Could a South Carolina town police officer make a traffic case outside the town limits in 2006?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, the South Carolina Attorney General said a municipal police officer's authority generally ended at the municipality's territorial limits. The opinion identified several exceptions: certain roads touching a municipal boundary, pursuit of an offender who violated a law inside town, interagency assistance, and agreed extensions of police service into nearby areas.

The request concerned allegations that the Wellford, Lyman, and Duncan police departments were making traffic cases outside their jurisdictions. The office did not determine whether any of those departments had done so. It said that question depended on the facts of a particular case and was for a court to resolve.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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: Were town police powers limited to land inside town limits?
A: Generally, yes, but the opinion identified statutory circumstances in which officers could act beyond those limits.

Q: What if a highway touched a town boundary?
A: The opinion quoted a statute treating the adjoining right of way as within the municipality for police-jurisdiction purposes. It also said a highway forming the boundary between two municipalities was under both departments' police jurisdiction.

Q: Could a town officer pursue someone beyond the town?
A: The opinion quoted a pursuit statute covering an offender whose violation occurred inside the town and an arrest in the town's county or within three miles of its limits.

Q: Did the Attorney General find that Wellford, Lyman, or Duncan had issued an invalid traffic charge?
A: No. It said whether a department improperly acted outside its territory was a factual question the office could not decide. The opinion described a charged person's opportunity to raise the dispute in court.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion began with the general territorial rule and then discussed roads along municipal boundaries, pursuit, temporary officer transfers, cooperative investigations, emergency requests, and municipal agreements for police service in contiguous areas. It quoted the requirement that a governing body request and agree to the nearby service area for the extended jurisdiction described in the municipal statute. Those possibilities explained why the location of a stop alone did not resolve the three departments' cases.

Citations and references

The opinion cited South Carolina Code provisions governing municipal police powers, boundary roads, pursuit, and agreed extensions of service. It cited State v. Harris for the general territorial rule.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-14-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06sept14-Wright.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY McMAsTER
AITORNEY GENERAL

September 14, 2006

I

The Honorable Chuck Wright
Sheriff, Spartanburg County
P. 0 . Box 771
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304
Dear Sheriff Wright:
This letter is a follow up to our telephone conversation dealing with the question raised by Mr. Chip Desjardins who had questioned the traffic enforcement actions ofthe Wellford, Lyman and Duncan Police Departments. It is my understanding that Mr. Desjardins is alleging that these police departments are making traffic cases outside their territorial jurisdictions. Generally, pursuantto S.C. Code Ann.§ 5-7-110, municipal 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; .... " 1 Additionally, S.C. Code Ann.§ 5-7-155 states that
[i]f any portion of a street or highway is within the boundary of a municipality, the right ofway of the street or highway not within the municipal boundary but touching the boundary is nevertheless considered to be within the boundary of that municipality for purposes of its police jurisdiction. A street or highway which serves as the boundary between municipalities is under the police jurisdiction of both municipalities regardless of the municipality in which the street or highway is located. Typically, the jurisdiction of a municipal police officer does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the municipality. State v. Harris, 299 S.C. 157, 382 S.E.2d 925 (1989). However, exceptions to this rule allow for expanded jurisdiction in specified instances. For instance, S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-40 authorizes a municipal officer to arrest an offender at a place within a radius of three miles

1

Such provision further states that a municipality may contract with a public utility, agency or other private business to provide police protection beyond the corporate limits.

_,J,1/) .. ,.J 1 V~

~ C~1s Bun.DING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA. SC 29211 -J549 • TELEPHONF. R01-714-1Q70 • r~1u1 i::..

c r1n·u ( ' l. /;'>l1 'l

The Honorable Chuck Wright
Page2
September 14, 2006

of the municipal limits when that officer is in pursuit of that offender for a violation of a municipal ordinance or State statute committed within the corporate limits of the municipality. Such provision states that

l

I
I

~

l4J

(A) When the police authorities of a town or city are in pursuit of an offender for a violation of a municipal ordinance or statute of this State committed within the corporate limits, the authorities may arrest the offender, with or without a warrant, at a place within the corporate limits, at a place within the county in which the town or city is located, or at a place within a radius of three miles of the corporate limits .... Other statutory provisions in authorizing the joint administration of functions and the exercise of powers between counties and municipalities also allow for expanded jurisdiction for law enforcement officers outside of their regular jurisdictions. See, e.g., S. C. Code Ann.§ 23-1- 210 (temporarytransferoflawenforcementofficertoworkinanothermunicipalityorcounty); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-215 (agreements authorized between multiple law enforcement agencies for purpose of criminal investigation); S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-120 (municipalities authorized to send law enforcement officer to other political subdivisions upon request in emergency situations); S. C. Code Ann. § 17-13-45 (references the response of a law enforcement officer to a distress call or request for assistance in an adjacent jurisdiction). An opinion of this office dated May 17, 2001 determined that pursuant to Section 17-13-45, a municipal officer would be authorized to respond to a distress call from a highway patrolman. The opinion commented that "(a)s the language of Section 17-13-45 places no limitation on the source of the distress call, a municipal officer would be authorized to respond to such a call from a highway patrolman." This Office has previously opined that Article VIIT, § 13 of the State Constitution authorizes contractual cooperative law enforcement services between jurisdictions and political subdivisions. See: Op. Atty. Gen., May 20, 1996. Such constitutional provision provides in pertinent part that: (A) Any county, incorporated municipality, or other political subdivision may agree with the State or with any other political subdivision for the joint administration of any function and exercise of powers and the sharing of the costs thereof. (B) Nothing in this Constitution may be construed to prohibit the State or any of its counties, incorporated municipalities, or other political subdivisions from agreeing to share the lawful cost, responsibility, and administration of functions with any one or more governments, whether within or without this State ...

In addition to the statutory provisions authorizing expanded jurisdiction in certain circumstances, S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-30 provides in pertinent part as follows: Each municipality... [has] ... the authority to provide police protection in contiguous municipalities and in unincorporated areas located not more than three miles from the municipal limits upon the request and agreement of the governing body of such contiguous municipality or the county, including agreement as to the boundaries of

The Honorable Chuck Wright
Page3
September 14, 2006

such police jurisdictional areas, in which case the municipal law enforcement officers shall have the full jurisdiction, authority, rights, privileges, and immunities, including coverage under the workers' compensation law, which they have in the municipality, including the authority to make arrests, and to execute criminal process within the extended jurisdictional area....

I

As set forth, while a municipal police department's jurisdiction is generally limited to the corporate limits of the municipality, there are instances when such jurisdiction may be expanded consistent with provisions such as those set forth above. However, the issue of whether cases are being made improperly outside the territorial jurisdictions by any particular police departments is a factual issue that cannot be resolved by an opinion of this office. As stated in an opinion of this office dated April 6, 2006, investigations and determinations of facts are beyond the scope of an opinion of this Office and are better resolved by a court. Therefore, as to the situation regarding the three municipalities referenced above, if there is a dispute as to the jurisdiction of the municipal police departments in a particular situation, one way ofresolving the issue would be for an individual charged with a traffic violation by any of these agencies to take the matter to court and, if necessary, appeal any decision to a higher court.

If there are any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,

@uJ~rffLJ,JZ.___

I

L

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~1(7YJ--Assistant Deputy Attorney General
cc:

Mr. Chip Desjardins