Did a retired South Carolina state law enforcement officer retain full police power with a retired commission in 2006?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, the South Carolina Attorney General read the retired-commission statute to let a state law enforcement officer keep the same commission in retired status that the officer held when retiring. The opinion gave a former state highway trooper's commission as an example. It also said a retired officer could keep the service weapon issued while on active duty.

The retired commission did not confer ordinary law enforcement authority. The letter reaffirmed an earlier Attorney General view that exercising that authority required employment by a state or local law enforcement agency. The inquiry involved retired constable commissions associated with the Department of Public Safety, and the opinion said those individuals were not seeking specific police powers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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: What commission did a retired officer keep?
A: The Attorney General read the statute as preserving the officer's own former commission in retired status.

Q: Could the retired officer keep the issued service weapon?
A: Yes. The opinion said the statute authorized that retention.

Q: Did the retired commission allow ordinary police enforcement?
A: No. The opinion said a retired commission did not itself provide full law enforcement authority.

Background and statutory framework

The office interpreted the statutory word “retain” and relied on an earlier opinion separating retired commission privileges from active police powers. Its answer concerned the 2006 statute and the described retirement status.

Citations and references

The linked opinion quotes the retired-commission provision and describes the earlier Attorney General interpretation.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-17-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06july17cromer.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY McMASTER
ATI'OR.NEY GENERAL

July 17' 2006

The Honorable Ronnie Cromer
Senator, District No. 18
P. 0. Box 378
Prosperity, South Carolina 29127
Dear Senator Cromer:

In a letter to this office you requested an opinion regarding the interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-225 which states:
[u]pon retirement, state law enforcement officers may retain their commissions in retired status with all rights and privileges, including the right to retain their service weapons issued while serving in active duty status. You indicated that the Department of Public Safety is implementing their own interpretation of Section 23-1-225 which, according to your letter, does not comply with such provision. A prior opinion of this office dated June 6, 2002, a copy of which is enclosed, dealt with the question of whether Section 23-1-225 allowed retired state law enforcement officers to retain law enforcement authority. The opinion concluded that an individual must be employed by a state or local law enforcement agency in order to maintain law enforcement authority. The opinion stated that
... the rights and privileges of a commission in retired status would not include law enforcement authority and a state agency... would not be granting the retiree law enforcement authority simply by allowing him or her to retain the commission. It is my understanding that the individuals who prompted your question are not seeking to maintain any specific law enforcement authority when retaining their c-0mmissions in retired status. It is also my understanding that the commission held presently by the individuals in retired status in the situation that prompted your question is a constable's commission associated with the Department of Public Safety.

~. ~~

• PosT Orne; Box II 549 • COLUMB>A, SC 292 II.1549 •

TELl;PHONE 803-,,.._ )970

•

f AC5' MU.E BOJ.213-628)

The Honorable Ronnie Cromer
Page2
July 17, 2006

I
I

When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971 ). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning and statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991); Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). The term "retain" as used in Section 23-1-225 is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, rev. 4th Edition, as "to continue to hold, have, use, recognize, etc., and to keep." Referencing the plain and ordinary meaning of "retain", in my opinion, Section 23-1-225 should be construed to indicate that state law enforcement officers should continue to hold the commissions in retired status they had at the time of their retirement. For instance, ifthe retired officer formerly had a commission as a state highway trooper, then that individual would maintain that same commission in a retired status. However, while these individuals would be authorized to keep the service weapons issued to them while in active duty, they would not be considered regular law enforcement officers with full law enforcement authority.

If there are any questions, please advise.

®/P'TtZi~
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~D,Wt--

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General