Could a South Carolina fire authority demand a medical transport helicopter during an emergency?

Plain-English summary

A legislator relayed a fire chief’s concern that operating procedures might allow only paramedics, and not fire authorities, to request a medical transport helicopter during an emergency. In March 2002, the South Carolina AG said the fire-district emergency-powers statute did not by itself determine which public-safety entity had operational control of that helicopter. The answer depended on the nature of the event and the officials involved.

The letter quoted §6-11-1420 on an authorized fire representative’s powers at a fire or other emergency. It also cited an earlier opinion saying the provision did not explain how officials with overlapping jurisdiction should cooperate. Absent legislative clarification, the AG suggested an agreement among the emergency organizations. He did not rule that every fire authority could request or command the aircraft.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. 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.

Historical summary

Fire districts

The AG recognized the broad emergency powers quoted in the statute, but did not infer a categorical right to control helicopter operations from them.

EMS and county agencies

The opinion said operational authority would vary with the event and officials involved. It suggested interagency agreement because the statute did not prescribe coordination where jurisdictions overlapped.

Common questions

Did the AG give fire chiefs automatic control of the helicopter? A: No. He said the relevant facts and officials had to be examined before operational control could be determined.

Did the fire-district statute explain how emergency agencies share authority? A: The AG said it did not resolve cooperation among officials with overlapping jurisdiction.

What did the AG suggest for overlapping agencies?
A: He suggested an agreement among the emergency organizations absent legislative clarification.

Background and statutory framework

§6-11-1420, as quoted in the letter, authorized fire representatives with jurisdiction at a fire or other emergency to direct necessary rescue and related operations. The AG applied prior office advice that the statute did not decide the hierarchy among other public-safety officials in every event.

Citations and references

• §6-11-1420: fire-district emergency powers quoted in the letter.

Official title

Concerning S.C. Code Ann. §6-11-1410 et seq.. Emergency Powers of Fire Districts. Specifically, in Spartanburg County as Emergency Organizations are in planning for the operation of a medical Transport Helicopter located in Greenville County and if only EMT-Paramedic personnel will be allowed to request the use of this helicopter.

Requester

The Honorable Scott F. Talley, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-29-2002/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02march29talley.pdf

Original opinion text

...
,,., . ,

.

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

March 29, 2002
The Honorable Scott F. Talley
Member, House of Representatives
P.O. Box 272
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304
Re: Emergency Powers of Fire Districts
S.C. Code Ann. §6-11-1410 et seq.
Dear Representative Talley:
In a letter to this Office, you have requested an opinion on the above referenced

provisions of the Code of Laws of South Carolina. You have attached a copy of a letter you received from Lewis J. Hayes, Chief of the Croft Fire District, which sets out the nature of the request. In chief Hayes letter, he presents the following: Emergency Organizations [Fire, EMS, County] within Spartanburg County are now in planning for the operation of a medical Transport Helicopter located in Greenville County ... During committee meetings to develop standard operating procedures, there have been strong jndication that only EMT - Paramedic level personnel will be allowed to request the use of this 1),elicopter ... I believe that by not allowing the "Fire Authodty'' to be able to request this helicopter during an emergency would take away the authority granted to the fire department under the Emergency Powers of Fire Districts 6-11-1420 ... S.C. Code Ann. §6-11-1420 provides in pertinent part that: Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, authorized representatives of the Fire Authority having jurisdiction, as may be in charge at the scene of a fire or other emergency involving the protection of life or property or any part thereof, have the power and authority to direct such operation as may be necessary to

'
REMBBRr CJ· D::JNIS Bun.DING
~,,,., lY'~~~

•

POST OFFIC.E Box l 1549 •

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

Tuuu>lfoNB: 803-734-3970 • FACSJMILB: 803-253-6283

•

The Honorable Scott F. Talley
March 29, 2002
Page 2

extinguish or control the fire, perform any rescue operation, ... and ... [take] ... any other action necessary in the reasonable performance of their duty.

I

L,

In a prior opinion, this office was asked" ... whether [§6-11-,1420] automatically makes the fire chief in charge of a scene even though other public safety officials may be present and whether a fire chief would have authority over such other emergency services" See OP. ATTY. OEN. (Dated November 15, 1991). In responding, we noted that depending on the nature of the emergency and the locality, there may be a number of officials who would have jurisdiction for varying reasons" and concluded that H[§6-11-1420] does not appear to address the manner in which various officials should cooperate when such jurisdictions overlap ... depending on the facts and the officials involved, varying conclusions may be applicable." Id. We went on to state that "legislative clarification would be useful in resolving the issues." Id. Unf01tunately, the conclusion reached in the above opinion is applicable to the issues raised in your request. 1t can not be said, without examining the specific nature of the event and the officials involved, which public safety entity has operational control of the helicopter in question. Absent legislative clarification, perhaps the best solution is to address the situation through some sort of agreement among the emergency organizations involved.

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 question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General and not officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.
.
''

Ii

David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General
j
~r.

··.i ~