JUD 9-2020
Opinion No. 9-2020
South Carolina Judicial Ethics Opinion
Advisory Committee On Standards of Judicial Conduct
July 22, 2020
LETITIA H. VERDIN, CHAIR.
RE:
Propriety of a Magistrate Court Judge employing a Berkeley
County Detention Officer as constable to serve court papers
on a part-time basis.
FACTS
A
Magistrate Court Judge would like to hire an officer for a
Berkeley County detention center as a constable to serve
court papers for magistrate court civil cases. The detention
officer would have no courtroom duties or office hours. The
detention officer would not be required to appear or testify
before any magistrate judges and does not participate in any
bond court proceedings held at the detention center. The
judge inquires as to whether hiring the officer is proper.
CONCLUSION
A
Magistrate Court Judge may hire a Berkeley County detention
officer as a constable to serve papers for magistrate court
civil cases.
OPINION
In
Opinion No. 14-2000, we considered the issue of whether a
constable for the magistrate court could also be employed as
a lake warden commissioned by the county sheriff. We noted
that Article VI § 3 of the South Carolina Constitution
states that "[n]o person may hold two offices of honor
or profit at the same time. This limitation does not apply to
officers in the militia, notaries public, members of lawfully
and regularly organized fire departments, constables, or
delegates to a constitutional convention." 1989 Act No.
9, § 2, eff February 8, 1989. Because constables are
excluded from the dual office prohibition, there was no bar
against acting as a constable and as a lake warden for the
sheriff.
In Op.
No. 14-2000, we also noted that “A judge shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the
judge's activities.” Rule 501, Canon 2, SCACR.
However, we determined that the lake warden’s duties
were separate from those of a constable and concluded that
service as both would not create any impropriety or the
appearance of impropriety.
The
issue...