Could Barnwell-area police form a joint violent-crime investigation team across municipal and county lines?

Plain-English summary

Barnwell’s city attorney asked whether city, town, and county officers could form a shared team to investigate violent crimes outside each officer’s usual jurisdiction. The request specifically raised arrest authority when officers assisted elsewhere.

The Assistant Deputy AG read Section 23-1-215 to permit the proposed team through a written agreement among the agencies. He extended an earlier office opinion allowing a continuing multi-jurisdiction drug-enforcement agreement to violent-crime investigations. The statute, as quoted in the letter, granted an officer acting under such an agreement authority for “investigation, arrest or any other activity related to the criminal activity for which the agreement was drawn.” He acknowledged that no state supreme court decision had yet confirmed his reading. He also described separate statutory routes for temporary officer transfers and emergency assistance.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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 letter require a separate agreement for every violent crime? A: The author considered a standing violent-crime investigation arrangement permissible under Section 23-1-215, by analogy to an earlier office view about continuing drug investigations. He acknowledged that the state supreme court had not confirmed that interpretation.

Q: Could an officer working outside the usual jurisdiction make an arrest? A: The letter quoted Section 23-1-215(B) as granting authority for an arrest related to the criminal activity covered by the written agreement. It did not separately resolve the requester’s question about an unrelated, collateral arrest.

Q: Did the AG identify any other way to share officers? A: Yes. The letter discussed temporary transfers under Section 23-1-210 and emergency assistance under Section 5-7-120, among other provisions.

Background and statutory framework

Section 23-1-215 conditioned cross-jurisdiction criminal-investigation authority on a written agreement among the agencies. The author relied on the office’s earlier drug-task-force reading and reasoned that violent-crime work could likewise be a continuing investigation function. He expressly left the agreement’s structure and choice of statutory route to the local subdivisions and their attorney.

Citations and references

Statutes discussed: Section 23-1-215; Section 23-1-210; Section 5-7-120.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-29-1997-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/97may29boulware.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 29, 1997

