Could Charleston County use victim assessments to pay for drug-defendant satellite monitoring?

Plain-English summary

Charleston County asked whether victim-assessment revenue could fund satellite monitoring of defendants charged with drug-related offenses and whether the bond court could use such monitoring. In October 2001, the AG said the funding source was unavailable: the cited assessment statute reserved the money exclusively for victim services, while the proposed program was not itself a victim-service program under that restriction.

The answer on court authority was separate. The AG said the bond court could impose satellite monitoring as a bond condition notwithstanding the Home Detention Act and pointed to a same-day letter explaining that conclusion. Permission to impose a condition did not permit paying for it from the restricted victim-assessment fund.

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

County sheriffs and budget officers

The opinion barred using the specified victim-assessment account for the proposed drug-defendant tracking program because the statute limited expenditures to victim services.

Bond courts

The AG said monitoring could nevertheless be used as a condition of bond. The letter did not identify an alternative funding source.

Common questions

Could victim-assessment money pay for the proposed tracking program? A: No. The AG said the program did not meet the fund’s exclusive victim-services purpose.

Could the court impose satellite monitoring anyway?
A: The opinion said yes as a bond condition, a question distinct from funding.

Background and statutory framework

The letter quoted §14-1-207(D), which reserved county-retained victim-assessment revenue for required and expanded victim services. It contrasted that purpose with monitoring defendants in drug cases and briefly referenced the separate bond-authority analysis in the companion letter.

Citations and references

• §14-1-207(D): exclusive victim-services funding rule quoted by the AG.

Official title

Regarding the use of victim assessments monies.

Requester

Joseph Dawson, III, Esquire

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-1-2001-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01oct-1-dawson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 1, 2001

Joseph Dawson, III, Esquire
Charleston County Attorney
4045 Bridge View Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina 29405-7464

Re:

Your Letter of September 19, 2001
Informal Opinion regarding the use of Victim Assessments Monies

Dear Mr. Dawson:
In your above-referenced Jetter, you request an opinion form this Office on the following questions: 1.

Can the Charleston County Sheriffs Office use monies collected from victim assessments pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §14-1-207(D) to fund a satellite monitoring program for defendants charged with drug-related offenses?

If so,
2.

Can the Charleston County's Bond Hearing Court properly use the satellite monitoring program as a condition of bond in compliance with the Home Detention Act and other applicable laws? See S.C. Code Ann. §24-13-1510, et seq. As you cite in your letter, S.C. Code Ann. §14-l-207(D) provides: The revenue retained by the county under subsection (B) must be used for the provision of services for the victims of crime including those required by law. These funds must be appropriated for the exclusive purpose of providing victim services as required by Article 15 of Title 16; specifically, those service requirements that are imposed on local law enforcement, local detention facilities, prosecutors, and the summary courts. First priority must be given to those victims' assistance programs which are required by Article 15 of Title 16 and second priority must be given to programs which expand victims' services beyond those required by Article 15 ofTitle

16. All unused funds must be carried forward from year to year and used exclusively

R EMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

~cV~ )

•

POST OFFJCE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Mr. Dawson
Page2
October 1, 2001

for the provision of services for victims of crime. All unused funds must be separately identified in the governmental entity's adopted budget as funds unused and carried forward from previous years. It is well recognized that public funds must be expended only for their designated purpose. The Attorney General has recently reviewed the language of Section 14-1-206(D), which is a verbatim match for§ 14-l-207(D). Upon his review, the Attorney General concluded that the "legislature has thus mandated that any expenditure from this fund must go exclusively to crime victims rather than for general law enforcement purposes"(Copy of Attorney General Condon's September 12, 2001, letter attached).

Article 15 of Title 16 contains the following relevant definitions: "Victim" means any individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as the result of the commission or attempted commission of a criminal offense, as defined in this section. "Victim" also includes any individual's spouse, parent, child, or the lawful representative of a victim who is: (a) deceased; (b) a minor; (c) incompetent; or (d) physically or psychologically incapacitated. "Criminal offense" means an offense against the person of an individual when physical or psychological harm occurs, or the property of an individual when the value of the property stolen or destroyed, or the cost of the damage to the property is in excess of one thousand dollars. This includes both common law and statutory offenses, the offenses contained in Sections 16-25-20, 16-25-30, 16-25-50, 56-5-1210, 56-5-2910, 56-5-2920, 56-5-2930, 56-5-2945, and the common law offense of attempt, punishable pursuant to Section 16-1-80 ... f!JJ,

Fr'
I

While the program proposed clearly appears to be a worthwhile law enforcement endeavor, it does not appear to be consistent with the requirements of Section 14-1-207(D) that the funds "must be appropriated for the exclusive purpose of providing victim services as required by Article 15 of Title 16" or "programs which expand victims' services beyond those required by Article 15 of Title 16." As the above-referenced definitions indicate, Article 15 of Title 16 applies to a specific group of persons who have been the victims of a specific group of crimes against the person or property. It is therefore my opinion that a satellite monitoring program for defendants charged with drugrelated offenses is not for the "exclusive purpose of providing victim services" as required by law and could not be funded with monies collected from victim assessments pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.
§14-1-207(D).

Mr. Dawson
Page 3
October 1, 2001

While perhaps unnecessary given the response to your first question, it is my opinion that the Charleston County Bond Hearing Court can use satellite monitoring as a condition of bond notwithstanding the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. §§24-13-1510, et. Seq. I have enclosed a copy of an opinion of today's date addressed to Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon which more fully addresses this topic.

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. Sincerely,

Assistant Attorney General
Enclosures

I