituent was told that he could not "work with a SLED card and work under the Academy certification at the same time." You have asked for the opinion of this Office on the matter. i

Law/Analysis

,.

Article XVII, Section IA of the South Carolina 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 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).

L

I

This Office has advised on numerous occasions that both reserve police officers and private security guards are officers for purposes of dual office holding. See, as representative of those numerous opinions, Ops. S.C. Atty. Gen. dated February 5, 1988, May 2, 1989 and June 5, 1979 (re8erve officer); May 14, 1986, March 11, 1983, and January 28, 1975 (private security guards). More importantly, we specifically advised in an opinion dated August 12, 1991 (copy attached), that a person who simultaneously serves as a private security guard and a reserve police officer would clearly violate the dual office holding prohibition of the South Carolina Constitution, overruling a previous opinion (dated September 12, 1980) which indicated that such concurrent service may be pennissible. We are aware of no recently enacted law which would alter the August 12, 1991

#//1 .. ~ERT/~/~ING

•

PosrOFFJCEBox 11549 • COWMB!A,S.C. 29211-1549 • TEl..EPHONC: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMD.l:: 803-253-6283

f

l

The Honorable John D. Hawkins
Page2
February 9, 2004

opinion. This Office has also distinguished the exceptions found in the "moonlighting'' statute, S.C. Code Ann. Section 23-24-10, from the situation presented here. See Op. S.C. Atty. Gen. dated September 24, 1985 (advising that SLED should not register a law enforcement officer as a private detective or private security guard). Based on the foregoing, this Office advises that an individual who works as both a full-time, licenced security guard and a reserve police officer would do so in violation of the state constitution's prohibition on dual office holding. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

I
I
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Li

•

L
I