Thomas M. Boulware, Esquire
Barnwell City Attorney
Post Off ice Box 248
Barnwell, South Carolina 29812
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Tom:
You have asked for an opinion regarding the following issue:
[t]he Barnwell County Sheriff's Department has approached [the City of Barnwell and the Town of Williston] ... and has asked that they participate in a multiple law enforcement agreement whereby each municipality would agree to have two police officers, one of whom would be the Chief of Police, who would be prepared to participate in the investigation
· of violent crimes so that, in effect, if there was a violent crime committed in the City of Barnwell, two officers from the Town of Williston could participate in the investigation of that crime, along with the Barnwell County Sheriff's Department which would obviously have jurisdiction. In the alternative, if the Sheriff's Department had a violent crime which had occurred in the county, it could call upon both the Town of Williston and the City of Barnwell to send its violent crime investigative team to the scene to assist the Sheriff's Department. Your concern with this arrangement is "whether or not such an agreement would be authorized under the terms and provisions of Section 23-1-215 et seq." Specifically, you state that:

~~~

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

CoLl!MB!A,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Thomas M. Boulware, Esquire
Page 2
May 29,

(

!
I

1997
[m]y initial concern would be the fact that a
violent crime may not traverse jurisdictional
limits and, therefore, may not come within the
scope of Section 23-1-215. Assuming that the
three governmental entities could enter into a
written contractual agreement wherein and
whereby additional manpower could be provided
in the form of a violent crime investigative
team, would this team have the powers of
arrest in the event they were beyond their
jurisdictional limits?
For instance, if the
city
of
Barnwell' s
team
was
asked
to
participate in an investigation of a violent
crime in an unincorporated area and, in the
course of that investigation, was required to
make an arrest, would the arrest be lawful if
it related to the particular matter being
investigated?
Would an arrest be lawful
during the investigation if it related to a
collateral matter to the actual investigation?
LAW/ANALYSIS

S. C. Code Ann. Section 23-1-215 provides for agreements
between multiple law enforcement jurisdictions for criminal
invest~gation.
Subsection (A) of this provision states that:

rm
f

[i] n the event of a crime where multiple
jurisdiction, either county or municipal, are
involved,
law
enforcement
officers
are
authorized to exercise jurisdiction within
other counties or municipalities for the
purpose of criminal investigation only if a
written agreement between or among the law
enforcement
agencies
involved
has
been
executed ...
Subsection (B) grants an officer working outside his jurisdiction
law enforcement authority "for the purpose of investigation, arrest
or any other activity related to the criminal activity for which
the agreement was drawn."
Subsection (D) states that "[t] he
agreement shall terminate at the conclusion of the investigation of
which it was executed." Several important principles of statutory
construction are pertinent to your inquiry. First and foremost, is
the time-honored tenet that the primary guideline to be used in the
interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the
intention of the legislature.
Belk v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
271 s.c. 24, 244 S.E. 2d 744 (1978).
A statute as a whole must
receive a practical, reasonable and fair interpretation, consonant

Thomas M. Boulware, Esquire
Page 3
May 29, 1997
with the purpose, design and policy of the lawmakers. Caughman v.
Cola. Y.M.C.A., 212 S.C. 337, 47 S.E.2d 788 (1948). The words used
therein should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
Worthington v. Belcher, 274 S.C. 366, 244 S.E.2d 148 (1980). The
interpretation should be according to the natural and obvious
significance of the wording without resort to subtle and refined
construction for the purpose of either limiting or expanding the
statutes operation. Greenville Baseball v. Beardon, 200 S.C. 363,
20 S.E. 2d 813 (1942).
.

I
I

In~ Atty. Gen., Op. No. 94-38 (June 21, 1994), this office
concluded that "Section 23-1-215 may be construed to authorize
agreement between multiple law enforcement agencies for drug
enforcement purposes." The thrust of that opinion was that where
illegal drug activity was concerned, a multi-jurisdictional force
could be organized for combating drug activity generally rather
than merely organizing such a force for one specific crime.
We
further noted that:

[i]t is generally recognized that illegal drug
activity requires enhanced law enforcement
efforts.
See, e.g., S.C. Code Section 14-71610 (authorization for the state grand jury,
to investigate drug offenses) . In many cases
drug offenses have significance in more than
one jurisdiction.
Cooperation between law
enforcement agencies is a means of responding
to illegal drug activity.
Moreover, we have
been informed that several law enforcement
agencies in this state have entered into
multi-jurisdictional
drug
enforcement
agreements pursuant to Section 23-1-215.
In my judgment, the reasoning of this opinion would also apply
to a violent crime task force as you have described it.
It has
been stated with accuracy that "[v] iolent crime and the use of
illicit drugs go hand-in-hand, and attempts to control one without
controlling the other may be fruitless." United States v. Michael
~, 90 F.3d 340 (9th Cir. 1996).
Moreover, Section 16-1-60 defines
"violent crimes" to include drug trafficking. In addition, it is
my understanding that Section 23-1-215 was enacted in response to
the murder of Sherry Smith inasmuch as it was determined that such
