Could Mount Pleasant add a ten-dollar administrative fee to municipal-court convictions?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, Mount Pleasant asked about an ordinance adding a ten-dollar administrative service fee for offenders found guilty in municipal court. The Attorney General said the fee was constitutionally questionable under South Carolina's requirement for a unified and uniform judicial system. It drew on a state Supreme Court decision about disparate magistrate-court fee schedules and prior AG opinions questioning local court surcharges.

The office did not declare the ordinance void. It emphasized that an ordinance carried a presumption of constitutionality and that only a court could declare it unconstitutional or unenforceable. Its conclusion was a warning about the uniform-court issue, rather than a final judgment on the ordinance.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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 the AG approve the town's ten-dollar conviction fee?

A: No. It considered the ordinance constitutionally questionable because it would add a local court cost under a uniform statewide judicial system.

Q: Was the ordinance automatically invalid after the AG opinion?

A: No. The AG said only a South Carolina court could declare an ordinance unconstitutional or unenforceable.

Q: Why was a local court fee a problem?

A: The AG relied on the state constitution's uniform-court requirement and earlier opinions questioning differing local fee schedules or surcharges.

Background and statutory framework

Article V, section 1 of the South Carolina Constitution establishes a unified judicial system. The AG treated municipal courts as part of that system and compared the proposed local fee with court-cost variations that prior decisions and opinions had questioned.

Citations and references

• Article V, section 1 of the South Carolina Constitution: the unified judicial system provision.
• State ex rel. McLeod v. Crowe, 272 S.C. 41, 249 S.E.2d 772 (1978): disparate magistrate-court fee schedules.
• City of Pickens v. Schmitz, 297 S.C. 253, 376 S.E.2d 271 (1989): municipal courts as part of the unified system.

Official title

Questioning the legality of an ordinance, which imposed an administrative service fee in the amount of ten dollars on offenders found guilty in the Mount Pleasant municipal court.

Requester

R. Allen Young, Esquire

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-27-2006-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mar27-06-Young.pdf

Original opinion text

f

HENRY M CM ASTER
AITOR.' IEY G ENERAL

March 27, 2006

1

I
I

R. Allen Young, Esquire
Mount Pleasant Town Attorney
Post Office Box 745
Mount Pleasant, South Carolia 29465
Dear Mr. Young:
In a letter to this office you questioned the legality of an ordinance which imposed an administrative service fee in the amount of ten dollars on offenders found guilty in the Mount Pleasant municipal court. In reviewing the constitutionality or validity of a municipal ordinance, this office indicated in a prior opinion dated July 15, 1996 that

l..

~.
J
J

fl!l'
i

...an ordinance, if it should be adopted, would be entitled to the same presumptions of constitutionality to which an enactment of the General Assembly would be. It would be presumed that the ordinance would be constitutional in all respects. The ordinance will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt...A11 doubts of constitutionality are general1y resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this office advises whenever it may identify a particular constitutional infirmity, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to actually declare an enactment or ordinance unconstitutional or unenforceable for other reasons. That opinion examined the question of whether or not a municipality would be authorized to pass an ordinance that allowed that particular municipality to charge a thirty-fi ve dollar fee for administrative costs associated with processing expungement orders. The 1996 opinion cited the provisions ofArticle V, Section 1 ofthe State Constitution which the State Supreme Court has construed as mandating a unified and uniform judicial system in this State. See: Cort Industries v. Swirl, 264 S.C. 142, 213 S.E.2d 445 ( 1975); State ex rel McLeod v. Crowe, 272 S.C. 41 , 249 S.E.2d 772 ( 1978). Such constitutional provision states

~~~"' -"""'

• l'osT 0F>1CE 80' II 549 • COWM8'A.SC 292 11· 1549 • TELS', ONE 803· 734-3970 • FACSOMll.E 803-253-6283

f

J
Mr. Young
Page 2
March 27, 2006

The judicial power shall be vested in a unified judicial system, which shall include
a Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals, a Circuit Court, and such other courts of
uniform jurisdiction as may be provided for by general law.
Municipal courts are also part of the unified and uniform judicial system. City of Pickens v.
Schmitz, 297 S.C. 253, 376 S.E.2d 271 (1989).

I
I

In Crowe, supra, the Court dealt with legislation that established different fee schedules for
magistrate courts. The Court concluded that "(l)egislation establishing disparate fee schedules for
magistrate courts over the State conflicts with the uniformity requirements of Article V." 272 S.C.
at 47. An opinion of this office dated June 28, 1977 referenced that the Supreme Court

... has held and recognized that Article V of the Constitution mandates a statewide
unified judicial system. This constitutional provision and the Court's decisions
firmly establish the policy that the judicial system throughout the State be the same
from one county to another.
The 1996 opinion referenced above concluded that the municipal ordinance imposing the thirty-five
dollar fee relating to expungement orders would be inconsistent with Article V and, therefore,
"constitutionally questionable".

I
L

r
!

Several other prior opinions of this office have dealt with local enactments which were also
determined to be inconsistent with the requirements of a uniform court system in this State. An
opinion of this office dated March 31, 1988 dealt with the question of whether a municipality could
add a surcharge to all uniform traffic tickets resolved in the municipal courts. The opinion stated
.. .it appears that a surcharge imposed by a particular municipality to be used to defray
training costs for municipal police officers would be of doubtful constitutionality.
It could be asserted that the imposition of such surcharges by individual municipal
courts would be in conflict with the provisions of Article V of the State Constitution
which mandate a uniform judicial system in this State. However ... only a court could
make that determination.
An opinion dated June 19, 1984 dealt with the question of the constitutionality of proposed
legislation dealing with court libraries. That legislation would have granted county governing bodies
the discretion to add as costs specified amounts upon the forfeiture of bonds or when a fine was
imposed and collected in the magistrates' courts. That opinion similarly concluded that such a
practice would be inconsistent with the requirements of Article V. The opinion stated that
... by allowing each county the discretion to impose additional costs in order to fund
the county library, the proposed bill makes it possible to have a system of nonuniformity with respect to costs in the court system.

[

Mr. Young
Page 3
March 27, 2006

In particular as to the referenced Mount Pleasant ordinance which imposes a ten dollar fee
on offenders found guilty in the municipal court, an opinion of this office dated September 15, 1986
similarly dealt with the question of the validity of a county ordinance which taxed four dollars as
costs on each defendant found guilty of a criminal offense within the jurisdiction of the magistrates'
courts in that county. Citing the requirements of Article V and its mandate of a uniform judicial
system in this State, the opinion concluded that the ordinance was of "doubtful constitutionality.

I
I

Consistent with the above, it is my opinion that the referenced Mount Pleasant ordinance
charging a ten dollar fee on offenders found guilty in the municipal court would be constitutionally
questionable. However, as explained above, this Office cannot declare an ordinance to be
unconstitutional as it is solely a matter for the courts of this State to actually declare an enactment
or ordinance unconstitutional or unenforceable for any reason.
If there are any questions, please advise.

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

L
I

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~,c~~--

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General