Does the county sheriff have to investigate a crash when an off-duty highway patrol officer is in a personal car?

Official title

Opinion addressing the application of Section 56-5-765 of the South Carolina Code (2018) to traffic collisions involving an off-duty Department of Public Safety employee who was operating his or her personal vehicle.

Requester

Requested by The Honorable William J. Baird, Captain, Clover Police Department.

Plain-English summary

A Clover police captain ran into a recurring scene: officers respond to a crash, and the driver turns out to be a Highway Patrol employee who says the county sheriff has to work the crash because she is a state trooper, even though she is off duty in her own car. The captain asked the Attorney General to clarify when § 56-5-765(B), which routes certain crash investigations to the county sheriff, actually applies.

The Attorney General read the statute as tied to vehicles, not people. Subsection (B) sends a crash to the sheriff when "a motor vehicle or motorcycle of the Department of Public Safety" is involved. By its terms it says nothing about an off-duty DPS employee in a personal vehicle, and nothing about family members. The AG contrasted that with subsection (C), which expressly speaks to an "employee" of an agency. Because subsection (B) is limited to DPS vehicles, the AG concluded a court would decline to stretch it to cover an off-duty employee or a relative driving a personal car.

The AG added an important caution: subsection (C) still prohibits a law enforcement department from investigating any crash involving its own vehicle, motorcycle, or employee. And because deciding which agency should have worked the specific crash in the captain's letter would require finding facts, the AG declined to resolve that part.

What this means for you

Local police and sheriff's offices sorting out who works a crash

The opinion reads the "sheriff must investigate" rule in subsection (B) as triggered by a Department of Public Safety vehicle, not by the off-duty status of a DPS employee. So an off-duty trooper in a personal car does not, by itself, hand the crash to the county sheriff under subsection (B). The separate conflict-of-interest rule in subsection (C) still applies: an agency cannot investigate a crash involving its own employee.

Off-duty DPS employees and their families

The opinion does not support the position that the sheriff must work every crash you are in just because you work for DPS. Subsection (B) keys off DPS vehicles. The AG read it not to reach an off-duty employee or an immediate family member driving a personal vehicle.

Agencies worried about the appearance of a conflict

Even where subsection (B) does not apply, subsection (C) bars an agency from investigating a crash involving its own vehicle, motorcycle, or employee, and subsection (D) lets an agency that lacks expertise request a joint investigation from an outside agency. The AG noted the purpose behind the statute, as stated in prior opinions, is to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure accountability.

Common questions

Q: An off-duty state trooper crashed in her own car. Does the county sheriff have to investigate? A: Not under subsection (B), per this opinion. That subsection routes crashes involving a Department of Public Safety vehicle to the sheriff. The AG read it not to reach an off-duty DPS employee in a personal vehicle.

Q: What about the trooper's spouse or family member in a personal car? A: Same answer. The AG concluded subsection (B) is silent as to immediate family members and would not be extended to cover them.

Q: So can the trooper's own agency just investigate the crash? A: No. Subsection (C) prohibits any law enforcement department or agency from investigating a crash involving its own motor vehicle, motorcycle, or employee. That bar is separate from the subsection (B) "send it to the sheriff" rule.

Q: Why didn't the AG just say which agency should have worked the crash in the letter? A: The AG explained this Office cannot make factual determinations, which is what deciding the specific scenario would require. The opinion gives the legal rule and leaves the factual call to others.

Q: Where does the conflict-of-interest idea come from?
A: Prior AG opinions and the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Sheldon describe the statute's purpose as avoiding conflicts of interest and ensuring accountability when law enforcement investigates crashes involving its own.

Background and statutory framework

Section 56-5-765 governs investigations of traffic collisions involving law enforcement vehicles. Subsection (A) generally sends such investigations to the State Highway Patrol, but subsection (B) carves out the Department of Public Safety: when a DPS vehicle or motorcycle is in a qualifying crash, the county sheriff investigates. Subsection (C) is a flat conflict rule, no agency may investigate a crash involving its own vehicle, motorcycle, or employee. Subsection (D) allows joint investigations where the lead agency lacks expertise, and subsection (E) makes a knowing violation of subsection (C) punishable under § 8-1-80.

