Could a neighboring town police Highway 302 where the road bordered its limits, though Cayce had annexed it?

Plain-English summary

Cayce’s public safety director asked whether another town could police a part of Highway 302 that Cayce had annexed in 1955. The Assistant AG said that, on the boundary description supplied, the other town had jurisdiction over the road segment touching its limits under Section 5-7-155, regardless of which municipality contained the road. The answer was based on the requester’s account of the road and boundaries.

The letter also explained two separate ways officers could act outside ordinary city limits: pursuit of an offender for up to three miles under the cited 1998 provision, and response to a distress call or assistance request in an adjacent jurisdiction under § 17-13-45. Because the boundary-road rule answered the first question, the letter did not separately analyze a hypothetical case lacking pursuit. It identified itself as informal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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 Cayce’s annexation eliminate the neighboring town’s boundary-road jurisdiction? A: The Assistant AG said no on the described facts; Section 5-7-155 applied regardless of which municipality contained the road.

Q: Was pursuit the only way to act outside town limits? A: No. The letter also discussed boundary-road jurisdiction and responses to distress calls or assistance requests.

Q: Did the AG inspect the boundary himself? A: The conclusion rested on the requester’s description that the other town bordered the specified highway segment.

Background and statutory framework

The letter quoted Section 5-7-155 on roads touching municipal boundaries and roads between municipalities. It also quoted the then-applicable pursuit provision and § 17-13-45 on assistance in an adjacent jurisdiction.

Citations and references

Statutes discussed: Section 5-7-155; § 17-13-45; 17-13-40.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-19-1998/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/1998/01/00149114.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
AlTORNEY GENERAL.

January 19, 1998

A.G. Dantzler
Director
Cayce Department of Public Safety
Post Office Box 2004
Cayce, SC 29171-2004
RE:

Informal Opinion
Opinion Request of December 10, 1997

Dear Director Dantzler:
Your opinion request of December 10, 1997, concerned police jurisdiction between two municipalities. You described your concern that another town was claiming jurisdiction on Highway 302, which was incorporated into the city limits of Cayce in 1955. The specific issues you presented are as follows: 1) Highway 302 was annexed by ordinance in 1955, can this town now in 1997 claim jurisdiction on any part of this highway for policing purpose? 2) Since this is in our city limits by ordinance can they make cases against people that they did not "follow" out of their jurisdiction? It's always been my understanding ~e could not. If you answer to #1 is they do have jurisdiction then #2 won't need an answer. I enclose for your reference a previous opinion from this office which answers your questions. See Atty. Gen. Op. 1996 WL 679468 (Oct. 15, 1996). The secondary roads which were the subject of this prior opinion were located outside the corporate limits of the Town of Salem. In addressing police jurisdiction of the Town of Salem over these secondary roads, this prior opinion stated that, "[i]n the usual case, law enforcement officials of the Town of Salem would not have jurisdiction over traffic offenses on those roads." However, the Opinion pointed to two statutes which extend police jurisdiction to roads and highways outside the corporate limits of the entity they serve. In one statute, police jurisdiction is extended three miles outside the corporate limits of a city or town when the police are R EMB ERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE Box l 1549

•

COLUMBIA.

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSl~llLE: 803-253-6283

A.G. Dantzler
Page 2
January 19, 1998

in pursuit of an offender who leaves the corporate limits. 17-13-40 of the South Carolina Code provides as follows:

Section

The police authorities of all towns and cities of this State may make arrests of all offenders against the municipal ordinances and statutes of this State committed within the corporate limits or at any place within a radius of three miles of the corporate limits, with or without a warrant, when such police are in pursuit of such offender.

s.c. Code Ann. 17-13-40

(Law. Co-op. 1976)

(emphasis added).

In another statute, police jurisdiction is extended beyond corporate limits of a city or town when a highway or street serves as a boundary between municipalities. Section 5-7-155 provides as follows: If any portion of a street or highway is within the boundary of a municipality, the right of way of the street or highway is not within the municipal boundary but touching the boundary is nevertheless considered to be within the boundary of the municipality for purposes of its police jurisdiction.

I
I

A street or boundary which serves as the boundary between municipalities is under the police jurisdiction of both municipalities regardless of the municipality in which the street or highway is located. S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-155. As stated in this prior opinion, "[t]he necessary inference of §5-7-155 is that the police jurisdiction over streets or highways would be those streets or highways located in the municipality and those streets or highways touching the municipal boundary, but not those streets otherwise beyond the municipal boundary." In 1997, the South Carolina Legislature enacted another statute which extends police jurisdiction to respond to distress calls from an adjacent jurisdiction. Section 17-13-45 provides as follows: When a law enforcement officer responds to a distress call or a request for assistance in an adjacent jurisdiction, the authority, rights, privileges, and immunities, including coverage under workers' compensation laws, and tort liability coverage obtained pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 78, Title 15, that

A.G. Dantzler
Page 3
January 19, 1998

are applicable to an officer within the jurisdiction in which he is employed are extended to and include the adjacent jurisdiction.

s.c. Code Ann.

§ 17-13-45 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1997).
Based upon
these three statutes, therefore, police jurisdiction extends. outside corporate limits (1) to allow the police to pursue an offender for three miles outside the corporate limits; (2) to include any street or highway which borders the corporate limits of the city or town; and (3) to include an adjacent jurisdiction when the officer responds to a distress call or call for assistance.

I

I

In your letter, you explained that another town claims jurisdiction on Highway 302 "where their town boundaries boarder highway 302, approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile on the north side, from I-26 to Boston Avenue." Based upon your description of this other town's boundaries bordering upon Highway 3 02, pursuant to Section 5-7-155 of the South Carolina Code, this other town would have police jurisdiction over this area, "regardless of the municipality in which the street or highway is located." Therefore, in response to your question, this other town would have jurisdiction over a street or highway which borders its corporate limits. Further, the police officers in this other town would have jurisdiction three miles outside the corporate limits of the town when the police are in pursuit of an offender and would have jurisdiction outside their town's corporate limits when your officers place a distress call to the officers in this adjacent town. 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 questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I am Very truly yours,

Ch~

Barrett
Assistant Attorney General
Enclosure