Can a water district's lake wardens pull people over for speeding or DUI on or near district property?

Official title

Opinion addressing the authority given to public safety officers commissioned and appointed to protect public service districts.

Requester

Requested by Andrew Parchuk, Lake Warden, Startex-Jackson-Wellford-Duncan Water District.

Plain-English summary

A lake warden for the Startex-Jackson-Wellford-Duncan Water District asked the Attorney General how much law-enforcement authority he and another commissioned warden would have. The district planned to set up a public safety department under § 6-11-340, and the warden wanted to know specifically whether they could pull people over for traffic violations like reckless driving or DUI on district property, and what crimes they could investigate.

The Attorney General explained that the Legislature passed § 6-11-340 after the September 11 attacks to let special purpose districts protect facilities like water plants and storage tanks. Officers commissioned under it are "vested with all powers and duties conferred by law upon constables," and South Carolina constables have broad peace-officer authority to enforce state law. But the statute draws two hard lines. First, their jurisdiction is limited to the district's own property and the streets and roads through and contiguous to it. Second, they may not make an incidental arrest of, or issue a ticket to, anyone for a traffic violation.

From those limits the AG drew the answer to the warden's question. Because these officers cannot arrest or ticket for traffic violations, they also cannot detain a driver or even issue a warning for a traffic offense, since a detention is itself a form of arrest. So the wardens cannot pull people over for reckless driving or DUI under this authority. Within their jurisdiction and away from traffic offenses, though, they can investigate and enforce other provisions of state law, consistent with the statute's facility-protection purpose.

What this means for you

Special purpose district boards and the officers they commission

Officers commissioned under § 6-11-340 carry constable-level authority to enforce state law, but only within the district's property and contiguous streets and roads. The statute itself withholds traffic-stop authority: these officers cannot arrest or ticket for a traffic violation, and the AG read that to also foreclose detaining a driver or issuing a warning for one. A district counting on its public safety officers to handle roadway traffic enforcement is reading the statute past its limits.

Lake wardens and district public safety officers

The opinion is direct on the warden's own question: you cannot pull someone over for reckless driving or DUI under this commission. Because you lack authority to arrest or ticket for a traffic violation, you also lack authority to detain the driver until another officer arrives or to issue a warning. Your enforcement role is tied to protecting district facilities, not policing traffic.

Drivers on or near special purpose district property

A district public safety officer's authority does not extend to ordinary traffic enforcement against you. If a genuine traffic-law situation arises, it falls to officers with traffic authority (such as the sheriff or highway patrol), not to district public safety officers acting under § 6-11-340.

Common questions

Q: What is § 6-11-340 for?
A: The Legislature enacted it after September 11, 2001 to let special purpose districts create public safety departments and commission officers to protect and police district-owned facilities like water treatment plants, storage tanks, wastewater plants, pumping stations, and natural gas storage.

Q: How much authority do these officers have?
A: They are vested with "all powers and duties conferred by law upon constables." Because South Carolina constables have broad peace-officer authority, these officers can enforce state law, but only within the geographic limits the statute sets.

Q: Where can they act?
A: Only on the property of the special purpose district and the streets and roads through and contiguous to that property. Their jurisdiction does not extend beyond that.

Q: Can they pull someone over for speeding, reckless driving, or DUI?
A: No. The statute bars them from making an incidental arrest of, or issuing a ticket to, a person for a traffic violation. The AG concluded they therefore cannot detain a driver or issue a warning for a traffic offense either.

Q: Can they detain a suspected drunk driver until the sheriff arrives?
A: No. The AG reasoned that detention is itself an arrest, so an officer without authority to arrest for a traffic violation cannot detain someone for one (citing State v. McAteer).

Background and statutory framework

Section 6-11-340 was adopted in 2004 in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Subsection (A) states the Legislature's purpose: protecting special purpose district facilities from terrorist attack or other disruption. Subsection (C) authorizes each district to establish a public safety department, to appoint and commission as many public safety officers as needed, and vests those officers with "all powers and duties conferred by law upon constables in addition to duties imposed upon them by the governing body of the district." That same subsection limits jurisdiction to district property and contiguous streets and roads and bars incidental arrests or tickets for traffic violations.