To interpret the statute the AG applied standard South Carolina canons: ascertain legislative intent (Hodges v. Rainey), read the statute as a whole rather than one clause in isolation (In re Hosp. Pricing Litig., King v. AnMed Health), and apply clear and unambiguous text by its literal meaning (Sloan v. Hardee). The Court of Appeals in State v. Sheldon had already held that subsections (B) and (C) bar the Highway Patrol from investigating crashes involving its own employees, reinforcing the conflict-of-interest reading.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-765 (who investigates collisions involving law enforcement vehicles; subsection (B) sheriff rule for DPS vehicles; subsection (C) conflict bar)
• S.C. Code Ann. § 23-6-20(A) (Department of Public Safety comprises the Highway Patrol, State Police, and Training divisions)
• S.C. Code Ann. § 8-1-80 (penalty for knowing violation of subsection (C))

Cases:

• State v. Sheldon, 344 S.C. 340, 543 S.E.2d 585 (Ct. App. 2001) (subsections (B) and (C) bar Highway Patrol from investigating crashes involving its own employees)
• Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000) (cardinal rule is to ascertain legislative intent)
• In re Hosp. Pricing Litig., King v. AnMed Health, 377 S.C. 48, 659 S.E.2d 131 (2008) (read the statute as a whole)
• Sloan v. Hardee, 371 S.C. 495, 640 S.E.2d 457 (2007) (apply clear text by its literal meaning)
• Allen v. S.C. Pub. Emp. Ben. Auth., 411 S.C. 611, 769 S.E.2d 666 (2015) (harmonize language with subject matter and purpose)
• Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Rollison, 378 S.C. 600, 663 S.E.2d 484 (2008) (remedial statutes are liberally construed)
• Inabinet v. Royal Exchange Assur. of London, 165 S.C. 33, 162 S.E. 599 (1932) (same)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-the-application-of-section-56-5-765-of-the-south-carolina-code-2018-to-traffic-collisions-involving-an-off-duty-department-of-public-safety-employee-who-was-operating-his-or-her-personal-vehicle/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/gdchhoc1/03462526.pdf

Original opinion text

silT v VW
w

°CsoutHC'^
Alan Wilson
Attorney General

December 13, 2023

Captain William J. Baird

Clover Police Department
112 Bethel St.
Clover, SC 29710

Dear Captain Baird:

We received your letter requesting an Attorney General’s opinion on the applicability of section

56-5-765 of the South Carolina Code (2018) when a state highway patrol officer is involved in a collision while driving his or her personal vehicle. By way of background, you informed us:
[O]ur agency responded to a traffic collision in our jurisdiction involving a small

sedan vehicle and a large commercial truck. Our officers responded quickly to the scene of the collision and began completing their duties to investigate the collision, notifying fire and EMS regarding injury complaints, and completing required collision reports. During the investigation, the driver of the vehicle approached a

patrol sergeant, identifying herself as an employee of the South Carolina Highway Patrol and requesting that the York County Sheriffs Office complete the collision report due to the law outlining that the Sheriffs Office is to work all collisions for highway patrol employees off-duty and in their personal vehicles and to also

include their immediate family members.
We understand you are seeking clarification regarding the application of section 5 6-5 -765(B) “to off-duty personnel in their personal vehicles and to include immediate family members.” Law/Analysis

Section 56-5-765 governs investigations of traffic collisions involving a motor vehicle or motorcycle of a law enforcement agency. (A) When a motor vehicle or motorcycle of a law enforcement agency, except a motor vehicle or motorcycle of the Department of Public Safety, is involved in a traffic collision that: (1) results in an injury or a death, or (2) involves a privately-

owned motor vehicle or motorcycle, regardless of whether another motor vehicle icnuiiEu i c. Dennis Building

