Where did proceeds go when a South Carolina sheriff sold a vehicle bought with drug-forfeiture funds?

Plain-English summary

The South Carolina Sheriffs’ Association asked about a vehicle an agency had bought with drug-forfeiture funds and later sold. In May 1995, Assistant Attorney General Charles Richardson agreed that the sale proceeds would go back into that agency’s separate drug-enforcement account. The letter concerned a purchased vehicle, not a vehicle forfeited directly in a drug case.

Richardson treated the money as public funds. He said the account remained limited to drug-enforcement activities and subject to ordinary public-fund custody rules, local procurement procedures, the ban on replacing operating funds, and the approval and documentation requirements described in the forfeiture statute. The opinion did not identify a separate statutory instruction specifically for proceeds of a vehicle bought with forfeiture money; it reached its answer under the existing account restrictions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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

Sheriffs and drug-enforcement agencies

The opinion said that proceeds from selling a vehicle purchased with the drug fund belonged back in the agency’s designated account. It did not treat the sale as freeing the money from the fund’s restrictions.

Local finance officials

The letter described account expenditures as public spending. It noted that recurring expenses required governing-body approval and that expenditures had to follow the jurisdiction’s procurement procedures and be documented for audit and public-records review.

Common questions

Could the agency put the vehicle-sale proceeds in its drug fund? Yes. Richardson agreed that the proceeds would return to the separate account established for the agency under Section 44-53-530(g).

Could the agency use those proceeds for general operations? The opinion said the account was for drug-enforcement activities and could not be used to supplant operating funds in current or future budgets.

Did the vehicle sale remove procurement and audit requirements? No. The letter treated the returned proceeds as subject to the same requirements for account expenditures, including local procurement rules and documented spending.

Background and statutory framework

The letter interpreted Section 44-53-530(g) and referred to subsection (i) on procurement. It cited an earlier office opinion for treating forfeiture funds as public money. Richardson called his letter informal and said the Attorney General had not personally reviewed or formally published it.

Citations and references

• Section 44-53-530(g): separate drug-enforcement account and use restrictions described by the letter.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-1-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995may1moore.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON

ATIORNEY GENERAL

May 1, 1995

Jeffrey B. Moore, Executive Director
South Carolina Sheriffs' Association
Post Office Box 21428
-Columbia, South Carolina 29221-1428
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Jeff:
You indicated that pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 44-53-530(g) (Supp. 1993) forfeited drug monies and proceeds from the sale of forfeited property associated with drug cases are deposited into a separate, special account in the name of the appropriate law enforcement agency to be utilized for drug enforcement activities. As to situations where a vehicle purchased with drug fund assets has been sold, you have questioned how the funds derived from the sale should be handled. You particularly questioned whether these funds should be placed back into the account established for the law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 44-53-530(g) to be used for drug enforcement activities. Prior opinions of this Office have recognized that monies transferred to a law enforcement agency through forfeiture proceedings are "public monies" and therefore "should be maintained and spent in accordance with the laws and ordinances governing the custody and the use of public monies." Opin. of the Atty. Gen. dated July 31, 1991. Therefore such monies could not be expended in a manner inconsistent with the use of public funds generally. Moreover, pursuant to subsection (i) of the referenced statute, "(a]n expenditure from these accounts must be made in accordance with the estab)ished procurement procedures of the jurisdiction where the account is established."

REMBERTC. DE!'\NJS Bt lLDI'.(;

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

CoLL\1B!A. s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACS!MILE: 803-253-6283

Mr. Moore
Page 2
May 1, 1995
As you indicated, pursuant to Section 44-53-530(g), these funds may only be used for "drug enforcement activities." Moreover, pursuant to other provisions of that section, such funds
... must not be used to supplant operating funds in the current or future budgets. Expenditures from these accounts for an item that would be a recurring expense must be approved by the governing body before purchase.... That provision further states that any expenditures must be documented with such documentation available for audit purposes and subject to review pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The statute makes no specific reference to the matter of handling any
_ funds generated by the sale of an item purchased with forfeiture funds. Subject to the limitations set forth above regarding the use of forfeiture funds generally, I am in agreement with your conclusion that funds generated by the sale of a vehicle purchased with drug fund assets would be placed back into the account established for the law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 44-53-530(g). 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 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,

a~
Charles H. Richardson
Assistant Attorney General
CHR:jca