To define constable authority, the AG drew on State v. Luster, where the South Carolina Supreme Court held a gubernatorially commissioned constable was a peace officer who could arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed in his presence, and State v. Franklin, which said a constable "stands on the same footing as a sheriff." The AG read § 6-11-340(C) in light of its stated facility-protection purpose, citing McClanahan v. Richland County Council on construing statutes to effect legislative intent. On detention, the AG relied on State v. McAteer, which held an officer acting outside his jurisdiction had no authority to detain a suspected drunk driver, to conclude that an officer who cannot arrest for a traffic violation cannot detain for one.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• S.C. Code Ann. § 6-11-340 (special purpose district public safety departments; constable powers; jurisdiction limited to district property and contiguous roads; no traffic arrests or tickets)
• S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-60 (commissioning of state constables)

Cases:

• State v. Luster, 178 S.C. 199, 182 S.E. 427 (1935) (commissioned constable is a peace officer with arrest authority)
• State v. Franklin, 80 S.C. 332, 60 S.E. 953 (1908) (a constable stands on the same footing as a sheriff)
• McClanahan v. Richland Cnty. Council, 350 S.C. 433, 567 S.E.2d 240 (2002) (construe statutes to effectuate legislative intent)
• State v. McAteer, 340 S.C. 644, 532 S.E.2d 865 (2000) (officer without jurisdiction cannot detain a suspected drunk driver)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-the-authority-given-to-public-safety-officers-commissioned-and-appointed-to-protect-public-service-districts/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/kq4k13mi/03454220.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

December 4, 2023

Andrew Parchuk

Lake Warden

Startex-Jackson-Wellford-Duncan Water District
200 Lyman Lodge Rd.

Lyman, SC 29365

Dear Mr. Parchuk:

We received your letter requesting an opinion of this Office concerning the Startex-Jackson-
Wellford-Duncan Water District (““SJWD Water District”). In your letter, you explain the SJWD
Water District is planning to establish a department of public safety as permitted under section 6-
11-340 of the South Carolina Code. Additionally, you informed us that you are a Class I officer
and the other lake warden will be a commissioned Class I officer. Specially, you ask whether in
relation to section 6-1-340(C) you and the other commissioned lake warden “would be able to pull
people over for traffic violations that cause a severe risk to public safety on our properties such as
reckless driving or DUIs?” You also ask what “types of crimes we would be able to investigate?”

Law/Analysis

The Legislature adopted section 6-11-340 of the South Carolina Code (2004) after the September
11 terrorist attacks. This provision gives special purpose districts the authority to establish their
own public safety departments to protect and police their facilities. In subsection (A) of this
provision, the Legislature expressed its intent regarding this provision, stating:

(A) The General Assembly finds that the public interest requires the
safeguarding and protection of facilities owned by special purpose districts,
such as water treatment plants, water storage tanks, wastewater treatment
plants, pumping stations, and natural gas storage facilities. The health, safety,
and protection of human life is dependent, in part, upon these facilities being
properly protected from attack by terrorists or others seeking to disrupt the
proper operation of facilities.

S.C. Code Ann. § 6-11-340(A). As such, the Legislature authorized the establishment of public
safety department in subsection (C):

Robert C. Dennis Building • Post Office Box 11549 • Columbia, SC 29211-1549 • Telephone 803-734-3970 • Facsimile 803-253-6283

Andrew Parchuk
Page 2
December 4, 2023

(C) Each special purpose district is authorized to establish a public safety
department to protect and police the facilities owned by the district under such
reasonable rules and regulations as the district may from time to time
promulgate. The district may appoint and commission as many public safety
officers as necessary for the proper security, general welfare, and convenience
of the facilities. The public safety officers must be vested with all powers and
duties conferred by law upon constables in addition to duties imposed upon
them by the governing body of the district. The jurisdiction of these public
safety officers is limited to the property of the special purpose district and the
streets and roads through and contiguous to the property, except that these
officers may not make an incidental arrest of a person for, or issue a ticket for,
a traffic violation.

S.C. Code Ann. § 6-11-340(C).

Pursuant to section 6-11-340(C), appointed and commissioned public safety officers have “all
powers and duties conferred by law upon constables in addition to duties imposed upon them by
the governing body of the district.” In a 2018 opinion, we described the powers of State constables
stating:

This Office, citing the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in State
v. Luster, 178 S.C. 199, 182 S.E. 427 (1935), has often concluded that State
constables [[commissioned pursuant to § 23-1-60] possess the authority of
regularly commissioned peace officers, including the power of arrest. See, e.g.,
Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., January 25, 1996 (1996 WL 82898). In Luster, the Court
stated:

[t]he trial judge held, and so instructed the jury, that Miliam, under the
Commission given him by the Governor, was a peace officer of the
State, and as such officer had the right and authority to arrest anywhere
without a warrant any person committing a misdemeanor in his
presence. This charge or holding, was unquestionably correct and was
applicable under the facts of the case.

