Did police have to remove a suspect’s name before releasing a South Carolina incident report?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, a sheriff's chief deputy asked whether suspect information had to be deleted from an incident report before release when an investigation was ongoing, no warrant had been issued, or a suspect had not been convicted. The Attorney General's office said those facts did not, by themselves, require deletion under the two statutes cited in the request.

The office still required a report-by-report examination for information exempt under another Code provision. It said the law enforcement exemption gave agencies discretion to withhold material meeting its stated conditions. On the second question, the letter said incident reports were public records and that the victim-copy statute was enacted in part to ensure victims received one. The letter was informal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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

Must police remove a suspect’s name from every report in an open case? A: The AG said no automatic deletion followed merely from an ongoing investigation, an unissued warrant, or lack of conviction.

Could some incident-report information still be withheld? A: Yes. The opinion said agencies had to assess each report for applicable exemptions and identified a law enforcement provision allowing withholding when its conditions were met.

Could a crime victim receive an incident report?
A: The letter treated incident reports as public records and said the victim-copy statute was enacted in part to ensure victims received a copy.

Did the letter say every report had to be released in full? A: No. It expressly called for a case-by-case review of exempt information.

Background and statutory framework

The request compared Section 30-4-50(8)'s treatment of incident reports with Section 30-4-40(3)'s law enforcement exemption. The office reconciled them by rejecting an automatic suspect-name deletion rule while preserving review of specific exemptions. It also discussed Section 16-3-1520 on victim access.

Citations and references

Statutes: Sections 30-4-50(8), 30-4-40(3), and 16-3-1520.

Official title

Asking whether an agency must delete suspect information from an incident report prior to releasing it if the investigation is ongoing, a warrant has not yet been issued, or the suspect has not been convicted?

Requester

Tom O. Gainey, Chief Deputy, Darlington County Sheriff’s Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-17-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99june17gainey.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL.

June 17, 1999

I

Tom 0. Gainey
Chief Deputy
Darlington County Sheriff's Department
P.O. Box 783
Darlington, South Carolina 29540

RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Chief Deputy Gainey:
Attorney General Condon has forwarded your opinion request to me for reply. In your request, you state the following: Section 30-4-50(8) of the South Carolina Code Ann. states that incident reports that disclose the nature, substance, and location of any crime or alleged crime reported as having been committed is public information. However, S 30-4-40(3) provides, in relevant part, that records of law enforcement and public safety agencies not otherwise available by law that were compiled in the process of detecting and investigation crime are exempt from disclosure if the disclosure of the information would harm the agency by ... (B) the premature release of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action; ... or (D) by endangering the life, health, or property of any person. 1.

REMBERT

Reading these two statutes together, must an agency delete suspect information from an incident report prior to releasing it if the investigation is ongoing, a warrant has not yet been issued, or the suspect has not been convicted?

c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE B ox 11549

REQUEST LETTER

•

C OL UMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

T ELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Chief Deputy Gainey
Page 2
Junel7,1999
According to S 16-3-1520, prior to an arrest, law enforcement must provide a free copy of the incident report to the victim. 2.

I
I

Does this section give a law enforcement agency the authority to release incident reports to victims without deleting suspect information?

In regards to your first question, the two Code sections cited in your letter do not, in and of themselves, require a law enforcement agency to delete suspect information from an incident report prior to releasing the report under the Freedom oflnformation Act. The fact that an investigation is ongoing, a warrant has not been issued, or the suspect has not been convicted would not alter this conclusion. However, the law enforcement agency would be required to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular incident report contains information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to another provision of the Code. Further, Section 30-4-40(3) gives law enforcement agencies the discretion to exempt from disclosure materials which satisfy the requirements listed therein. As to your second question, incident reports are deemed to be public records and, thus, subject to disclosure by the Freedom oflnformation Act. Section 16-3-1520 was enacted, in part, to ensure that victims receive a copy of these reports.

I

r~

•
I
II
I

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 kindest regards, I remain Very truly yours,

f?At.~
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General