Did Georgetown police have original jurisdiction over the navigable Sampit River?

Plain-English summary

Georgetown’s police chief asked whether city officers had original law-enforcement jurisdiction on the navigable waters around the city. The Attorney General concluded that Section 5-7-140(B) extended the city’s corporate limits across the area between the high-water and low-water marks of the Sampit River, assuming the city bordered its high-water mark. Municipal ordinances and police authority could apply within that strip. The office said it knew of no basis for general city jurisdiction over the Sampit River itself.

The letter said the Georgetown County sheriff had jurisdiction across the county, including the river. It discussed statutory agreements as a possible route for expanded police activity with the sheriff’s department, while cautioning that an agreement could not grant authority beyond that given by statute. It did not identify a general agreement with the Department of Natural Resources that would give Georgetown full river jurisdiction. A separate boating statute could empower qualifying officers to enforce the boating chapter.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. 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: Could Georgetown police enforce city ordinances on the riverbank strip? A: The opinion said city limits extended between the high-water and low-water marks along the navigable Sampit River, so ordinances and police authority could apply in that area.

Q: Did the AG give city police general jurisdiction over the Sampit River? A: No. The office said it was unaware of a basis for Georgetown’s general jurisdiction over the river itself.

Q: Who had jurisdiction over the river in the opinion?
A: The Attorney General said the Georgetown County sheriff had jurisdiction over the entire county, including the Sampit River as understood to lie within it.

Q: Could an agreement with DNR give city police full river jurisdiction? A: The opinion found no general authorization for that result. It separately noted a statute that could empower eligible officers to enforce boating-law provisions.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted Section 5-7-140, which addressed municipal limits bordering the Atlantic and other navigable waters. For a municipality bordering a navigable waterway other than the Atlantic, subsection (B) included the area from high-water to low-water mark. The Attorney General read that as covering Georgetown’s riverbank strip, not the river beyond it.

The office identified the sheriff’s countywide jurisdiction and discussed statutes allowing certain law-enforcement cooperation agreements. It stressed that agreements cannot confer power the statutes themselves do not allow. The letter also distinguished a Department of Natural Resources boating-enforcement authorization under S.C. Code Ann. § 50-21-80 from general municipal jurisdiction over navigable waters.

Citations and references

Statutes discussed: Sections 5-7-140 and 5-7-110 of the South Carolina Code on municipal limits and police authority; Sections 23-1-215 and 23-20-30 on cooperation; and Sections 50-21-30 and 50-21-80 on boating rules and enforcement.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-1-2009-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/gardner-p-os-8839-jurisdiction-navigable-waters.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY M CMASTER
ATIORNEY G ENERAL

September 1, 2009

Paul Gardner, Chief of Police
Georgetown Police Department
2222 Highmarket Street
Georgetown, South Carolina 29440
Dear Chief Gardner:
ln a letter to this office you questioned whether the Georgetown Police Department has original jurisdiction to engage in law enforcement activities on the navigable waters around the City of Georgetown. Reference was made to S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-140 which states that (A) [t]he corporate limits of any municipality bordering on the high-tide line of the Atlantic Ocean are extended to include all that area lying between the high-tide line and one mile seaward of the high-tide line. These areas are subject to all the ordinances and regulations that may be applicable to the areas lying within the corporate limits of the municipality, and the municipal courts have jurisdiction to punish individuals violating the provisions of the municipal ordinances where the misdemeanor occurred in the area defined in this section. (B) The corporate limits of any municipality bordering on the high-water mark of a navigable body of water, other than the Atlantic Ocean, are extended to include all that area lying between the high-watermark and the low-watermark. These areas are subject to all of the ordinances and regulations that may be applicable to the areas lying within the corporate limits of the municipality, and the municipal courts have jurisdiction to punish individuals violating the provisions ofthe municipal ordinances where the misdemeanor occurred in the areas defined in this section. Such provision was enacted as part of Act No. 443 of 1996. Subsection (B) would appear to be applicable to your question and inasmuch as you indicate that the Sampit River is a navigable body of water, in the opinion of this office, the corporate limits of the City of Georgetown which would border on the high-water mark of the Sampit River would be extended to include all that area between the high-water mark and the low-water mark. As noted, such areas would be subject to all municipal ordinances and regulations applicable to areas lying within the corporate limits of the municipality. The law enforcement authority ofthe police department would be consistent with such jurisdictional grant of authority. See: S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-11 0 (municipal police officers " ... shall

