Did a South Carolina law-enforcement applicant still need a South Carolina driver’s license after the 2006 amendment?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, South Carolina’s Criminal Justice Academy asked whether a law-enforcement certification candidate still had to hold a South Carolina driver’s license after legislation changed the wording to “state driver’s license.” The Attorney General concluded that ordinary law-enforcement candidates still needed a South Carolina license. He read the amended provision as preserving that requirement while giving state and local correctional-officer candidates permission to use a valid license from any U.S. jurisdiction.

The AG acknowledged that the act’s title mentioned substituting “state driver’s license” for “South Carolina driver’s license.” He nevertheless focused on the separate express rule for correctional officers: if every candidate could already use any state’s license, that distinction would have little purpose in his reading.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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 AG read “state driver’s license” as any state’s license for police applicants? A: No. He concluded that law-enforcement candidates other than correctional officers still needed a South Carolina license.

Q: What was different for correctional officers?
A: The opinion read the express exception as allowing state or local correctional-officer candidates to hold a valid current license issued by any U.S. jurisdiction.

Q: Why did the AG not rely on the wording change alone?
A: He interpreted the provision as a whole and thought the separate correctional-officer exception showed the Legislature did not intend to broaden the rule for every applicant.

Background and statutory framework

The requester pointed to amended certification language in Section 23-23-60(8). The AG compared it with earlier wording and the act’s title, then interpreted the distinct treatment of correctional officers as evidence that other law-enforcement candidates still needed a South Carolina driver’s license.

Citations and references

Statute: Section 23-23-60(8).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-19-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06oct19-Neill.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
ATI'ORNEY GENERAL

October 19, 2006

i

I
I

William R. Neill, lnterim Director
South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy
5400 Broad River Road
Columbia, South Carolina 29212
Dear Mr. Neill:
In a letter to this office you questioned the driver's license requirement for certification of law enforcement officers. According to the latest legislative enactment as set forth in Act No. 317 of 2006, Section 23-23-60(8) provides:

I...

All city and county police departments, sheriffs' offices, state agencies, or other employers of law enforcement officers having such officers as candidates for certification shaU submit to the director, for his confidential information and subsequent safekeeping, the following: ... (5) evidence satisfactory to the director that the candidate is a person of good character. This evidence must include, but is not limited to: ...

~

I

(b) evidence satisfactory to the director that the candidate holds a valid current state driver's license with no record during the previous five years for suspension of driver's license as a result of driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or dangerous drugs, driving while impaired (or the equivalent), reckless homicide, involuntary manslaughter, or leaving the scene of an accident. Candidates for certification as state or local correctional officers may hold a valid current dri ver's license issued by any jurisdiction of the United States. (emphasis added). You have questioned whether pursuant to such provision, a South Carolina driver's license is still required for certification as a law enforcement officer. The provision set forth above is identical to language set fonh as Section 23-6-440(8)( 5)(b) in Act No. 118of 2005. Prior to the latest amendment, the statute as amended by Act No. 505 of

Mr. Neill
Page 2
October 19, 2006

1994 read that a candidate for certification has to present " ... evidence satisfactory to the director that the candidate holds a valid current South Carolina driver's license .... " 1

I

When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Additionally, a statute as a whole must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant 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). As stated, "[t]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature. fl Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc., 353 S.C. 31, 39, 577 S.E.2d 202, 207 (2003). A court should not consider a particular clause or provision in a statute as being construed in isolation, but should read it in conjunction with the purpose of the statute and the policy of the law. State v. Gordon, 356 S.C. 143, 588 S.E.2d 105 (2003). As our Supreme Court has recognized, "[i]n ascertaining the intent of this Legislature, a court should not focus on a single section or provision but should consider the language of the statute as a whole. fl Croft v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 365 S.C. 402, 412, 618 S.E.2d 909, 914 (2005). Additionally, in determining legislative intent, a court will, if necessary, reject the literal import of words used in a statute. It has been said that "words ought to be subservient to the intent, and not the intent to the words." Arkwright Mills v. Murph, 219 S.C. 438, 443-44, 65 S.E.2d 665, 667 (1951) (quoting Greenville Baseball. Inc. v. Bearden, 200 S.C. 363, 20 S.E.2d 813, 816 (1942)). In the opinion of this office, it was not the intent of the General Assembly to remove the requirement that a candidate for certification as a law enforcement officer have a South Carolina driver's license. As a result, a South Carolina driver's license must be held by any such candidate. Support for such construction is found in reviewing other provisions of the same statute. As set forth by Section 23-23-60(B)(5)(b ), "[ c]andidates for certification as state or local correctional officers may hold a valid current driver's license issued by any jurisdiction of the United States." Such distinction would have not been necessary if all candidates were only required to have a driver's license issued by any state. It is also helpful to examine the title of Act No. 118 of2005, the act which originally enacted the present statutory language at issue. It is recognized that" ... the title or caption of an act may be properly considered to aid in the construction of a statute and to show the intent of the Legislature." Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., October 15, 2004, citing Lindsay v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 258 S.C. 272, 188 S.E.2d 374 (1972). The title to Act No. 118 stated that it was

1

Such provision also stated that"[ c]andidates for certification as Class 11-SCO (Department of Corrections) in any county with a prison system that borders another state may hold a valid current driver's license issued by any jurisdiction of the United States."

Mr. Neill
Page 3
October 19, 2006

I
I

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 23-6-440, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES THAT INDICATE THAT A PERSON HAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE TERM "STA TE DRIVER'S LICENSE" FOR THE TERM "SOUTH CAROLINA DRIVER'S LICENSE", TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS CANDIDATES FOR CERTIFICATION AS CLASS-II SCO (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) IN ANY COUNTY WITH A PRISON SYSTEM THAT BORDERS ANOTHER STATE TO HOLD A DRIVER'S LICENSE ISSUED BY ANY JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STA TES, AND TO REPLACE IT WITH A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS CANDIDATES FOR CERTIFICATION AS STA TE OR LOCAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS TO HOLD A DRIVER'S LICENSE ISSUED BY ANY JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Whileadmittedlysuch title refers specifically to the replacement of the term "South Carolina driver's license with "state driver's license", such title supports the above construction that the primary intent of the amendment was to address requirements for correctional officers, i.e., that such officers, and not just those DOC officers "in any county with a prison system that borders another state" have a driver's license "issued by any jurisdiction of the United States." Again, such a requirement would not have been necessary had the simple requirement of possession of a driver's license issued by any state been the requirement for all candidates seeking certification as a law enforcement officer. Instead, it is the opinion of this office that all candidates for certification as a law enforcement officer, with the exception of correctional officers, have a South Carolina driver's license. If there are any questions, please advise.

I
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~.~

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General