Could South Carolina enforce its littering law if no police officer saw the littering happen?

Plain-English summary

Woodruff’s city manager asked whether South Carolina’s littering offense could be enforced when no officer personally saw the act. The May 2001 informal opinion said yes. The littering statute itself did not make officer eyewitness testimony a prerequisite.

The letter explained that a warrant affidavit could use information from another person, with the magistrate deciding whether it supplied probable cause. It also said a criminal conviction could rest on adequate direct or circumstantial evidence, including evidence from someone other than an officer. The opinion did not say that a bare accusation established guilt.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. 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

City officials and police

The AG said the absence of an officer eyewitness did not prevent enforcement of the littering statute. It described a warrant process requiring facts sufficient for a magistrate’s probable-cause judgment.

Witnesses and defendants

The opinion said direct or circumstantial evidence from a knowledgeable person could support a case. It maintained the separate need for evidence reasonably tending to prove guilt.

Common questions

Did a police officer have to see someone litter?
A: No. The AG found no such requirement in the statute.

Could a citizen’s information support an arrest warrant?
A: The letter said a warrant affidavit could rely on personal knowledge or hearsay, but a magistrate had to be satisfied that sufficient facts supported it.

Could a case rely only on circumstantial evidence?
A: The opinion said yes if the evidence reasonably tended to prove guilt.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied S.C. Code Ann. §16-11-700 and cited State v. Crane for the sufficiency of direct or circumstantial evidence. It drew the warrant explanation from earlier AG opinions quoted in the text; the referenced enclosure is not reproduced in the linked PDF.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. §16-11-700: littering offense at issue.
• State v. Crane: direct and circumstantial evidence standard quoted by the AG.

Official title

Regarding State Law 16-11-700, which makes littering a criminal offense, and addressing the question of whether “this law can be enforced even when an officer isn’t present to view it.”

Requester

John Mullins, City Manager

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-22-2001-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01may-22-mullens.pdf

Original opinion text

{I03C;(,~

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 22, 2001

John Mullins, City Manager
City of Woodruff
231 E. Hayne Street
Woodruff, South Carolina 29388

Re: Your Letter of February 14, 2001
S.C. Code Ann. §16-11-700
Dear Mr. Mullins:
In your above referenced letter, you ask this Office to" ... review State Law 16-11-700 and tell me if this law can be enforced even when an officer isn't present to view it (being committed??)." Section 16-11-700 makes littering a criminal offense and provides in pertinent part as follows: No person may dump, throw, drop, deposit, discard, or otherwise dispose oflitter or other solid waste, as defined by Section 44-96-40(46), upon any public or private property or waters in the State whether from a vehicle or otherwise including, but not limited to, a public highway, public park, beach, campground, forest land, recreational area, trailer park, highway, road, street, or alley ... The statute itself contains no requirement or provision that, as a prerequisite to prosecution, a police officer witness the crime. Accordingly, we must look to the general tenets of criminal law to determine the answer to your question. The general rule regarding the issuance of an arrest warrant based on other than eyewitness testimony from an arresting officer was set out by this Office in a prior opinion where it was stated: "[a]ny citizen who has reasonable grounds to believe that the law has been violated has the right to cause the arrest of a person who he honestly and in good faith believes to be the offender ... [citation omitted] .. . The probable cause expressed in the affidavit of an arrest warrant may be based on personal knowledge or hearsay ... [citation omitted] ... The affiant to an arrest warrant must be able to satisfy an inquiring magistrate that sufficient facts and information exist to support the warrant

~·~~ •

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Mr. Mullins
Page 2
May 22, 2001

which determination is entirely within the magistrate's judgment. The penalty for perjury attaches to the facts alleged in the affidavit." See OP. ATTY. GEN. (Dated November 4, 1993 [93-74]). Further, all that is necessary to sustain a criminal conviction is "[t]he presentation of any direct or circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the defendant's guilt..." State v. Crane, 296 S.C. 336, 372 S.E.2d 587 (1988). In fact, a criminal conviction may be obtained on the presentation of circumstantial evidence alone, with no direct evidence. See OP. ATTY. GEN. (Dated October 14, 1980) (copy attached). Such evidence can come from any individual with knowledge. Accordingly, S.C. Code Ann. §16-11-700 can be enforced even if the violation was not directly observed by a law enforcement officer. 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.

Assistant Attorney General
DKA/an
Enclosure