Easley v. Cartee, 23744
Decision Date | 12 October 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 23744,23744 |
Citation | 424 S.E.2d 491,309 S.C. 420 |
Parties | City of EASLEY, Appellant, v. Vickie B. CARTEE, Respondent. . Heard |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
G. Edward Welmaker, Pickens, for appellant.
James M. Robinson, Easley, for respondent.
The City of Easley (the City) appeals the reversal of a municipal court shoplifting conviction, alleging that the circuit court erred in holding that the case could not be prosecuted by the security guard who effected the arrest. We reverse.
On January 10, 1991, Robert Edens (Edens), a licensed security officer, 1 arrested Vickie Cartee (Cartee) for shoplifting as she attempted to leave his employer's grocery store with merchandise allegedly concealed in her purse. On February 18, 1991, Edens prosecuted the case over Cartee's objection before a jury in magistrate's court. The jury found Cartee guilty and she appealed her conviction to the circuit court, claiming that the magistrate should not have allowed Edens to prosecute the case. The circuit court reversed on the basis that private security officers have no authority to prosecute. The City appealed.
We have approved the practice of allowing law enforcement officers to prosecute misdemeanor cases in magistrate's and municipal court. State v. Messervy, 258 S.C. 110, 187 S.E.2d 524 (1972). The City asserts that licensed security officers have the same authority as law enforcement officers to prosecute misdemeanor cases in magistrate's court. We agree.
The legislature has granted licensed security officers the authority and power of sheriffs to arrest any person violating the criminal statutes of this State. See S.C.Code Ann. § 40-17-130 (1986). The power is limited only by the requirement that the arrest must be made on property that the security officer is licensed to protect. Id. Thus, like the police, licensed security officers perform a law enforcement function and act in an official capacity when making an arrest. Cf. State v. Brant, 278 S.C. 188, 293 S.E.2d 703 (1982) ( ); Chiles v. Crooks, 708 F.Supp. 127, 131 (D.S.C.1989) ( ). Therefore, in light of the legislature's extension of law enforcement authority to licensed security officers, we hold that licensed security officers may prosecute misdemeanor cases in magistrate's or municipal court. 2
1 Security officers must be licensed by the State Law Enforcement Division pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. §§ 40-17-10 to -170 (1986 & Supp.1991).
2 In our prior cases regarding the authority of law enforcement to prosecute misdemeanors, the facts involved traffic or traffic-related offenses. See State v. Sossamon, 298 S.C. 72, 378 S.E.2d 259 (1989); State ex rel. McLeod v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In The Matter Of Richland County Magistrate's Court
...criminal cases in magistrate's court. See, e.g., State v. Messervy, 258 S.C. 110, 187 S.E.2d 524 (1972); City of Easley v. Cartee, 309 S.C. 420, 424 S.E.2d 491 (1992). Though this Court sanctioned the practices of allowing the arresting South Carolina Highway Patrol officer to prosecute tra......
-
Johnson v. Quattlebaum, 15-2133
...the practice of allowing law enforcement officers to prosecute misdemeanor cases in magistrate's and municipal court." Easley v. Cartee, 424 S.E.2d 491, 492 (S.C. 1992). 2. Sarratt used "the 'f' word," and also called a man a "crack head" and the man's mother a "bitch." 572 S.E.2d at 477. 3......