Was unlawful use of the telephone a felony or misdemeanor in South Carolina in 1988?

Plain-English summary

The South Carolina Attorney General concluded that unlawful use of the telephone was a misdemeanor in 1988. A city attorney asked about the classification of an individual's 1988 conviction. The AG checked the history of the telephone statute and identified the 1967 act as the law then in force. Its penalty language called violations of each listed group of conduct misdemeanors.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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: Was a South Carolina unlawful-use-of-the-telephone conviction from 1988 a felony? A: The AG said no. Under the law the opinion identified as applicable in 1988, the offense was a misdemeanor.

Q: Did the penalty depend on the type of prohibited telephone conduct? A: The quoted 1967 statute set out different penalty language for the listed groups of conduct, but called both groups misdemeanors. The opinion did not decide the facts of the particular conviction beyond its offense classification.

Q: Why did the AG use an older statute to answer this question? A: The question concerned a 1988 conviction. The AG said the 1967 act governed then and that the law was amended only after that conviction.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion referred to the history of S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-17-430 (2003), identified the former Section 16-552.1, and quoted the misdemeanor penalties attached to unlawful telephone conduct. It answered the historical classification question only.

Citations

• S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-17-430 (2003)
• Section 16-552.1

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-20-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04oct20howard.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
f

HENRY MCMASTER
ATIDRNEY GENERAL

October 20, 2004

[

I

H. Lloyd Howard, Esquire
Landrum City Attorney
719 S. Howard Avenue
Landrum, South Carolina 29356
Dear Mr. Howard:

In a letter forwarded to this office you raised a question regarding the status of the offense of unlawful use of the telephone, as to whether it was a misdemeanor or felony offense, as to an individual convicted of such offense in 1988. According to my review, the offense of unlawful use of the telephone was a misdemeanor offense in 1988. According to the history of S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-17-430 (2003), the law applicable to that offense in 1988 was Act No. 439of1967 which codified such offense at that time as Section 16-552.1 and classified the offense as a misdemeanor. The statute stated:

I

It shall be unlawful for any person anonymously or otherwise: (1) to use in a telephonic communication any words or language of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or an indecent nature, or to threaten in a telephonic communication any unlawful act with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass another person, or to communicate or convey by telephone an obscene, vulgar, indecent, profane, suggestive, or immoral message to another person; (2) to telephone another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of annoying or harassing another person or his family; (3) to make a telephone call and intentionally fail to hang up or disengage the connection for the purpose of interfering with the telephone service of another; (4) to telephone another and make any false statements concerning either the death or injury of any member of the family of the person who is telephoned with the intent to annoy, frighten or terrify that person; or (5) knowingly to permit any telephone under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section.

Any person violating either items (1), (2) or (4) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished in the discretion of the court; and any person violating either items (3) or (5) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and,

a,.,,,

~<ffD~SBUIWING • POST0FFJCEBoxll549 • COLUMB!A,S.C.29211-1549 • TEI.EPHONE:803-734-3970 • F•r<:run,,·SUH-'.l<;~..h'.>l!~

f

Mr. Howard
Page2
October 20, 2004

upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days." The law was not amended again untill 993 by Act No. 184.

L
I

With kind regards, I am,
Very truly yours,

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

I

~p-~
Assistant Deputy Attorney General