Could a South Carolina municipal judge set a $38 fine for a seat-belt violation in 1997?

Plain-English summary

A Rock Hill officer asked whether a municipal judge could set a $38 seat-belt fine despite the statute’s $10 limit. The Assistant Deputy AG said the specific seat-belt penalty provision controlled over the court’s general authority to impose fines.

As the law stood in 1997, Section 56-5-6540 capped a single seat-belt violation at $10, prohibited court costs, and limited fines for one incident involving multiple violations to $20. The author concluded that Section 14-25-65’s general municipal-court penalty ceiling did not displace those specific rules. He noted pending legislation to increase the seat-belt penalty, without reporting that it had passed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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 the judge set the seat-belt fine at $38? A: The author said no. He applied the then specific $10 cap for a violation.

Q: Could the court add costs to that fine?
A: The quoted 1997 provision said no court costs could be assessed against the person convicted.

Q: Did the general municipal-court fine power raise the limit? A: No. The author treated the specific seat-belt statute as controlling.

Background and statutory framework

Section 56-5-6540 set the seat-belt penalties and restrictions. Section 14-25-65 gave municipal judges general penalty authority for offenses within their jurisdiction. The letter applied the rule that a specific statute prevailed over a more general one.

Citations and references

Statutes discussed: Section 56-5-6540; Section 14-25-65.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-25-1997-3/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/97march25zebedis.pdf

Original opinion text

_ID 5555 /&!?i

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

March 25, 1997

l
I
I

Lt. Frank J. Zebedis
Rock Hill Police Department
120 East Black Street
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Re: Informal Opinion
Dear Lt. Zebedis:
You have referenced a problem you are having "involving seatbelt citations and the imposed fines." You state that
[a]ccording to Section 56-5-6540 the fine for a seatbelt violation can be no more than $10.00 However, our City Judge is advising to set the fine at $38.00 based upon the authority given to him under Section 14-25-65. LAW I ANALYSIS The Seatbelt Law is codified at S.C.Code Ann. Sections 56-5-6510 et seq. Section 56-5-6520 provides that
[t]he driver and every occupant of a motor vehicle, when it is being operated on the public streets and highways of this State, shall wear a fastened safety belt which complies with all provisions of federal law for their use. The driver is charged with the responsibility of requiring each occupant over six and under seventeen years of age to wear a safety belt. Certain exceptions are provided in Section 56-5-6530.

REMBERT

c. DENNIS Bt ILDI(; • POST OFFICE Box 11549
I != rT~R

REo fu 'f·...

•

CoLnlBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Lt. Zebedis
Page 2
March 25, 1997
Section 56-5-6540 provides for the penalties for a violation of the Seatbelt Law. Such Section reads as follows:

I
I

(A) A person violating the provisions of this article, upon conviction, must be fined not more than ten dollars, all or part of which may be suspended. No court costs may be assessed against the person convicted. No person may be fined more than twenty dollars for any one incident of one or more violations of the provisions of this article. No custodial arrest for a violation of this article may be made, except upon a warrant issued for failure to appear in court when summoned or for failure to pay an imposed fine. A conviction for violation of this article does not constitute a criminal offense. (B) A law enforcement officer may not stop a driver for a violation of this article in the absence of another violation of the motor vehicle laws except when the stop is made in conjunction with a driver's license check or registration check conducted at a checkpoint established to stop all drivers on a certain road for a period of time. A citation for a violation of this article must not be issued without citing the violation that initially caused the officer to effect the enforcement stop. (C) A violation of this article does not constitute negligence per se or contributory negligence and is not admissible as evidence in a civil action. Several principles of statutory construction are applicable here. First and foremost is the time-honored rule of interpretation that the intent of the Legislature must prevail. State v. Harris, 268 S.C. 117, 232 S.E.2d 231 (1977). Words used should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Worthington v. Belcher, 274 S.C. 366, 264 S.E.2d 148 (1980). Moreover, a specific statute will generally prevail over a more general one. Gregory v. Rollins, 230 S.C. 269, 95 S.E.2d 487 (1957). Further, penal statutes are to be strictly construed. State v. Cutler, 274 S.C. 376, 264 S.E.2d 420 (1980). Based upon these rules of statutory construction, I am of the opinion that the literal requirements of Section 56-5-6540 must be followed. Such Section states expressly that no more than a fine of ten dollars may be levied for a violation. This Section further provides that "no court costs may be assessed against the person convicted" and that no person "may be fined more than twenty dollars for any one incident of one or more

Lt. Zebedis
Page 3
March 25, 1997
violations of the provisions of this article." In my view, the provisions of Section 14-2565 which state that whenever the municipal judges finds a party guilty of violating a municipal ordinance or state law within the jurisdiction of the court may impose a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for 30 days, or both are inapplicable to this statute. r

I
I

As I understand it, there is currently legislation pending which would increase the penalties for a seatbelt violation. If I obtain additional information regarding the progress of this legislation, I will certainly let you know. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Deputy 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 kind regards, I am Very truly yours,

fb-

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

RDC/ph

Yi

I