Did a South Carolina school district have to report suspected school crimes and allow police to investigate on campus?

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General concluded that South Carolina school districts had to contact law enforcement about suspected criminal activity within the reporting duty in Section 59-24-60. The opinion read the phrase “as defined in local board policy” as applying only to the adjacent reference to property, not as allowing local policy to narrow the rest of the statutory reporting duty.

The opinion also concluded that a district could not restrict police investigation of crimes on school grounds. It said law enforcement should be mindful of the school setting and conduct investigations in the least disruptive manner, while retaining its investigative authority.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. 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: Could a local board policy narrow every part of the school crime-reporting rule? A: The opinion said no. It treated the policy phrase as modifying the immediately preceding property language only.

Q: Could the district prevent police from investigating a crime on campus? A: The Attorney General said the district lacked authority to limit such an investigation, although police should minimize disruption in the school setting.

Q: Did the opinion discuss separate reporting to state education officials? A: Yes. It quoted the district's quarterly school-crime reporting requirement and the education department's duty to pass that information to the Attorney General.

Background and statutory framework

A city public-safety chief asked about school reporting duties and police access to crime investigations on school grounds. The opinion relied on the school-administrator notification provision, related school-crime reporting statutes, and an earlier interpretation of the local-policy phrase.

Citations and references

The original text below discusses Section 59-24-60, S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-330, and S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-350.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-28-2010/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/white-s-w-os-9083-6-28-10-schools-reporting-of-crimes-to-law-enforcement.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
AITORNEY GENERAL

June 28, 20 l 0

Sam W. White, Chief
Public Safety Department
City of Union
215 Thompson Boulevard
Union, South Carolina 29379
Dear Chief White:
Ina letter to this office you referenced the provisions ofS.C. Code Ann.§§ 59-24-60 and5963-335 which state in order:
[i]n addition to other provisions required by law or by regulation of the State Board of Education, school administrators must contact law enforcement authorities immediately upon notice that a person is engaging or has engaged in activities on school property or at a school sanctioned or sponsored activity which may result or results in injury or serious threat of injury to the person or to another person or his property as defined in local board policy.
[f]ailure of a school administrator to repmi criminal conduct as set fo1th in Section 59-24-60 or failure to report infonnation concerning school-related crime pursuant to Section 59-63-3 30 shall subject the administrator and the school district to liability for payment of a party's attorney's fees and the costs associated with an action to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the administrator and school district to comply with Section 59-24-60 or 59-63-330. S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-330 states that
[o ]n fonns prepared and supplied by the State Department of Education, each school district in the State shall report school-related crime quarterly to the State Department of Education. The department shall compile the information received from the districts and annually, not later than January thirty-first of the year following the districts' final quarterly reports of the school year, make a report to the General Assembly on the findings. In addition, the State Department ofEducation shall, upon receipt, forward all information concerning school-related crime to the Attorney General's Office. This information shall be used by the Attorney General in the supervision of the prosecution of school crime.

REMBERT c. Dll.NNIS BULL.DINO •

POST OFFICE Box 11549

• COLUMBIA, SC 29211.-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMU.B 803-253-6283

Chief White
Page2
June 28, 2010

Referencing such, you have questioned whether a school district is required to report all suspected crimes to law enforcement. You also questioned whether a school district has the authority to limit law enforcement in the investigation of crimes on school grounds. A prior opinion of this office dated December 1, 2005 dealt with the question of the applicability of the words "as defined in local board policy" as used in Section 59-24-60. It was particularly questioned whether the referenced phrase modifies the entire statutory provision or just that part of the phrase "his property." The opinion stated as follows:
[w]hen 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). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation ofa statute should not be undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Moreover, statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). In construing Section 59-24-60, it is my opinion that the rule of statutory construction termed the "last antecedent" rule is applicable. As referenced in a prior opinion of this office dated September 11, 1996, such rule states that " ... referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent." As stated in an opinion of this office dated February 5, 1980, The last antecedent consists of "the last word, phrase or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence" ... Referential and qualifying words, phrases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote .... " See also: Op. Atty. Gen. dated April 23, 1962 ("Referential and qualifying words and phrases where no contrary intention appears, refers solely to the last antecedent."). In this instance, the last antecedent is "his property". Therefore, the phrase "as defined in local board policy''is limited in applicability to the phrase "his property". Moreover, the statute was written in the disjunctive, using the word "or" several times to separate the words used in the provision. See: Op. Atty. Gen. dated July 20, 1979 ("The use of the word 'or' is presumed to be in the disjunctive sense."). Consistent with such, it is my opinion that the phrase "as defined in local board policy" is applicable only to the words "his property" and does not apply to the remainder of the reporting requirements.

Chief White
Page 3
June 28, 2010

Consistent with such, in the opinion of this office, a school district is required to report all suspected crimes to law enforcement as set forth in Section 59-24-60. As stated such statute provides that "[i]n addition to other provisions required by law or by regulation of the State Board of Education, school administrators must contact law enforcement authorities immediately upon notice that a person is engaging or has engaged in activities on school property or at a school sanctioned or sponsored activity which may result or results in injury or serious threat of injury to the person or to another person .... " I would further note that S.C. Code Ann. § 59-63-350 provides that
[l]ocal law enforcement officials are required to contact the Attorney General's "school safety phone line" when any felony, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, crime involving a weapon, or drug offense is committed on school property or at a school-sanctioned or school-sponsored activity or any crime reported pursuant to Section 59-24-60. As to your separate question of whether a school district has the authority to limit law enforcement in the investigation of crimes on school grounds, as stated in a prior opinion of this office dated April 17, 2008, citing the decision in Wuethrich v. Delia, 341 A.2d 365 at 370 (N.J. 197 5), "[p ]olice officers have the right, indeed the duty, to investigate seemingly criminal behavior or activity.... " Therefore, while law enforcement should be aware of the school setting and conduct any investigation in the least disruptive manner of the school setting, in the opinion of this office, a school district is without authority to limit law enforcement in the investigation of crimes on school grounds. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, Henry McMaster AttoJlley General

/

~) . /I ~L/ l/~/J
~"'?Ir(-./'~~
By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General