Judge: Local courts to consider smoking
violations break law 3/27/2009 12:18 AM By MEG KINNARD Associated Press
COLUMBIA -- A memo from South Carolina's top judge said any courts created to consider violations of local ordinances like smoking bans are illegal under the state's Constitution, an edict that has some municipal officials wondering how they should deal with violators.
"The courts are purportedly established for the purpose of hearing smoking infractions, as well as various other local ordinance violations," Chief Justice Jean Toal wrote in the one-paragraph memo sent Monday to municipal administrators and judges throughout the state. "The creation of these courts is repugnant to the long-standing concept of the state uniform judicial system."
Instead, Toal wrote, infractions of local ordinances - like bans on smoking in public places - should be heard by magistrate and municipal courts, bodies she said are constitutional.
Smoking bans have sprung up across the state since last year, when Toal's court ruled that cities and towns have the power to ban indoor smoking in public places. Four South Carolina counties and 23 municipalities have passed smoking bans, and others are being debated, according to the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative, an anti-smoking group.
Two months later, the justices perplexed some local officials in a unanimous ruling about smoking enforcement on Sullivan's Island, which in May 2006 became the first South Carolina town to pass a smoking ban. The court ruled the town can ban the practice inside public places but can't make violating the smoking ban a crime, and can't jail people who disobey.
"I'm not sure what we're supposed to do, and we're going to have to reconcile the chief justice's memo with that same court's previous ruling," Brad Cunningham, municipal attorney for Lexington, which passed a ban on public smoking last year, said Thursday. "I have no idea."
Cunningham isn't alone. Andy Benke, town administrator in Sullivan's Island, says attorneys there are reviewing the memo, and the state's municipal association says its members are already asking questions.
"We're going to try to talk through it and make sure our folks are in line with what needs to be done," says Warren Harley, governmental affairs liaison for the Municipal Association of South Carolina. "We want to make sure that whatever we do is right."
Not all of those areas have created separate systems to deal with infractions. Several municipalities with smoking bans, such as Hilton Head Island, say they've dealt with violations in municipal court, while others like North Augusta haven't had a single violation.
"The administrative hearing courts aren't solving any problem," says Will Cook, a professor of constitutional law at the Charleston School of Law. "They're creating more problems. ... I think it would be foolish for a local government to move forward with the existing system and go through needless litigation over the issue."
Cook is referring to Myrtle Beach, where the city is being sued over its administrative hearing court by the promoter of a motorcycle rally who says the city shouldn't be allowed to enforce a requirement that all riders wear helmets -- a requirement under city ordinance, but not state law.
On Thursday, City Manager Tom Leath said the Myrtle Beach City Council is still studying how best to comply with Toal's order.
For now, municipal leaders say they are going to work both with each other and the Supreme Court to determine how best to proceed with local ordinance violations.
"This was not on our radar," Harley says. "We're just confused at this point."
Notice about comments:
AikenStandard.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. AikenStandard.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not AikenStandard.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Posted by: S. McIntosh On: Friday, March 27, 2009 8:23 AM
Comment Title: SMOKING
Had these Government Bodies left this “No Smoking” policy to business owners as they should have, this would not be an issue. What’s the point of having a Law (ordinance) that carries no fine or jail time. Actually it’s kind of simple to resolve. The business owner or Property Owner simply places signage on the property that reads “ THIS PROPERTY POSTED NO SMOKING ” you could go so far as to state no tobacco. With this in place and someone comes in and lights up they can be arrested under the current TRESSPASSING Statutes that are state law. The penalty would be the same as trespassing. Such signs could be placed in/on any Government Property, building, park, school, etc. (but don’t forget to run the proper Legal Notice in your local news paper)Everyone is always in such a rush to pass some new law when it's been provided for in other areas. If you don't want someone doing something on your property, POST IT.
Report Abuse
1