Could a South Carolina town use a local ordinance summons instead of a uniform traffic ticket for speeding?

Plain-English summary

In 2011, the South Carolina Attorney General said a municipality could not substitute a local ordinance summons for the uniform traffic ticket when citing a speeding or other traffic offense under a municipal ordinance. §56-7-10 required the uniform traffic ticket for traffic offenses, and §56-7-80 prohibited using the ordinance summons to enforce a county or municipal ordinance regulating motor vehicles on public roads.

The legislator described a practice in which a driver stopped for speeding could choose between a uniform ticket carrying license points and a local ordinance summons without points. The AG reaffirmed earlier opinions rejecting that substitution for traffic violations. It distinguished an ordinance about securing transported refuse that did not concern how safely a vehicle was operated and could be cited with an ordinance summons. The opinion did not decide penalties for a particular municipality or officer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. 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

Could a town offer a no-points ordinance ticket for speeding? A: The AG said no. A traffic offense had to be cited using the uniform traffic ticket, even when the charge was framed as a municipal ordinance violation.

Did the ordinance summons statute allow a traffic exception? A: No. The opinion quoted §56-7-80's prohibition on using an ordinance summons to enforce local ordinances regulating motor vehicles on public roads.

Could an ordinance summons ever concern a vehicle?
A: The AG cited an earlier opinion allowing one for an ordinance on securing transported refuse because that offense did not regulate the vehicle's operation as a traffic offense.

Did the opinion impose a specific penalty on the town or its officers? A: No. It discussed a separate statutory penalty provision and an earlier opinion that left a particular municipality's or officer's liability for a court to decide.

Background and statutory framework

A representative asked about the practice described by the legislator of offering a local summons instead of a uniform speeding citation. The AG read §§56-7-10 and 56-7-80 together and followed prior opinions on municipal traffic citations. It confined its conclusion to the required ticket form for traffic-related ordinance violations.

Citations and references

The opinion quotes §§56-7-10 and 56-7-80 and discusses §56-7-40's penalties. Its holding is that the uniform traffic ticket must be used for municipal traffic offenses.

Official title

Regarding the authority of a municipality to substitute a local ordinance summons in lieu of issuing a uniform traffic ticket for a speeding violation.

Requester

The Honorable Bill Taylor, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-15-2011/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/taylor-b-os-9271-6-15-11-municipality-local-ordinance-summons-in-lieu-of-uniform-traffic-ticket.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN W ILSON

ATfORNBY GENERAL

June 15, 2011

The Honorable Bill Taylor
Member, House of Representatives
416 Blatt Building
Columbia, SC 2920 I
Dear Representative Taylor:
In a letter to this office, you request an opinion regarding the authority of a municipality to substitute a local ordinance summons in lieu of issuing a uniform traffic ticket for a speeding violation. By way of background, you provide us with the following information:
[t]his has been an ongoing practice in New Ellington, SC. When a driver is stopped for speeding the officer offers the violator a choice: accept the Uniform Traffic Citation "with points on your license" or be given a ticket for violating a local ordinance "with no points." It is my understanding that most opt for the local ordinance violation with its $185 penalty. Law/ Analysis S.C. Code Ann. §56-7- 10 states:
[t)here will be ~ uniform traffic ticket used ID: all law enforcement officers in arrests for traffic offenses and for the following additional offenses ... No other ticket may be used for these offenses. The service of the uniform traffic ticket shall vest all traffic, recorders', and magistrates' courts with jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of the charge for which the ticket was issued and served. ... [Emphasis added). Section 56-7-80 further provides that:
[u]pon adoption of the ordinance summons, any county or municipal law enforcement officer or code enforcement officer is authorized to use an ordinance summons . . . The uniform ordinance summons may not be used to perform a custodial arrest. No county or municipal ordinance which regulates

REMBERT c. DENNis BUJIDING • POST OFPlCE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 292ll-l549 • TELEPHONE 803-·734-3970 • FACStMD..I! 803-253-6283

The Honorable Bill Taylor
Page2
June 15, 2011

the use of motor vehicles on the public roads of this State may be enforced using an ordinance summons. [Emphasis added]. This office on prior occasions has addressed the question regarding the use of a uniform ordinance summons in association with municipal ordinance violations dealing with traffic offenses. In an opinion dated November 14, 2006, we discussed whether a municipality is in violation of §56-7-10 if its officers substituted the uniform traffic ticket as prescribed by statute for minor traffic offenses, such as speeding, and instead utilized a "town ticket'' when citing the municipality's "careless operation law," which carried a higher penalty but no points on the driver's license. Specifically referring to §56-7-80, we concluded that "a municipality is required to use the unifonn traffic ticket when citing for municipal ordinance violations dealing with traffic offenses.... It may not use a municipal ordinance summons in such situation." See also Ops. S.C. Atty. Gen., October 15, 2003 [stating "as to any municipal ordinance pertaining to traffic or motor vehicle offenses ... such must be cited using a uniform traffic ticket," and concluding that a municipal ordinance summons ticket may not be used]; November I 0, 1972 [relying on similar law preceding §56-7-10, and stating that "every traffic officer of the State and of all cities and counties must use the uniform traffic ticket in every case"]. In another opinion dated December 2, 2008, we addressed the enforcement of a county ordinance that dealt with the transportation of refuse and the manner in which the load transported had been secured. We noted the ordinance was irrelevant to how safely or unsafely a motorist operated the vehicle itself whicb carried the load, and that the ordinance provision was not a traffic offense. Referring to §56-7-80, we thus concluded that a violation of this transportation of refuse ordinance could be cited using a uniform ordinance summons, and that a uniform traffic ticket was not required. We also note that, pursuant to §56-7-40:
[a]ny person intentionally violating the provisions of §56-7-10 ... shall be deemed gu ilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than two hundred fifty dollars nor more than fifteen hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both, for each ticket unaccounted for, or each use of a nonuniform ticket, or each failure to timely forward the Department of Motor Vehicles records copy or audit copy of a ticket. If the failure to account for a ticket, or the use of a nonuniform ticket, or the failure to timely forward the Department records or audit copy of the ticket is inadvertent or unintentional, such misuse shall be triable in magistrate's court and upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. Any person charged with failing to timely forward the results of the annual inventory shall be tried in magistrate's court and upon conviction shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. In the November 14, 2006, opinion, we addressed whether if a municipality is determined to be in violation of §56-7-10, is it then subject to the penalties set forth in §56-7-40, and if so, is the penalty assessed against the municipality where the violation occurred or the officer who wrote the ticket. We advised that:

The Honorable Bill Taylor
Page 3
June 15,2011

... a court has never ruled on such issue. Presumably, both the municipality and its law enforcement officers would have been acting in good faith when a municipal ordinance summons was used in such situation. However, only a court could answer the question with finality. As a result, it is our recommendation that the whole question regarding the municipal offense of careless operation of a vehicle and its ramifications be brought before a court, such as in a declaratory judgment action. Until a court rules, it appears that a municipal careless operation of a vehicle ordinance should be presumed valid and that a municipality and its officers who utilize a municipal ordinance summons in such situation are acting in good faith. Conclusion Consistent with §§56-7-10 and 56-7-80, we therefore reaffirm prior opm1ons of this office advising that a municipality is required to use a uniform traffic ticket when citing for municipal ordinance violations dealing with traffic offenses. Jt may not use a municipal ordinance summons in such situation.

ff you have any further questions, please advise.
Very truly yours,

N.~:oJ

Senior Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Deputy Attorney General