Can South Carolina's Criminal Justice Academy train a SkillBridge participant appointed as a municipal police officer but paid by the military?

Plain-English summary

The South Carolina Attorney General concluded that the Criminal Justice Academy could likely train a SkillBridge participant hired by a municipal police department and appointed as an officer, even though military compensation kept the participant off the city's payroll.

The statute defined a law-enforcement officer as an appointed officer or an employee hired by and regularly on the payroll of the state or a political subdivision. Because some appointed officers served without pay, the AG read the payroll phrase as modifying employees rather than appointed officers.

A SkillBridge participant who was only an employee would not meet the payroll requirement while paid by the military. But a municipal police officer appointed under S.C. Code § 5-7-110 could qualify through the separate appointed-officer route.

The opinion said the statute's plain language did not prohibit Academy training in that circumstance, while noting that legislative clarification might be warranted.

What this means for you

SkillBridge participants and police departments

The opinion distinguishes appointment from payroll status. A participant appointed as a municipal officer could fall within the statutory definition even before joining the city's payroll.

Criminal Justice Academy officials

The AG identified Section 23-23-10(E)(1) as allowing training for appointed officers, but acknowledged that the General Assembly could clarify whether that result matched legislative intent.

Common questions

Did SkillBridge military pay prevent the participant from being a paid city employee?

Yes. The opinion understood the participant to remain on military compensation and therefore not regularly on the municipal payroll.

Why could the participant still qualify for Academy training?

The AG read "appointed officer" as a separate category that did not require regular payroll status.

Can a municipality appoint police officers?

Yes. The opinion cited S.C. Code § 5-7-110, which authorized municipalities to appoint or elect regular or special police officers.

Did the AG call for a statutory amendment?

It said legislative clarification might be warranted, but concluded that the existing plain language did not prohibit the training.

Background and statutory framework

Rock Hill hired a service member for a Class I police position while the member participated in the Department of Defense SkillBridge program and continued receiving Army compensation.

The AG interpreted the law-enforcement-officer definition in S.C. Code § 23-23-10(E)(1), the Academy's training duty in S.C. Code § 23-23-20, and municipal appointment authority in S.C. Code § 5-7-110.

Citations discussed

• S.C. Code § 23-23-10(E)(1), defining law-enforcement officer
• S.C. Code § 23-23-20, directing the Academy to train officers and designated criminal-justice personnel
• S.C. Code § 5-7-110, authorizing municipal police appointments
• Kerr, cited on giving effect to legislative intent

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-the-s-c-criminal-justice-academy-s-authority-to-train-service-members-as-law-enforcement-officers-while-they-participate-in-the-department-of-defense-skillbridge-program/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/stmdxouf/03285297.pdf

Original opinion text

Alan Wilson
Attorney General

May 3, 2023

Chief Christ Watts

City of Rock Hill Police Department
120 East Black St.
Rock Hill, SC 29730

Dear Chief Watts:

Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section. The letter states:

On October 10, 2022, we hired [Service Member] for the position of a Class I Police Officer with our agency. During the hiring process, it was discovered that
[Service Member] would be utilizing the Department of Defense SkillBridge Program which allows full-time military personnel to begin learning the skills in

the career field they wish to pursue once separated from the military. [Service Member] was hired by our agency with the date of separation from the Army scheduled for June 2023.

After being hired, it was discovered that [Service Member] could not be paid by the City of Rock Hill due to the compensation he is receiving from the Army at this time.

We have also learned that [Service Member] cannot attend the South Carolina

Criminal Justice Academy or begin any online training for the position of Police Officer I because, according to the S.C. Code § 23-23-10 (E)(1) the definition of a Law Enforcement Officer is, “an appointed officer or employee hired by and

regularly on the payroll of the State or any of its political subdivisions, who is

granted statutory authority to enforce all or some of the criminal, traffic, and penal laws of the State and who possesses, with respect to those laws, the power

to affect arrests for offenses committed or alleged to have been committed.” Furthermore, the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy requires a Basic Law Enforcement registrant be a full-time paid employee of a S.C. agency before attending any in-person or online training.

fitHMBEK r C. Dennis Building

POST OiTiCE BOX I 1 54 9

’ Columbia, SC 292 1 1 -1549

Telephone Eu?-73-!-?>9?0 .

Cacsim-.l;?

Chief Chris Watts
Page 2
May 3, 2023

The South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy's (“SCCJA”) General Counsel

suggested we may want to seek the Attorney General's opinion on the matter of hiring and certifying a person who is still being paid full-time by the military, because due to the current wording of the State Law mentioned above, we have an employee who will have to wait eight months to begin any training to become a

S.C. Certified Officer.
We are requesting a review of this law to possibly allow this employee and any

others in the future to attend the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy prior to completing the Skill Bridge Program. Law/Analysis It is this Office’s opinion that a court would likely hold Title 23, Chapter 23 authorizes the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy (the “Academy”) to train those persons that meet the statutory definition of “law enforcement officer.” S.C. Code § 23-23-1 0(E)(1).

