A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 17-15-175 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A JUDGE MAY NOT ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR UNLESS THE SOLICITOR OR CLERK OF COURT HAS PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD BEFORE ISSUING THE BENCH WARRANT.
Summary
H3067 would add a new section to the South Carolina Code limiting when a circuit court judge may issue a general sessions bench warrant for failure to appear. Under the bill, after an initial appearance, a judge could not issue such a warrant on a solicitor’s motion unless the solicitor has first conspicuously posted a list of potential bench warrants at the appropriate courthouse and on the solicitor’s website at least 48 hours before the warrant is requested. The bill also states that this notice requirement does not apply when the judge issues the warrant on the judge’s own motion or when the person was personally served with an appearance date.
The measure is aimed at adding advance notice before bench warrants are sought, which could reduce surprise warrant issuance and give attorneys and defendants a chance to address missed appearances before arrest warrants are entered. It would create a procedural safeguard in general sessions court practice and apply only to bench warrants for failure to appear after an initial appearance.
Impact
The bill would amend Title 17, Chapter 15 of the South Carolina Code by adding Section 17-15-175, changing the procedure for issuing general sessions bench warrants for failure to appear. It would require solicitors to provide public notice through courthouse posting and website publication before requesting a warrant, while preserving judicial discretion for sua sponte warrants and cases where personal service of the appearance date occurred. The bill would affect solicitors, circuit court judges, defense attorneys, and defendants in criminal cases handled in general sessions court.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or vote history to gauge formal support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears procedural and reform-oriented, with an emphasis on notice and fairness rather than punishment. The caption and structure suggest a targeted change to warrant practice rather than a broader criminal justice overhaul.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether the 48-hour posting requirement is a reasonable due-process safeguard or an unnecessary administrative burden on solicitors and courts. Supporters would likely emphasize improved notice, reduced surprise arrests, and better protection for defendants and attorneys; opponents may argue it could delay enforcement, create loopholes for missed court dates, and complicate warrant processing. The exception for judge-initiated warrants and personally served appearance dates suggests the bill tries to balance notice concerns with court enforcement needs.