Could Beaufort County's sheriff enforce Hilton Head's smoking ordinance if violations carried only a civil fine?

Plain-English summary

Beaufort County's sheriff asked whether his department could enforce a Hilton Head Island no-smoking ordinance when the violation carried a civil fine rather than a criminal penalty. The Attorney General said it appeared the department could enforce the ordinance and initiate an action to collect the fine. The letter relied on a 1996 AG opinion explaining that a civil penalty could be pursued in a civil proceeding and that a law enforcement agency arguably had standing to bring such an action.

The AG said it had not found a South Carolina case directly deciding whether a sheriff could enforce a civil penalty. Its answer was therefore framed as an apparent authorization under the earlier opinion, not a reported judicial holding about Hilton Head's ordinance.

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.

Historical summary

Sheriffs and municipal officials

The letter treated the ordinance's civil classification as compatible with enforcement by the sheriff's department. It said a civil action could be used to collect a penalty where the governing law did not specify a collection procedure.

People subject to the smoking ordinance

The opinion addressed who could enforce the fine and how collection could occur. It did not decide whether anyone had violated the ordinance or set the amount of a fine.

Common questions

Did a civil fine prevent the sheriff from enforcing Hilton Head's smoking ordinance?
The AG said it appeared the sheriff's department could enforce it and bring a civil action to collect the penalty.

Would the fine necessarily be collected through a criminal case?
No. The opinion described civil fines as typically enforced in civil proceedings and said a civil action could collect a penalty when no procedure was specified.

Had a South Carolina court already answered the sheriff-enforcement question?
The AG said it found no state case law directly responsive to that question.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted an earlier AG analysis of civil penalties and public officials' standing to pursue them. It applied that analysis to Hilton Head's then-new smoking ordinance, whose violation carried a civil fine.

Citations and references

• The letter discussed a July 25, 1996 AG opinion and its reference to State ex rel. McLeod v. C and L Corporation.

Official title

Concerning the new “no smoking” ordinance on Hilton Head Island and whether the sheriff’s department can enforce an ordinance that only has a civil penalty.

Requester

The Honorable P. J. Tanner, Sheriff, Beaufort County

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-4-2007-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tanner-p-j-5-4-07-os-8375-no-smoking-ordinance.pdf

Original opinion text

May 4, 2007

The Honorable P. J. Tanner
Sheriff, Beaufort County
P. O. Box 1758
Beaufort, South Carolina 29901
Dear Sheriff Tanner:
In a letter to this office you referenced the enforcement of a new “no smoking” ordinance on Hilton Head Island. By that ordinance, a violation is a civil penalty rather than a criminal fine. You have questioned whether the sheriff’s department can enforce an ordinance that only has a civil penalty. I have not located any case law in this State directly responsive to the question of whether a sheriff can enforce a civil penalty. However, a prior opinion of this office dated July 25, 1996 has dealt with the issue. According to that opinion, a “civil fine” is considered to be “...a sum of money exacted of a person guilty of a crime...as a pecuniary punishment, the amount of which may be fixed by law or left to the discretion of the court.” The opinion further states that
[p]roceedings for the recovery of penalties can be either civil or criminal in nature, and the mode in which penalties shall be enforced is a matter resting within the discretion of the...(governing body)...in each case to be determined from the provisions of the particular statute in question...However, where the statute fails to designate the procedure for collection of the penalty, it may be collected by a civil action. Such opinion citing the decision in State ex rel. McLeod v. C and L Corporation, 280 S.C. 519, 313 S.E.2d 334 (1984) further states that “[t]ypically, where a ‘civil fine’ is authorized, such sanction is enforced in a civil proceeding.” See also: Op. La. Atty. Gen. dated December 29, 1989 (“[c]ivil enforcement means the filing of a lawsuit to collect civil fines imposed by an ordinance....) It was further stated in the 1996 opinion that
...the action for enforcement would need to be brought by a public official. Certainly, the circuit solicitor could bring such an action. Arguably, as well, a law enforcement

The Honorable P. J. Tanner
Page 2
May 4, 2007
agency such as a sheriff or chief of police would have standing to bring such an action for enforcement. Therefore, consistent with that opinion, it appears that the sheriff’s department would be authorized to enforce the no smoking ordinance that calls for punishment be a civil penalty of a fine and could initiate an action to collect on any civil penalty. If there are any questions, please advise. Sincerely, Henry McMaster Attorney General

By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

______
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General