The

Academy is required by statute to “provide facilities and training for all officers from state, county, and local law enforcement agencies and for other designated persons in the criminal justice system.” S.C. Code § 23-23-20.

“Law enforcement officer” is statutorily defined to

mean:

[A]n appointed officer or employee hired by and regularly on the payroll of the

State or any of its political subdivisions, who is granted statutory authority to enforce all or some of the criminal, traffic, and penal laws of the State and who possesses, with respect to those laws, the power to effect arrests for offenses committed or alleged to have been committed.

S.C. Code § 23-23-1 0(E)(1) (emphasis added). An initial issue is whether the phrase “hired by and regularly on the payroll of the State or any of its political subdivisions” only modifies

employee or also modifies “appointed officer.” Because there are classifications of appointed

officers that serve without pay, it appears the legislature did not intend the phrase “regularly on the payroll” to modify “appointed officer.”

See,

e.g., S.C.

Code

§

23-1 -60(B) (“All

appointments of deputies, constables, security guards, and detectives appointed pursuant to this section without compensation expire sixty days after the expiration of the term of the Governor making the appointment.”); S.C. Code Regs. 37-030 (“In addition to the definition required by

law, a “reserve” officer is not paid by the agency for which the officer performs law enforcement

duties.”).

Therefore, a court would likely construe section 23-23-1 0(E)(1) to permit the

Academy to provide training to law enforcement officers that are either (1) appointed or (2) hired

and regularly on the payroll of the State or its political subdivisions.

Chief Chris Watts
Page 3
May 3, 2023

The next issue is whether the Academy is authorized to train a Department of Defense SkillBridge Program (“SkillBridge Program”) participant who is hired by a municipal police department, but is not on the department’s payroll. As described in your letter, the Department

of Defense SkillBridge Program allows full-time military personnel to begin learning skills in civilian career paths. The Department of Defense website provides an overview of the program which states:

For industry partners SkillBridge is an opportunity to access and leverage the

world’s most highly trained and motivated workforce at no cost. Service members participating in SkillBridge receive their military compensation and benefits, and industry partners provide the training and work experience.

Service members can be granted up to 1 80 days of permissive duty to focus solely on training full-time with approved industry partners after unit commander ... provides written authorization and approval. These industry partners offer real-

world training and work experience in in-demand fields of work while having the opportunity to evaluate the service member’s suitability for the work. Department

of

Defense,

SkillBridge

Program

https://skillbridge.osd.mil/program-overview.htm.

Overview

(last

visited

4/12/2023)

It appears that while a service member

participates in this program, he is prohibited from being regularly on the payroll of any employer other than the military. Although this restriction on compensation would prevent an “employee”

from satisfying the requirements of S.C. Code § 23-23- 10(E)(1), a service member who is “appointed” as an officer would still qualify as a law enforcement officer. The South Carolina Code permits a municipality to “appoint or elect as many police officers, regular or special, as may be necessary for the proper law enforcement in such municipality and fix their salaries and prescribe their duties.” S.C. Code § 5-7-110 (emphasis added).

Because municipal police

officers are generally appointed, the plain language of S.C. Code § 23-23-1 0(E)(1) appears to permit the Academy to train a service member who is hired by a municipal police department through the SkillBridge Program.

This Office discussed the issues raised in your letter with the Academy in an effort to

identify whether there are further statutes or regulations to consider.

The Academy identified

S.C. Code § 23-23- 10(E)(1) as the sole statute of concern. While it is this Office’s opinion that the plain language of S.C. Code § 23-23- 10(E)(1) does not prohibit SkillBridge participants who are hired in an appointed capacity from training with the Academy, legislative clarification may be warranted to address whether this was the General Assembly’s intent. See Kerr v. Richland

Chief Chris Watts
Page 4
May 3, 2023

Mcm'l Hosp.. 383 S.C. 146,148, 678 S.E.2d 809, 811 (2009) (The primary rule of statutory

construction is to “ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature.”).

Conclusion

As is discussed more fully above, it is this Office’s opinion that the plain language of S.C. Code § 23-23- 10(E)(1) docs not prohibit SkillBridgc participants who are hired by a municipal police department from training with the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. It appears that while a service member participates in the SkillBridgc program, he is prohibited from being regularly on the payroll of any employer other than the military.

Although this

restriction on compensation would prevent an “employee” from satisfying the requirements of S.C. Code § 23-23- 10(E)(1), a service member who is “appointed” as an officer would still qualify as a law enforcement officer.

Sincerely,

Matthew Houck

Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General