Photo Enforcement Illegal In South Carolina

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

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)

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
 1 comment
  • Rnc Rnc on Dec 01, 2009

    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.

  • Lou_BC Well, I'd be impressed if this was in a ZR2. LOL
  • Lou_BC This is my shocked face 😲 Hope formatting doesn't fook this up LOL
  • Lou_BC Junior? Would that be a Beta Romeo?
  • Lou_BC Gotta fix that formatting problem. What a pile of bullsh!t. Are longer posts costing TTAC money? FOOK
  • Lou_BC 1.Honda: 6,334,825 vehicles potentially affected2.Ford: 6,152,6143.Kia America: 3,110,4474.Chrysler: 2,732,3985.General Motors: 2,021,0336.Nissan North America: 1,804,4437.Mercedes-Benz USA: 478,1738.Volkswagen Group of America: 453,7639.BMW of North America: 340,24910.Daimler Trucks North America: 261,959
Next