Id., 182 S.E. at 429. Thus, a State constable clearly possesses statewide law
enforcement authority as a peace officer. The Court has stated that constables
perform all the duties of law enforcement officers and, in particular, “a
constable stands on the same footing as a sheriff.” State v. Franklin, 80 S.C.
332, 338, 60 S.E. 953, 955 (1908). Therefore, a State constable whose
commission has not been limited by the issuing authority, would generally be
authorized to enforce all the laws of South Carolina anywhere in the State.

Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 1695512 (April 4, 2013) (emphasis added).

Andrew Parchuk
Page 3
December 4, 2023

Op. Att’y Gen., 2018 WL 6587186 (S.C.A.G. Nov. 28, 2018).

Accordingly, as the Legislature gave public safety officers appointed pursuant to section 6-11-340
the authority of a constable, they are authorized to enforce all the laws of the State. However, in
section 6-11-340(C) the Legislature limited this authority specifying the jurisdiction of these
officers is “limited to the property of the special purpose district and the streets and roads through
and contiguous to the property.” Additionally, these officers are prohibited from making
“incidental arrest of a person for, or issue a ticket for, a traffic violation.” Therefore, if the incident
occurs within the officers’ jurisdiction and does not involve a traffic violation, we believe they
would have the authority to investigate and enforce any other provision of state law. We note this
interpretation appears consistent with the Legislature’s stated purpose of creating these public
safety departments to guard special purpose district facilities from potential terrorist attacks. See
McClanahan v. Richland Cnty. Council, 350 S.C. 433, 438, 567 S.E.2d 240, 242 (2002) (“All rules
of statutory construction are subservient to the one that legislative intent must prevail if it can be
reasonably discovered in the language used, and that language must be construed in light of the
intended purpose of the statute.”).

In your letter, you specifically inquire as to whether lake wardens can pull people over for traffic
violations and detain them until other officers with the authority to enforce such laws arrive to
issue a ticket or whether Lake Wardens can issue warnings for these violations. We believe such
actions would be inconsistent with both the intent of the legislation and the authority given to these
officers by the Legislature. The Legislature intended for these officers to protect facilities, not
enforce traffic laws. As such, the Legislature specifically excluded the authority to issue tickets or
make arrest for traffic violations. Without authority to enforce traffic violations, such officers also
do not have the authority to detain individuals for such violations. See State v. McAteer, 340 S.C.
644, 646, 532 S.E.2d 865, 866 (2000) (noting since a municipal police officer was outside the
municipality’s city limits, he had no authority to detain an individual he suspected was driving
under the influence); Op. Att’y Gen., 2012 WL 1561867 (S.C.A.G. Apr. 19, 2012) (stating “a Class
3 officer, or an administrative code officer, is similarly without statutory authority to detain a
suspect until another officer arrives because the detention, itself, is an arrest.”). Therefore, we do
not believe lake wardens have authority to issue warnings or detain individuals for traffic
violations.

Conclusion

After September 11, 2001, the Legislature adopted section 6-11-340 of the South Carolina Code
giving authority to special purposes districts to create public safety departments and commission
public safety officers to protect their facilities. The Legislature vested these public safety officers
with “all powers and duties conferred by law upon constables in addition to duties imposed upon
them by the governing body of the district.” S.C. Code Ann. § 6-11-340(C). Therefore, we believe
these public safety officers would have the authority, as do constables, to enforce all provisions of
State law. However, their jurisdiction is limited to “the property of the special purpose district and
the streets and roads through and contiguous to the property ... .” and they may not “make an
incidental arrest of a person for, or issue a ticket for, a traffic violation.” An officer who does not

Andrew Parchuk
Page 4
December 4, 2023

have the authority to arrest a person for a particular offense also does not have the authority to
detain an individual for that offense. Op. Att’y Gen., 2000 WL 655478 (S.C.A.G. Apr. 14, 2000).
As these public safety officers are without authority to arrest a person for or issue a ticket for a
traffic violation, we believe they are similarly without authority to detain a person for such a
violation or issue a warning regarding such a violation.

Sincerely,

pune Naltr

Cydney Milling
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

4

Mil kA CEA
obert D. Cook

Solicitor General