Does a city police department have jurisdiction at a county detention center in South Carolina?

Official title

Opinion addressing police jurisdiction at county detention centers.

Requester

Requested by Captain Nick Gallum, Aiken County Sheriff's Office.

Plain-English summary

A captain with the Aiken County Sheriff's Office posed a recurring booking-desk problem. A municipal officer arrests someone inside city limits and drives them to the county detention center, which sits outside the city. During the custody handoff, narcotics are found on the arrestee. Can the city that made the arrest charge the person with possessing those drugs, even though the drugs surfaced at a facility outside the city's jurisdiction?

The office gave its standard caveat first: whether an officer has jurisdiction at a particular spot is a fact-specific question for a court, not something an advisory opinion can decide. With that flagged, it laid out the governing rules. A municipal police officer's authority generally stops at the corporate limits of the municipality. The office quoted the South Carolina Supreme Court's warning in State v. Alexander that "jurisdictional boundaries mean something and, absent specific lawful authority, an officer has no authority to act in his official capacity beyond his jurisdiction." There are statutory exceptions, such as hot pursuit (§ 17-13-40), responding to a distress call or request for assistance in an adjacent jurisdiction (§ 17-13-45), and mutual-aid arrangements under the Law Enforcement Assistance and Support Act, but the office assumed none of those applied here.

By contrast, a sheriff's authority runs across the whole county. The office has long treated the sheriff as the county's chief law enforcement officer, deputies act as the sheriff's agents, and the sheriff has custody of the county jail under § 24-5-10 (which South Carolina courts have read to include county detention centers). So, assuming the detention center is outside the city's jurisdiction, the office concluded that a court would likely find the county sheriff and the sheriff's deputies, not the arresting municipality, have jurisdiction to bring charges against inmates being processed and housed at the center.

What this means for you

Municipal police departments: The opinion indicates that, absent a statutory exception or a mutual-aid agreement, your officers' authority generally does not extend to a county detention center outside your city limits. The office treated whether any exception applies as a fact question, so a department relying on one should be able to point to the specific statute or agreement.

Sheriffs and deputies: The opinion supports the view that the sheriff, as chief law enforcement officer of the county with custody of the jail, and the sheriff's deputies have jurisdiction to charge inmates for offenses arising while they are processed and housed at the detention center.

Solicitors and prosecutors: The office stuck to its policy of deferring to local officers and solicitors on what charges to bring. It framed its analysis as background, and expressly said it was not commenting on any pending case.

People arrested and booked into a county jail: The opinion suggests that drugs discovered on you at the detention center are more likely to be charged by the sheriff's office than by the city that arrested you, though the office stressed the answer ultimately turns on the specific facts.

Common questions

City police arrested me, but drugs were found at the county jail. Who can charge me?
The opinion concludes that, assuming the jail is outside the city's jurisdiction, the county sheriff and deputies, not the arresting city, would likely have jurisdiction to bring charges for what is found at the detention center.

Can a city officer ever act outside the city limits?
Yes, but only under specific authority. The opinion lists exceptions like hot pursuit (§ 17-13-40), responding to a request for assistance in an adjacent jurisdiction (§ 17-13-45), and mutual-aid agreements. Without one of those, an officer's authority stops at the city line.

Why does the sheriff have authority at the detention center?
Because the sheriff is the county's chief law enforcement officer with countywide jurisdiction and has custody of the county jail under § 24-5-10, which the courts have read to include county detention centers.

Did the Attorney General give a definite yes-or-no answer?
No. The office said jurisdiction in a specific instance is a fact question for a court. It offered the general rules and its prediction of how a court would likely rule on the assumed facts.

Background and statutory framework

Section 5-7-110 authorizes municipalities to appoint police officers and provides that those officers exercise their powers within the corporate limits and on municipally owned or controlled property, with a path to contract for police protection beyond the limits (which must be filed with SLED, the sheriff, and the Department of Public Safety). The South Carolina Supreme Court confirmed in State v. Harris and State v. Alexander that a municipal officer's jurisdiction generally does not extend beyond the municipality absent statutory authority.