violent crimes of ten required the need for coordination between
overlapping or separate jurisdictions.
While subsection (1) does state that "[t]he agreement shall
terminate at the conclusion of the investigation for which it was
executed," in my judgment, just as it is reasonable to determine
that the investigation of illegal drug activities is a continuous
function of these law enforcement agencies, the same conclusion

Thomas M. Boulware, Esquire
Page 4
May 29, 1997
could be reached with respect to violent crime, particularly in
light of the fact that drug trafficking and violent crimes are so
intertwined and interrelated.
Of course, as I am sure you are aware, other statutory
provisions are pertinent to your inquiry as well.
In Q];L_ Atty.
Gen., Op. No. 88-46 (June 2, 1988), we discussed these provisions
which ~re in addition to Section 23-1-215 at some length. There we
stated as follows:

r,
I

[s]everal
state
statutes
authorize
law
enforcement
activity by
law
enforcement
officers outside their regular jurisdiction in
certain instances. Pursuant to Section 23-1210 of the Code, the intra-state transfer of
municipal or county law enforcement officers
on a temporary basis is authorized.
Such
statute specifically provides that:
[a]ny municipality or county law
enforcement
officer
may
be
transferred on a temporary basis to
work in law enforcement in any other
municipality or county in this state
under the conditions set forth in
this
section,
and
when
so
transferred shall have all the
powers and authority of a law
enforcement officer employed by the
jurisdiction
to
which
be
is
transferred.
Such provision states that prior to such a
transfer, a written agreement must be entered
into by the affected jurisdiction which states
the conditions and terms of the 'temporary
employment'
of
the
officers
who
are
transferred.
Section 5-7-120 of the Code
authorizes law enforcement officers to respond
in cases of emergency to another municipality
upon request. Such provision states:
[w]hen law enforcement officers are
sent
to
another
municipality
pursuant
to
this
section,
the
jurisdiction,
authority,
rights,
privileges and immunities, including
coverage
under
the
workers
compensation laws, which they have
in the sender's municipality shall
be extended to also include the area
in
which
like
benefits
and
authorities are or could be afforded
to the law enforcement officers or

Thomas M. Boulware, Esquire
Page 5
May 29, 1997

!
I

~

i

'

the
requesting
political
subdivisions.
Such section further provides that such
officers
who
respond
to
requests
for
assistance have the same law enforcement
authority as possessed by the law enforcement
officers in the political subdivisions which
requests assistance ....
In an opinion dated
February 15, 1985, this office determined that
in such circumstances such officers would have
the law enforcement authority established by
Section
17-13-40
referenced
above
when
responding to requests for assistance.
This
off ice also recognized in a June 20, 1984
opinion that Section 8-12-10 et ~ of the
Code"· .. would permit the interchange of local
governmental employees such as sheriffs'
deputies between the counties. "
Consistent
with such, Section 8-12-10 et ~ would also
permit
the
interchange
of
city police
officers.
In an opinion dated May 17, 1978,
this office referencing Section 6-1-20, Code
of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, and Article
VIII,
Section 13 of the South Carolina
Constitution determined that:
[t]he
ability
of
political
subdivisions
to
enter
into
an
agreement
for
the
joint
administration, responsibility and
sharing of the costs of services
with other political subdivisions is
granted ... [R]eading these ... sections
in
conjunction
enables
an
incorporated municipality to enter
into a contractual arrangement with
a county to provide law enforcement
services to the ml1nicipality.
Thus, the various political subdivisions in Barnwell county
which you have referenced in your letter would have a number of
options for a joint agreement of the kind which you envision. Even
should you choose not to pursue the Section 23-1-215 option,
various state statutory provisions would enable you to put together
the kind of violent crime task force which you contemplate.
In conclusion, in my opinion, Section 23-1-215 would permit
the assemblage of the violent crime task force as envisioned in
your letter.
Admittedly, this conclusion is based upon my
extrapolation from the result reached in Opinion No. 94-38 {June
21, 1994), referenced above.
No Supreme Court decision has

Thomas M. Boulware, Esquire
Page 6
May 29, 1997
confirmed this authority as yet, but in my judgment the statute is
sufficiently broad to cover violent
crimes
as
a
multijurisdictional occurrence.
However, even should you choose not to rely upon Section 23-1215, notwithstanding the conclusion herein that it would authorize

!

[

I
I

the
agreement
contemplated,
the other statutory provision
referenced herein would also provide authority to put together the
kind of violent crime task force desired, based upon an agreement
between the political subdivisions concerned. An agreement might,
for example, conclude that the investigation of certain violent
crimes constitute an "emergency" based upon inadequate manpower.
Or an agreement could be worked out triggering the "transfer" of
certain off ice rs based upon the happening of certain violent
crimes.
Of course, the particular legal authority or statutory
provision relied upon or the structure of the particular agreement
drafted could be a matter within the discretion of the local
subdivision in conjunction with their attorney.
This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written
by a designated Assistant Deputy 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 remain

l);y

yours,

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/rbp