Could a South Carolina municipal judge hold a bond hearing outside city limits for a hospitalized or transferred defendant?

Plain-English summary

In 2007, the South Carolina Attorney General concluded that a municipal judge generally could not hold a bond hearing outside the municipality's territorial limits without a special grant of authority. The opinion addressed a defendant hospitalized outside the city and county, and another defendant transferred to an adjoining county jail. For the hospital situation, the AG suggested asking State Court Administration whether special approval or another judicial officer was needed. For the jail transfer, he thought the defendant would have to return to municipal court for the hearing.

The opinion also quoted the then applicable twenty-four-hour bond hearing requirement and an administrative order requiring in-person hearings, subject to approved video hearing exceptions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2007. 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 municipal judge go to an out-of-county hospital to hold bond court? A: The AG did not give an unconditional yes. He suggested State Court Administration guidance on special approval or a hearing by another judicial officer in that extraordinary situation.

Q: Could a municipal judge travel to an adjoining county jail for a transferred defendant? A: Generally no, absent a special grant of authority. The AG thought that defendant would need to be brought back to municipal court.

Q: Did the opinion allow a telephone bond hearing?
A: No. It quoted an administrative order requiring an in-person hearing and disallowing telephone hearings, with a stated exception for videoconferencing approved by Supreme Court order.

Background and statutory framework

S.C. Code Ann. § 22-5-510 governed bail hearings before magistrates, and section 14-25-45 gave municipal judges comparable bail-setting authority. The AG relied on the municipal court's territorial jurisdiction and a November 28, 2000 administrative order on bond hearing procedure. He left extraordinary arrangements outside city limits to guidance or special authorization.

Citations and references

Statutes: S.C. Code Ann. § 22-5-510; S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-45.

Court order: Chief Justice Toal's administrative order dated November 28, 2000, as quoted in the opinion.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-28-2007-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/miller-b-l-3-28-07-os-8357-bond-hearings.pdf

Original opinion text

March 28, 2007

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Municipal Court Judge
Post Office Box 40
Greenwood, South Carolina 29648
Dear Judge Miller:
In a letter to this office you referenced a situation where a defendant is arrested in a municipality which has jurisdiction and is placed in the county jail to await a bond hearing the next day. Prior to the bond hearing, the defendant becomes ill and is taken to a hospital outside the municipal limits and county where he was arrested. You questioned whether the municipal judge can go the location to conduct a bond hearing or must the warrant be sent to the county where the defendant is located for a magistrate to conduct the bond hearing. S.C. Code Ann. § 22-5-510 authorizes magistrates to admit defendants to bail for an offense, the punishment of which is other than death or life imprisonment. Such provision in subsection (B) states that
[a] person charged with a bailable offense must have a bond hearing within twentyfour hours of his arrest and must be delivered within a reasonable time, not to exceed four hours, after the bond is delivered to the incarcerating facility. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-45, municipal judges have the same authority as magistrates to set bail. Section E of the Criminal Section of the South Carolina Bench Book for Magistrates and Municipal Court Judges states that
[u]sually, the admitting magistrate or municipal judge is the judge in whose territorial jurisdiction the crime has been committed. However, if the arrest is made in a county other than that is which the offense is charged, the magistrate or municipal judge at the place of arrest may set bail. See State v. Rabens, 79 S.C. 542, 60 S.E. 442 (1908).

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Page 2
March 28, 2007

As to the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal court, generally, as stated in an opinion of this office dated September 16, 1980, “...the territorial jurisdiction of the recorder’s court is the limits of the municipality in which the court is created.” See also: Op. Atty. Gen. dated December 20, 2006. By an Administrative Order dated November 28, 2000, Chief Justice Toal ordered that
[a]ll persons incarcerated, booked, and charged with a bailable offense must have a bond hearing within twenty-four hours of their arrest as required by S.C. Code Ann.
§ 22-5-510. Further, the bonding magistrates must ensure that the procedures set forth in S.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-1505 to -1830, regarding victims’ rights, are observed. All incarcerated individuals must receive an in-person bond hearing conducted by a duly appointed judicial officer prior to their release. Bond hearings shall not be conducted over the telephone and orders of release shall not be transmitted by facsimile from remote locations. The only exceptions to these requirements is in those counties where videoconferencing of bond hearings is approved by Order of the Supreme Court. Such Order also provides that bond proceedings are to be conducted twice daily and should a Chief Magistrate desire a schedule that deviates from the twice daily schedule, the revised schedule, along with the reason for the deviation, must be submitted to the Chief Justice for approval. Section E of the Criminal Section of the Bench Book also references this Order of the Chief Justice and comments further that “[p]referential bond hearings are strictly prohibited and are considered a violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.” See: Order of the Chief Justice dated November 28, 2000. As stated above, typically, the municipal judge in whose territorial jurisdiction the crime has been committed is the judge that would hold a bond hearing. As to your question regarding a defendant who is removed from that jurisdiction, I can only suggest that if circumstances present themselves where an extraordinary bail hearing would be required, such as in the circumstances you referenced where a defendant is taken ill and hospitalized outside your territorial jurisdiction, you should contact the State Court Administration office for their guidance as to such circumstances. It may be necessary to get approval for a special bond hearing outside the municipal judge’s regular jurisdiction or to have the bond hearing conducted by another judicial officer. You also referenced a situation where a defendant is arrested in a municipality during the nonworking hours of operation of the court, booked into the county jail but then is transferred to an adjoining county jail due to law enforcement wanting to separate multiple defendants. You have

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Page 3
March 28, 2007
questioned whether the municipal judge can go to the location outside the county to conduct a bond hearing or must the defendant be brought back to the municipal court for a bond hearing. Consistent with the above, unless there is some type of special grant of authority, generally, there is no authority for a municipal judge to go to a location outside their regular municipal limits in order to conduct a bond hearing. Again, the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal court is the limits of the municipality in which the court is created. In the circumstances referenced by you, it appears that it would be necessary for the defendant to be brought back to the municipal court for a bond hearing. Sincerely, Henry McMaster Attorney General

By:

cc:

Robert McCurdy, Esquire
South Carolina Court Administration

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

______
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General