The statutory exceptions the office cited include § 17-13-40 (pursuit of an offender) and § 17-13-45 (responding to a distress call or request for assistance in an adjacent jurisdiction), along with the Law Enforcement Assistance and Support Act. On the sheriff's side, the office relied on its prior opinions treating the sheriff as the county's chief law enforcement officer, on § 23-13-50 (a qualified deputy may perform the duties of the sheriff) and Heath v. Aiken County (a deputy acts as the sheriff's agent), and on § 24-5-10, which gives the sheriff custody of the county jail. Roton v. Sparks held that county detention centers are "jails" within § 24-5-10. The office noted § 24-5-12 lets a sheriff devolve jail-custody duties onto the county governing body with its approval, but concluded that would not change the sheriff's or deputies' jurisdiction at the jail.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-police-jurisdiction-at-county-detention-centers/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/tazjw55g/03675525.pdf

Original opinion text

str® f\/y la

ife
*w

w

Alan Wilson
attorney General

August 22, 2024

Captain Nick Gallam
Aiken County Sheriffs Office
420 Hampton Ave.

Aiken, SC 29801

Dear Captain Gallam:

We received your letter requesting an Attorney General’s opinion regarding police jurisdiction.
Your letter states the following:
Often narcotics are found on an offender’s person during the custody exchange at
the detention center. When the offender is arrested by a municipality within the
municipality’s jurisdiction, then transported outside of the municipality’s
jurisdiction to the detention center, would the municipality have jurisdiction to

criminally charge the offender for the possession of the narcotics?
Law/Analysis

Initially, we note the question of whether a law enforcement officer has jurisdiction at a particular
location involves a fact-specific inquiry that cannot be answered in an advisory opinion. See e.g.
Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2020 WL 4365488 (S.C.A.G. July 23, 2020) (noting “any question of whether
a law enforcement officer has jurisdiction in a particular instance is a fact-specific question that a
court must determine”). As we have stated in prior opinions, “[b]ecause this Office does not have
the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able to adjudicate or investigate
factual questions.” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2006 WL 1207271 (S.C.A.G. April 4, 2006) (alteration
in original) (quoting Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 1989 WL 406130 (April 3, 1989)). Further, it is this
Office’s longstanding policy “to defer to magistrates in their determinations of probable cause,
and to local law enforcement officers and solicitors in deciding what charges to bring and which
cases to prosecute.” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2017 WL 5053042 (S.C.A.G. Oct. 24, 2017). However,
we provide the following law in the hope it may be helpful to you.
Section 5-7-1 10 of the South Carolina Code (2004) provides for the creation of municipal police

departments. S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-110 (“Any municipality may appoint or elect as many police
N'EKibERTC. DENNIS Bi ELDING

u

PosrOiTiCE Bo.X i 1549

»

Columbia, SC 292 1 i- 1 549

Telephone

j?.-73-1-39?u

..

, .u

n e

2;; i

Captain Nick Gallam
Page 2
August 22, 2024

officers, regular or special, as may be necessary for the proper law enforcement in such
municipality and fix their salaries and prescribe their duties. Police officers shall be vested with

all the powers and duties conferred by law upon constables, in addition to the special duties
imposed upon them by the municipality.”). Generally, the jurisdiction of a municipal police officer
is limited to property within the corporate limits of the municipality.
Any such police officers shall exercise their powers on all private and public

property within the corporate limits of the municipality and on all property owned
or controlled by the municipality wheresoever situated; provided, that the
municipality may contract with any public utility, agency or with any private
business to provide police protection beyond the corporate limits.

Should the

municipality provide police protection beyond its corporate limits by contract, the

legal description of the area to be served shall be filed with the State Law
Enforcement Division, the office of the county sheriff and the Department of Public
Safety.
S.C. Code Ann. §5-7-110.

In State v. Alexander', the Supreme Court of South Carolina explained:
“The jurisdiction of a municipal police officer, absent statutory authority, generally
does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the municipality.” State v. Harris,
299 S.C. 157, 159, 382 S.E.2d 925, 926 (1989) (footnote and citation omitted).
However, there are some exceptions to this general rule, including “[w]hen a law
enforcement officer responds to a distress call or a request for assistance in an
adjacent jurisdiction, the authority, rights, privileges, and immunities . . . applicable

to an officer within the jurisdiction in which he is employed are extended to and

include the adjacent jurisdiction.” S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-45 (2014).
State v. Alexander, 424 S.C. 270, 275, 818 S.E.2d 455, 457-58 (2018). Further, our supreme court
cautioned, “To be clear, jurisdictional boundaries mean something and, absent specific lawful
authority, an officer has no authority to act in his official capacity beyond his jurisdiction.” Id. at
276, 818 S.E.2d at 458.

