By on December 1, 2009

Cameras everywhere... but no worries in South Carolina (courtesy:baltimoresun.com)
Earlier this year the South Carolina General Assembly enacted a law that will make it even more difficult for red light camera and speed camera vendors to attempt to do business in the state. Under a provision that took effect on April 9, police are authorized to replace traditional handwritten citations with “electronic traffic tickets” designed to speed the roadside ticketing process. These electronic citations, however, cannot be used as part of a photo enforcement system.

“An electronic traffic ticket must consist of at least one printed copy that must be given to the vehicle operator who is the alleged traffic violator and as many as three additional printed copies if needed to communicate with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the police agency, and the trial officer,” South Carolina Code Section 56-7-20 now states.

Requiring that such tickets be handed to the operator of the vehicle, as opposed to the registered owner, will prevent the use of automated ticketing machines. According to a February 1, 2006 ruling by the office of state Attorney General Henry McMaster, municipalities are prohibited from creating local ordinances in an attempt to bypass legal restrictions of this type.

“You have questioned whether a county council is authorized to create an ordinance against speed along with establishing civil penalties and remedies for that violation,” Senior Assistant Attorney General Charles H. Richardson wrote in a letter to Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner regarding photo radar. “In my opinion, such a speeding ordinance would not be authorized.”

Richardson argued that existing state law covers the offense of speeding by establishing a certain level of fines and license points as punishment. Article VIII, Section 14 of the state Constitution prohibits local governments from setting aside “criminal laws and the penalties and sanctions thereof.” Tanner had asked about setting up a civil penalty system to issue speed camera citations.

“It appears that there would be a conflict between the proposed ordinance and the state law prohibiting speeding in that there would be no criminal violation tracked or points assessed against the driver but, instead, there would be a civil penalty imposed,” Richardson wrote. “As to your question of whether it would be legal for a law enforcement agency to send citations to a registered owner by certified mail, no state law authorizes the use of such process.”

Richardson cited a 1996 opinion declaring that those who wish to install photo enforcement systems must first receive approval for their plans from the state legislature.

A copy of the 2006 opinion from the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office is available in a 175k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Photo Radar Opinion Letter to Sheriff Tanner (South Carolina Attorney General, 2/1/2006)

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

One Comment on “Photo Enforcement Illegal In South Carolina...”


  • avatar
    rnc

    As I currently live in the state that is last in everything good and first in everything bad (statistic wise, we trade back and forth with miss.) I don’t find this surprising, the state needs revenue (lowest cigerette, alcohol and gas taxes in country), but instead skimps on services, education and infrastructure (see last/first comment above).  But then again for 10-15 years they blocked the education lottery while billions of dollars crossed the border south and north to Georgia and NC.

    But in comparison to New England it is really laid back, spaced out and the taxes/fees don’t kill you (my current house payment is less than my property taxes were up there) +/-’s to everything.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

  • Re: Chart Of The Day: Crossovers Are King

    Lie2me - So what, I find the driving position and height of a CUV more to my liking then a traditional sedan. If you don’t, please don’t buy one, I...
  • Re: Chart Of The Day: Crossovers Are King

    highdesertcat - eggsalad, If you’re in the minority, then I must be there with you. Worst thing on the planet is people.
  • Re: Chart Of The Day: Crossovers Are King

    davefromcalgary - I suppose I am lucky. My lifestyle allows me to get by with a smaller sedan. And I like sedans. I have enough room to transport tall/wide friends in...
  • Re: Chart Of The Day: Crossovers Are King

    Toad - “When you sit in anything else, do you have a desire to be several more feet off the ground than you are as if you were in a lifeguard chair?” When...
  • Re: Chart Of The Day: Crossovers Are King

    28-Cars-Later - More so, if everybody jumps off a bridge, then we should too. Also, there are at least fifteen years worth of cars still on the road not in this...
  • Re: Piston Slap: Chipped or just Broken?

    Sajeev Mehta - “Your “late-model GTI” link was to a thread discussing FSI-engined GTIs. There hasn’t been an FSI-engined GTI in six years.” So, out of...
  • Re: Chart Of The Day: Crossovers Are King

    S2k Chris - Errr, no. Moving arms and feet inches is vastly different than moving your entire body from standing to sitting.
  • Re: Chart Of The Day: Crossovers Are King

    Lie2me - I appreciate your input, but I pay cash for my cars so upfront costs are sometimes very important to me
  • Re: Confession Time: I Want A Smart Forfour

    Flybrian - I will also add that its about damn time they got rid of the pre-aged 158k-mile Pacifica transmission they equip each one with.
  • Re: Chart Of The Day: Crossovers Are King

    28-Cars-Later - I was imagining a lifeguard chair :) Let’s go to the tape: I assume “body height” is the vertical roof dimensions. MY13 CR-V Body...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India