R EM.BERT

c. D ENNIS B UlLDlNG •

POST OFFICE Box I1549

•

CoLUMBlA, SC 292 1l-1549

•

T ELEPHONE 803-734-3970

• F ACSIMILE 803-253-6283

Chief Gardner
Page2
September 1, 2009

exercise their powers on all private and public property within the corporate limits of the municipality.... "). Such conclusion would be consistent with an opinion of this office dated September 7, 1983 which stated generally that "[a] check of a number of authorities indicates that while municipal corporations may exercise police power over navigable waters, the authority to do so must be delegated by the State." Another prior opinion of this office dated August 3, 1971 held that generally, " ... the municipality does not have jurisdiction over... (a) ... tidal stream." That opinion also determined further that "[t]he State has exclusive jurisdiction over these waters unless it expressly grants jurisdiction to a municipality." Another opinion of this office dated September 9, 1996 dealt with the question of the authority of the City oflsle of Palms as to Breach Inlet below the low water mark. Breach Inlet was described as a navigable body of water between Sullivan's Island and the Isle of Palms. That opinion, noting an earlier opinion of this office, 1971 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 3157, stated that "[t]he general rule is that when a municipality is bounded by a tidal, navigable water course its territorial limits extend only to the low watermark." Of course, Section5-7-140(B), which has been amended, is specific as to the grant of authority of a municipality bordering on the high-water mark of a navigable body of water. However, consistent with Section 5-7-140(B), I am unaware of any basis for the City of Georgetown to have jurisdiction as to the Sampit River itself. Generally, a sheriff is considered as having jurisdiction over the entire county, which in the opinion of this office, would include a navigable body of water. As set forth at 20 C.J.S. Counties§ 22
[t]he jurisdiction of counties extends to the channel or middle of bodies of water that serve as boundaries between counties ... Thus, unless a statute provides to the contrary, the county's jurisdiction extends to the channel of any river that serves as a boundary between it and another county' ... (However), .. .[a] county's general jurisdiction extends to bodies of water entirely within its boundaries. A county can exercise

1

Such is consistent with S.C. Code Ann.§ 4-3-5 which states that
[:fJor purposes of describing the boundaries of counties ... the center line of waterways is defined as: (1) for areas influenced by the tide, the center line is the line described by a series of points equidistant from the banks as delineated at mean high tide, except when an island is present; then the center line follows the main channel around the island and is the line described by a series of points equidistant from the banks of the main channel as delineated at mean high tide; ....

Chief Gardner
Page 3
September 1, 2009

jurisdiction, subordinate to the jurisdiction of the state, from shore to shore over bodies of water entirely within its borders .... (emphasis added). See also: S.C. Code Ann. § 23-13-70 ("[t]he deputy sheriffs shall patrol the entire county.... "). Therefore, in the opinion of this office, the Georgetown County sheriff has jurisdiction over the entire county, including the Sampit River which I understand to be within the confines of the County. As a result, one means for the Georgetown Police Department to gain jurisdiction over this navigable body ofwater would be through one of the types of expanded law enforcement agreements authorized by State statutes and constitutional provisions which may be entered into with a sheriffs department. See, e.g., S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-215 (grant of authority for purpose of criminal investigation); § 23-20-30 (" ... authorizes a law enforcement agency of this State to enter into contractual agreements with other law enforcement providers as may be necessary for the proper and prudent exercise of public safety functions .... ); Article VIII, Section 13 of the State Constitution ("[t]he ability of political subdivisions to enter into an agreement for the joint administration, responsibility and sharing of the costs of services with other political subdivisions is granted .... "). An opinion of this office dated March 1, 2005 stated, however, that" ... any agreement cannot grant law enforcement officers any additional jurisdictional authority other than that specifically granted by statute.... " As a result, you should contact your city attorney with regard to the feasibility of entering into a contractual agreement with the Sheriffs Department pursuant to the available statutory and constitutional grants of authority in order for the Town to expand its jurisdiction to include the navigable waters around the City of Georgetown. As to your question regarding an agreement with the State Department ofNatural Resources so as to expand your jurisdiction, I am unaware of any provisions generally authorizing an agreement with DNR whereby the City would be granted jurisdiction to enforce its ordinances or State statutes as to navigable waters around the City. However, S.C. Code Ann. § 50-21-30 states that (1) [t]he provisions of Title 50 and other applicable laws of this State shall govern the operation, equipment, titling, numbering, and all other matters relating thereto for watercraft and water devices using or held for use on the waters of this State; but nothing in this chapter may be construed to prevent the adoption of any ordinance or local law relating to operation and equipment of watercraft; provided, that the ordinances or local laws shall be operative only so long as and to the extent that they are identical to provisions of this chapter, amendments thereto, or regulations issued thereunder.

(2) Any subdivision of this State may, at any time, but only after three days' public notice make formal application to the department for special rules and regulations with reference to the operation of vessels on any waters within its territorial limits and shall set forth therein the reasons which make such special rules and regulations necessary or appropriate.

Chief Gardner
Page4
September 1, 2009

(3) The department is hereby authorized to make special rules and regulations with reference to the operation of vessels on waters within the territorial limits of this State. (emphasis added). While allowing for the adoption of ordinances for the statutorily-permitted purposes, such provision does not in itself grant general local law enforcement jurisdiction over navigable waters. However, S.C. Code Ann. § 50-21-80 states that
[a]nyperson employed or elected by this State or political subdivision thereof, whose duty it is to preserve the peace or to make arrests or to enforce the law including, but not limited to, members of the sheriffs departments, state police, enforcement officers, deputies, or other qualified persons, upon recommendation of the appropriate agency, may be empowered to enforce the provisions of this chapter. The department shall be the agency primarily responsible for enforcement of all laws pertaining to boating. Any such person is empowered to issue a summons for appearance in court or before a magistrate or make arrest for violations of this chapter or of the regulations prescribed under it. (emphasis added). "[T]his chapter" as used in such statute only provides statutes relating to the equipment and operation of watercraft. If there are any questions regarding the enforcement of such provisions, I would suggest that you contact the Department of Natural Resources. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, Henry McMaster

;z;;;/Le
By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

i

V·~~

Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General

J__

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General