For purposes of this opinion, we assume neither a statutory exception nor

a mutual aid agreement extends the jurisdiction of a municipal police officer to include the county
detention center. See e.g. S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-40 (2014) (extending police jurisdiction when
in pursuit of an offender); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-45 (2014) (extending police jurisdiction
“[w]hen a law enforcement officer responds to a distress call or a request for assistance in an
adjacent jurisdiction”); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-20-10 to -60 (Supp. 2023) (establishing the Law

Enforcement Assistance and Support Act).

1 424 S.C. 270, 275, 818 S.E.2d 455, 457-58 (2018).

Captain Nick Gallam
Page 3

August 22, 2024

Although, generally, a municipal police officer’s jurisdiction is limited to within the corporate
limits of the municipality, a sheriff or sheriff’s deputy’s jurisdiction extends over the entirety of

the county. This Office has consistently opined that a sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer
of a county. See e.g. Op. S.C. Att’v Gen., 2015 WL 3919079 (S.C.A.G. June 11, 2015); Op. S.C.
Att’v Gen., 2005 WL 774155 (S.C.A.G. March 1, 2005). “When duly qualified a deputy sheriff
may perform any and all of the duties appertaining to the office of his principal.” S.C. Code Ann.
§ 23-13-50 (2007). “A deputy . . . acts as his sheriff’s agent under South Carolina law.” Heath v.
Aiken Cnty., 295 S.C. 416, 418-19, 368 S.E.2d 904, 905 (1988). Moreover, section 24-5-10 of the
South Carolina Code (2007), provides that the sheriff has control of the jail in his or her county.

See S.C. Code Ann. § 24-5-10 (“The sheriff shall have custody of the jail[21 in his county and, if
he appoint a jailer to keep it, the sheriff shall be liable for such jailer and the sheriff or jailer shall
receive and safely keep in prison any person delivered or committed to either of them, according

to law.”).3 Assuming, as set forth in your letter, that a county detention center falls outside of the
municipal police department’s jurisdiction, we believe a court would hold the sheriff of the county
and his or her deputies would have jurisdiction to bring charges against inmates being processed
and housed in the detention center.
Conclusion

The question of whether a law enforcement officer has jurisdiction at a particular location involves
a fact-specific inquiry that cannot be answered in an advisory opinion. See e.g. Op. S.C. Att’v
Gen., 2020 WL 4365488 (S.C.A.G. July 23, 2020) (noting “any question of whether a law
enforcement officer has jurisdiction in a particular instance is a fact-specific question that a court

must determine”). As we have stated in prior opinions, “[b]ecause this Office does not have the
authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able to adjudicate or investigate factual
questions.” Op. S.C. Att’v Gen., 2006 WL 1207271 (S.C.A.G. April 4, 2006) (alteration in
original) (quoting Op. S.C. Att’v Gen., 1989 WL 406130 (April 3, 1989)). Further, it is this

Office’s longstanding policy “to defer to magistrates in their determinations of probable cause,
and to local law enforcement officers and solicitors in deciding what charges to bring and which
cases to prosecute.” Op. S.C. Att’v Gen„ 2017 WL 5053042 (S.C.A.G. Oct. 24, 2017). However,
assuming, as set forth in your letter, that a county detention center falls outside of the municipal

police department’s jurisdiction, we believe a court would likely find the sheriff of the county and
his or her deputies would have jurisdiction to bring charges against inmates being processed and
housed in the detention center. We note, this opinion is intended as a general discussion of the

2 See Roton v. Sparks, 270 S.C. 637, 638-39, 244 S.E.2d 214, 215 (1978) (holding county detention
centers are jails within the meaning of section 24-5-10).

3 We note that under section 24-5-12 of the South Carolina Code (2007), “the sheriff of any county
may, upon approval of the governing body of the county, devolve all of his powers and duties
relating to the custody of the county jail and the appointment of a facility manager on the governing
However, we do not believe this would affect a sheriff or sheriffs
body of the county; . .
deputy’s jurisdiction at the county jail or detention center.

Captain Nick Gallam
Page 4

August 22, 2024

law.

It should not be read as an attempt to comment on any pending litigation or criminal

proceeding.

Sincerely,

mcc
Elizabeth McCann

Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General