<-

post Office Box 1 1 549

» COLUMBIA, SC 292! 1-1549 » TELEi'liONE

34-3970 . i .'.rgfMII E £-'J.?.-?_5?.-6283

Captain William J. Baird
Page 2

December 13, 2023

or motorcycle is involved, the State Highway Patrol must investigate the collision and must file a report with findings on whether the agency motor vehicle or motorcycle was operated properly within the guidelines of appropriate statutes and regulations. (B) When a motor vehicle or motorcycle of the Department of Public Safety is involved in a traffic collision that: (1) results in an injury or a death, or (2) involves a privately-owned motor vehicle or motorcycle, regardless of whether another motor vehicle or motorcycle is involved, the sheriff of the county in which the collision occurred must investigate the collision, regardless of whether the collision

occurred within an incorporated jurisdiction, and must file a report with findings on whether the Department of Public Safety's motor vehicle or motorcycle was operated properly within the guidelines of appropriate statutes and regulations.

(C) A law enforcement department or agency must not investigate a traffic collision in which a motor vehicle, a motorcycle, or an employee of that department or agency is involved that: (1) results in an injury or a death, or (2) involves a privately-owned motor vehicle or motorcycle, regardless of whether another motor vehicle or motorcycle is involved.

(D) A law enforcement agency that has primary responsibility for an investigation involving a motor vehicle, a motorcycle, or an employee of another department or agency, but lacks the expertise to conduct a proper investigation, may request assistance from another agency that has the appropriate expertise, as long as the assisting agency or an employee of the assisting agency is not a subject of the investigation. A request made pursuant to this subsection shall result in a joint investigation conducted by both agencies.

(E) A person who knowingly and wilfully violates the provisions of subsection (C) is subject to punishment as provided for in Section 8-1-80, even if the person's authority extends beyond a single election or judicial district. (F) An investigation of a traffic collision involving a motor vehicle, a motorcycle, or an employee of a law enforcement agency or department must include a field investigation to identify possible witnesses, including possible witnesses not involved in the traffic collision, but who may have witnessed the traffic collision from a vantage point other than the collision site.

(G) For purposes of this section, “involved in a traffic collision” includes a law enforcement motor vehicle or motorcycle engaged in a pursuit when a traffic collision occurs.

S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-765.

Captain William J. Baird
Page 3

December 13, 2023

When interpreting a statute, the primary goal is to determine the General Assembly’s intent. Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000) (“The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.”).

“[I]n ascertaining the

intent of the [Legislature, a court should not focus on any single section or provision but should

consider the language of the statute as a whole.” In re Hosp. Pricing Litig., King v. AnMed Health, 377 S.C. 48, 59, 659 S.E.2d 131, 137 (2008). “When a statute's terms are clear and unambiguous on their face, there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning.” Sloan v. Hardee, 371 S.C. 495, 498, 640 S.E.2d 457, 459 (2007). “When interpreting a statute, the Court must read the language in a sense which harmonizes with its subject matter and accords with its general purpose.” Allen v. S.C. Pub. Emp. Ben. Auth., 411

S.C. 61 1, 616, 769 S.E.2d 666, 669 (2015). Further, a remedial statute must be broadly construed to effectuate its intended purpose.

Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Rollison, 378 S.C. 600, 609, 663

S.E.2d 484, 488 (2008) (“A statute remedial in nature should be liberally construed in order to accomplish the object sought.” (quoting Inabinet v. Royal Exchange Assur. of London, 165 S.C. 33, 36, 162 S.E. 599, 600 (1932))). As we have concluded in prior opinions, “[t]he obvious purpose of § 56-5-765 is to avoid conflicts of interest and to insure accountability.” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 1695521 (S.C.A.G. March

20, 2013) (alteration in original); see also Op. S.C. Att’y Gen. 1998 WL 746030 (S.C.A.G. June 18, 1998); Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 1996 WL 494732 (S.C.A.G. July 10, 1996). In State v. Sheldon, 344 S.C. 340, 543 S.E.2d 585 (Ct. App. 2001), the South Carolina Court of Appeals held section 56-5-765 barred the South Carolina Highway Patrol’s Multi-Disciplinary Accident Investigation

Team (MAIT) from participating in the investigation of a collision involving an on-duty South Carolina State Trooper who was driving a marked patrol vehicle.

