How could Aiken enforce unpaid parking tickets under South Carolina law in 2000?

Plain-English summary

Aiken's records bureau asked how the city could proceed when vehicle owners did not pay parking tickets. The 2000 informal opinion pointed to an ordinance-summons procedure in Section 56-7-80. If Aiken had adopted that procedure, it could issue an ordinance summons for a parking violation. A person who then failed to appear in court without first posting bond could face the misdemeanor penalties described in the statute, including arrest under the opinion's account.

The AG also said the statute did not make the summons procedure exclusive. Aiken could use another authorized means if its own ordinance provided for ticketing and subsequent arrest for failure to pay. The letter did not identify an Aiken ordinance or find that any particular ticket met those conditions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. 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 an unpaid parking ticket itself require arrest?
A: No. The opinion described a conditional route: Aiken had to adopt the ordinance-summons procedure, and the person had to fail to pay or appear as the letter described.

Q: What did the ordinance summons do?
A: Under the statute discussed in the letter, it let a municipality enforce local law through a summons. Failure to appear without posting bond could be a misdemeanor.

Q: Was Section 56-7-80 the only enforcement route?
A: No. The AG said the section preserved other authorized means, including any Aiken ordinance that provided for ticketing and later arrest in the circumstances described.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion relied on a prior AG letter discussing Section 56-7-80 and applied that statute's ordinance-summons mechanism to parking violations. Its answer depended on whether Aiken had adopted the procedure or another ordinance authorizing the relevant enforcement.

Citations and references

• Section 56-7-80, ordinance summonses and the consequences of failure to appear without posting bond.

Official title

Asking for clarification in the procedures for parking violations.

Requester

Greg Carter, Records Bureau Supervisor, Aiken Department of Public Safety

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-31-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00july31carter.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
C HARUE C ON D ON
.-'..ITO R'.'i EY G E ~E R A L

July 31 , 2000

Greg Carter, Records Bureau Supervisor
Aiken Department of Public Safety
Post Office Box 11 77
Aiken, South Carolina 29802

Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Carter,
Thank you for your letter of January 25, 2000, requesting an opinion of the Attorney General's Office. You ask for clarification in the procedures for parking violations. Specifically, you wish to know how the city may proceed when the owners fails to pay the parking tickets.

I
,..

,,

Enclosed for your review are several prior opinions of this Office which address various concerns related to parking violations. You may note with particular attention the opinion dated July 19, 1996, which discusses South Carolina Code of Laws Section 56-7-80. This section authorizes counties and municipalities to adopt by ordinance and use an ordinance summons to enforce local law. If the City of Aiken has adopted the ordinance summons, the statute also provides that upon issuance of the summons, if the person fails to appear before the court without first posting bond, he is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined or imprisoned. The ordinance summons would be a mechanism for the municipality to issue parking tickets . Then. if a person fails to pay the tickets or appear in court, the person may be arrested pursuant to this section. The statute also states that it does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing its laws by any other authorized means. Thus. if the City of Aiken has adopted an ordinance which provides for the ticketing and subsequent arrest of the person for failure to pay for parking violations, then the City would not have to proceed exclus ively under S.C. Code§ 56-7-80. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Deputy Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General not officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

)

RE \IBl :kT C . D1c:-;,..1s 13 1 ILlll'-t;

·~~Yb7 .-

•

P osT Oi+ tn. HrJ.\

115-N

•

Cot .l.' \llll ,. SC. 2921 1- 1549

•

TEl.l ' l'IHJ:-<E : ~03- 714-3970

•

F\CSl\111.1' : X!l.1-2'i3-fi2X .\

Mr. Carter
Page 2
July 31, 2000

With kind regards, I remain

"*'~istant Deputy Attorney General

I

I