Did South Carolina's 1989 lottery ban cover a paid courier buying tickets in another state for a local customer?

Plain-English summary

In 1989, a solicitor asked whether a Spartanburg arrangement violated South Carolina's then existing lottery ban: a customer paid a courier to buy a ticket in another state and deliver it back. The Attorney General read the cited lottery statutes as prohibiting the described arrangement. The opinion pointed to provisions against paying toward a lottery and offering tickets for sale, and stressed the state's longstanding policy against gambling at that time.

The office also said the line between lawful avoidance and unlawful evasion could depend on facts. It found no South Carolina decision addressing the same courier arrangement, so its conclusion was the office's interpretation of the statutes as they then stood.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989. 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 buying the ticket in another state end the 1989 South Carolina inquiry?
A: No. The opinion focused on the customer's payment and delivery arrangement in South Carolina and concluded that the described scheme violated the then cited statutes.

Q: Did the AG identify an earlier South Carolina case on the same courier facts?
A: No. It said its research had found no reported state case or prior opinion addressing that precise arrangement.

Q: Did the opinion say every attempted workaround was automatically unlawful?
A: No. It said distinguishing avoidance from evasion was a question of fact, while concluding this described arrangement fell within the statutes.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted the then state constitutional lottery ban and discussed Code Sections 16-19-20 and 16-19-30. It applied those provisions to a paid out-of-state ticket purchase and return delivery. The page records the 1989 interpretation only; the historical currency note matters especially for lottery laws.

Citations and references

• South Carolina Constitution, article XVII, section 7: lottery prohibition quoted in the opinion.
• South Carolina Code Sections 16-19-20 and 16-19-30: payment toward a lottery and ticket sales provisions discussed in the opinion.
• Darlington Theaters, Inc. v. Coker, 190 S.C. 282, 2 S.E.2d 782 (1939): avoidance versus evasion distinction discussed in the opinion.

Official title

Concerning a scheme in Spartanburg whereby an individual pays a courier service a fee in order for the service to buy a lottery ticket in another state which is then delivered back to the purchaser. This opinion addresses whether such a scheme is in violation of this State’s laws prohibiting lotteries.

Requester

The Honorable Holman C. Gossett, Jr., Solicitor, Seventh Judicial Circuit

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-10-1989-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/00147458.pdf

Original opinion text

Witt ~tt nf ~nutf1 C!rarnlina

I
L
I

ill. liraui11 flhlllock

803-734-3970

.Attornru <itntral

QJolumbia 29211

Attorney ~eneral

January 10, 1989

The Honorable Holman c. Gossett, Jr.
Solicitor, Seventh Judicial Circuit
Spartanburg County Courthouse
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29301
Dear Solicitor Gossett:

l
I

Questions have been referred to this Off ice concerning a scheme in Spartanburg whereby an individual pays a courier service a fee in order for the service to buy a lottery ticket in another state which is then delivered back to the purchaser. This Office has been asked whether such a scheme is in violation of this State's laws prohibiting lotteries. Pursuant to Article 17, Section 7 of the State Constitution "(n)o lottery shall ever be allowed or be advertised by newspapers, or otherwise, or its tickets be sold in this State." An exemption for bingo is provided by such provision. See also: Section 52-1720 of the Code. Section 16-19-20 of the Code states "(w)hoever shall be adventurer in or shall pay any moneys or other consideration or shall in any way contribute unto or upon account of any sales or lotteries ... "is guilty of adventuring in lotteries. The statute most. often referenced pertaining to lotteries is Section 16-19-30 of the Code which states: (i)t shall be unlawful to offer for sale any lottery tickets or to open or keep any off ice for the sale of lottery tickets .... For the violation of such provision a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars is provided. This Office in prior opinions has stated that a scheme which attempts to evade the terms of the statutes

The Honorable Holman c. Gossett, Jr.
Page 2
January 10, 1989

prohibiting lotteries is suspect. See: Opinions dated January 21, 1974 and March 30, 1982. As stated by the South Carolina Supreme Court in Darlington Theaters, Inc. v. Coker, 190 s.c. 282, 2 S.E.2d 782 (1939), (a) plan which openly seeks to avoid the terms of a statute is a lawful one, but one which seeks to evade the statute is an unlawful one.

I

L

190

s.c. at 299.

The test of whether a scheme is an evasion of the law or an avoidance of it is a question of fact.

I

Research by this Off ice has not revealed any cases in this State in which Sections 16-19-20 or 16-19-30 have been interpreted as to facts similar to the referenced scheme in Spartanburg. Also, I am unaware of any prior opinions of this Off ice construing such a factual situation. However, in an opinion of this Office dated December 1, 1986 I recognized this State's long-standing public policy against gambling and gaming in rejecting the view that parimutuel betting does not constitute a lottery. Such view is consistent with the recognition by our State Supreme Court in Army Navy Bingo, Garrison i2196 v. Plowden, 281 s.c. 226, 314 S.E.2d 339 (1984) that there is no fundamental right to gamble protected by the Federal Constitution and that the State's authority to counter gambling is "practically unrestrained."

A plain reading of Sections 16-19-20 and 16-19-30 of the Code indicates that the scheme in Spartanburg whereby an individual pays a courier service a fee in order for the service to buy a lottery ticket in another state which is then delivered back to the purchaser is in violation of such provisions. As referenced, Section 1619-20 prohibits an individual from adventuring in or paying money or in any way contributing to a lottery while Section 16-19-30 prohibits offering lottery tickets for sale or keeping or opening any office for the sale of lottery tickets. With best regards, I am yours,

ravis Medlock
Attorney General
TTM/an