The Court of Appeals found

section 56-5-765(B) and (C) “clearly prohibits the Highway Patrol from investigating accidents involving its employees.” Id. at 343, 543 S.E. 2d at 586. Turning to subsection (B) of section 56-5-765, we believe a court would find the statute’s language

clearly and unambiguously limits its application to situations when a Department of Public Safety1 motor vehicle or motorcycle is involved in a traffic collision.2 See Sloan, 371 S.C. at 498, 640 S.E.2d at 459 (“When a statute's terms are clear and unambiguous on their face, there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning.”). Subsection (B) provides:

1 S.C. Code Ann. § 23-6-20(A) (2007) (“The Department of Public Safety is established as an administrative agency of state government which is comprised of a South Carolina Highway Patrol Division, a South Carolina State Police Division, and a Division of Training and Continuing

Education.”).

2 For purposes of this opinion, we assume the collision involving an off-duty Department of Public Safety employee in his or her personal vehicle or an employee’s immediate family member resulted in an injury or death or involved a privately-owned motor vehicle or motorcycle.

Captain William J. Baird
Page 4

December 13, 2023

When a motor vehicle or motorcycle of the Department of Public Safety is involved in a traffic collision that: (1) results in an injury or a death, or (2) involves a privately-owned motor vehicle or motorcycle, regardless of whether another motor vehicle or motorcycle is involved, the sheriff of the county in which the collision occurred must investigate the collision, regardless of whether the collision occurred

within an incorporated jurisdiction, and must file a report with findings on whether the Department of Public Safety's motor vehicle or motorcycle was operated properly within the guidelines of appropriate statutes and regulations.

§ 56-5-765(B) (emphases added). The language contained in this subsection expressly states its applicability to traffic collisions involving Department of Public Safety motor vehicles and motorcycles; however, the language is silent as to off-duty Department of Public Safety employees who are operating his or her personal vehicle. It is also silent as to Department of Public Safety

employees’ immediate family members. In contrast, subsection (C) of section 56-5-765 expressly states its applicability to employees of law enforcement departments or agencies. §56-5-765(C)

(“A law enforcement department or agency must not investigate a traffic collision in which a motor vehicle, a motorcycle, or an employee ofthat department or agency is involved that: (1) results in an injury or a death, or (2) involves a privately-owned motor vehicle or motorcycle, regardless of whether another motor vehicle or motorcycle is involved.” (emphasis added)).

Moreover, in

Sheldon, the Court of Appeals, citing to section 56-5-765(B), noted that “such collisions involving

a vehicle of the Department ofPublic Safety, including the Highway Patrol, must be investigated by the sheriffs office in the county where the collision occurred.” 344 S.C. at 342-43, 543 S.E.2d at 586 (emphasis added). Because the language of subsection (B) clearly and unambiguously limits its application to traffic

collisions involving Department of Public Safety motor vehicles and motorcycles, we believe a court would decline to extend the application of subsection (B) to an off-duty Department of Public Safety employee or a member of their immediate family who is involved in a traffic collision while driving his or her personal vehicle. See In re Hosp. Pricing Litig., King, 377 S.C. at 59, 659 S.E.2d

at 137 (“[I]n ascertaining the intent of the [Legislature, a court should not focus on any single section or provision but should consider the language of the statute as a whole.”).

We note this Office is unable to issue an advisory opinion to determine facts. 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'y Gen., 1989 WL 406130 (April 3, 1989)). Therefore, because it would involve a determination of facts, we cannot render an opinion as to which law enforcement department or agency should have

conducted the traffic collision investigation in the specific factual scenario described in your letter.

Captain William J. Baird
Page 5

December 13, 2023

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we believe a court would determine subsection (B) of section 56-5-765 is

inapplicable when an off-duty Department of Public Safety employee is involved in a traffic collision while driving his or her personal vehicle.

We further opine subsection (B) would be

inapplicable when a Department of Public Safety employee's immediate family member is involved in a traffic collision while driving his or her personal vehicle. However, we caution that subsection (C) prohibits a law enforcement department or agency from investigating a traffic

collision involving a motor vehicle, a motorcycle, or an employee of that department or agency.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth McCann

Assistant Attorney General