Could a South Carolina magistrate hear a juvenile's beer-possession or open-container charge?

Plain-English summary

A family court judge and assistant solicitor asked whether a magistrate could hear a juvenile's charge for possessing beer as a minor or violating the open-container law. The AG's office concluded that, under the statutes then in force, only family court had jurisdiction over either charge involving a child under 17.

The letter explained that magistrate and municipal courts shared limited jurisdiction with family court over juvenile traffic offenses and fish, game and watercraft violations. Beer possession and open-container offenses did not fall within those exceptions. The writer added that using a uniform traffic ticket for these charges did not make them moving violations.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. 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

Did the 1994 opinion allow a magistrate to try an under-17 beer-possession charge?
No. The AG's office said that charge fell outside the limited juvenile matters over which magistrate courts then shared jurisdiction with family court.

Did an open-container charge become a traffic matter because it was written on a traffic ticket?
No. The writer said the charge was not a moving violation, despite being informed that officers might use a uniform traffic ticket.

Which court did the opinion say could hear these charges?
Family court alone, for the under-17 juveniles and the two charges described in the request.

Background and statutory framework

The letter read §20-7-400 as giving family court jurisdiction over alleged juvenile violations, subject to the exceptions in §20-7-410. It described those exceptions as concurrent jurisdiction for magistrate and municipal courts over certain traffic and Title 50 violations. The two alcohol-related charges fit neither category. The writer also distinguished the ordinary sentencing powers of magistrate and municipal courts from their authority over juveniles.

Citations and references

• §20-7-400: family court jurisdiction described in the letter.
• §20-7-410: limited concurrent jurisdiction for specified juvenile charges.

Official title

Regarding whether or not Magistrate’s Court has jurisdiction over cases involving a juvenile charged with the criminal offense of minor in possession of beer, or violation of the open container law.

Requester

The Honorable Lee S. Alford, Family Court Judge, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-18-1994/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/94oct18alford.pdf

Original opinion text

T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK
ATTORNEY GENERAL

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 11549
COLUMBIA. S.C. 29211
TEl.£PHONE: i.>3-734-36111
FACSIMILE: i.Jl-253-6283

October 18, 1994

The Honorable Lee S. Alford
Family Court Judge, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Post Off ice Box 342 Rock Hill, South Carolina 29731

I
~

Ouida G. Swann, Esquire
Assistant Solicitor, Family Court
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit
Post Office Box 726
York, South Carolina 29745
Dear Judge Alford and Ms. Swann:
Attorney General Medlock has referred to me your letter of September 23, 1994 for reply.

f

The question presented was whether or not Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction over cases involving a juvenile charged with the criminal offense of minor in possession of beer, or violation of the open container law. My research of the applicable statute would appear to indicate that magistrates do not possess such jurisdiction. Pursuant to s.c. Code Ann. §20-7-410 (1976 and 1993 cum. supp.) Magistrate and Municipal Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with 'the Family Court as to juveniles under seventeen years of age who are charged with traffic violations and violations of Title 50 of the Code of Laws relating to fish, game and watercraft laws.

The Honorable Lee s. Alford
Ouida G. Swann, Esquire
Page 2
October 18, 1994
The same statute also requires the Family Court to report all adjudications of juveniles for moving traffic violations to the Department of Public Safety as required by other Courts of this State. Generally, Magistrate and Municipal Courts can impose sentences not exceeding a fine of $200 or imprisonment for thirty days, under s.c. Code Ann. §§22-3-550 and 14-25-65. However, as to juveniles, Magistrates and Municipal Judges have no authority to commit juveniles under seventeen years of age to a correctional facility. As expressed in a memorandum from the Office of Court Administration dated January 8, 1982, " . . . a child under the age of seventeen years may be committed only to the Board of Youth Services and only by .Order of a Circuit or Family Court Judge." That memorandum noted that s.c. Code Ann. §24-15-510, which had authorized Magistrates to sentence youths to county or municipal jails, had been repealed. The question then is whether or not a violation of the open container law or the offense in minor of possession of beer is a traffic violation, moving violation, or violation of Title 50. We can rule out Title 50, since neither crime falls within its purview. Unlawful possession of beer by a minor would appear to be found at s.c. Code Ann. §61-9-85 (1993 cum. supp.) and nothing in that statute designates which court would have jurisdiction. Similarly, the "open container" law is found at S. C. Code Ann. §619-87 (1993 cum. supp.), and the statute does not designate trial jurisdiction. The Family Court's jurisdiction is found at s.c. Code Ann.
§20-7-400, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Family Courts over juveniles alleged to have violated any state or local law or municipal ordinance, regardless of where the violation occurred, except as provided in §20-7-410.

F

I

It would appear clear from the statutes that Magistrates, Municipal Courts, and Family courts do have concurrent jurisdictions, but only regarding certain limited matters. Neither minor in possession of beer nor open container law are moving violations, although I am informed that they may be written up on the uniform traffic ticket, nor do they fall within the purview of Title 50 of the Code, dealing with fish, game or watercraft. My advice to you would therefore be that only the Family Court possesses jurisdiction over those two criminal charges.

The Honorable Lee s. Alford
Ouida G. Swann, Esquire
Page 3
OcEober 18, 1994
Should you have any questions or desire further information, please advise.

I
I
I

Ja es G. Bogl
sistant
orney General
JGBjr:ypj

Approved by:

Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions