Could a South Carolina magistrate hear a charge of illegally passing a stopped school bus?

Plain-English summary

An assistant solicitor asked whether magistrates could hear charges for passing a stopped school bus. The 2000 informal opinion answered yes. The offense statute allowed a first-offense fine of at least five hundred dollars or imprisonment of up to 30 days. A magistrate's criminal jurisdiction extended to a fine of no more than five hundred dollars, imprisonment of no more than 30 days, or both. The AG saw a conflict only if a magistrate imposed a fine above five hundred dollars.

The AG thought the fine provision was probably a drafting error. It nevertheless rested its conclusion on the rule that an ambiguous penal statute must be construed against the state and in favor of the defendant. The letter did not resolve the drafting problem or say that magistrates could impose fines above their jurisdictional ceiling.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. 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: Did the AG think a magistrate could hear a stopped-school-bus passing case?
A: Yes. The opinion advised that magistrates had jurisdiction despite uncertainty about the minimum fine.

Q: What caused the jurisdictional problem?
A: The first-offense fine started at five hundred dollars, the same amount as a magistrate's maximum criminal fine. A fine above five hundred dollars would exceed that ceiling, while the authorized imprisonment term remained within the magistrate's limit.

Q: Did the opinion authorize a magistrate to impose more than a five hundred dollars fine?
A: No. It identified a fine above five hundred dollars as the scenario outside the magistrate's jurisdiction and concluded that the ambiguity should favor the defendant.

Background and statutory framework

The letter compared the penalty for passing a stopped school bus with the monetary and imprisonment limits on magistrates' criminal jurisdiction. It applied State v. Cutler's rule for construing ambiguous penal statutes and described its advice as an informal opinion.

Citations and references

• § 56-5-2770, the stopped-school-bus offense; § 56-5-2780, its penalty provision.
• § 22-3-550, the magistrate jurisdiction provision.
• State v. Cutler, on resolving uncertainty in a penal statute in the defendant's favor.

Official title

Concerning whether magistrates have jurisdiction over violations of South Carolina Code of Laws Section 56-5-2770.

Requester

W. Baxter Harwell, Assistant Solicitor, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-21-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00sept21harwell.pdf

Original opinion text

i

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATIO RNEY GENERAL

September 21, 2000
W. Baxter Harwell, Assistant Solicitor
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
P.O. Box 1276
Conway, South Carolina 29526
Dear Assistant Solicitor Harwell,
By your letter of June 8, 2000, you have requested an opinion of this Office concerning whether magistrates have jurisdiction over violations of South Carolina Code of Laws Section 56-52770 (Passing a Stopped School Bus). South Carolina Code Section 56-5-2780 provides the penalties for unlawfully passing a stopped school bus. For a first offense the driver must be fined "not less than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days." A magistrate has jurisdiction over criminal offenses "which may be subject to the penalties of a fine or forfeiture not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or both." S.C. CODE ANN. § 22-3-550. The ambiguity in
§ 56-5-2780 lies in the fine of "not less than five hundred dollars." Although the imprisonment penalty falls completely within the magistrate's jurisdictional maximum for imprisonment (thirty days), the minimum monetary fine equals a magistrate's jurisdictional maximum. Under two circumstances, the offense is clearly within the magistrate's concurrent jurisdiction: 1) if the magistrate imposes no fine and sentences the driver only to imprisonment and 2) if the magistrate imposes the minimum monetary fine of five hundred dollars. Only if the magistrate opted to fine the driver over five hundred dollars would the offense fall outside his jurisdiction. This confusion in the application of the penalties for jurisdictional purposes leads this Office to conclude that the statutory minimum monetary fine set for unlawfully passing a stopped school bus was probably a drafting error. Nevertheless, in any interpretation of a penal statute, general statutory construction requires that it be strictly construed against the State and any ambiguity or uncertainty must be resolved in favor of the defendant. State v. Cutler, 274 S.C. 376, 264 S.E.2d 420 ( 1980). In light of this guiding principle, this Office advises that a magistrate would have jurisdiction over violations of S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2770, Unlawfully Passing a Stopped School Bus.

I

<

Assistant Solicitor Harwell
September 21, 2000
Page 2 of2
This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I remain

I

I
ti
I

.p

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General