A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 4-9-145, RELATING TO COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SO AS TO INCLUDE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 47-3-20, RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF LOCAL ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL ORDINANCES, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY TO ALLOW CLASS 3 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS TO CARRY FIREARMS.
Summary
H5091 amends South Carolina law governing county code enforcement and local animal control. First, it revises Section 4-9-145 to expressly include animal control officers alongside litter control officers in the statute that authorizes counties to appoint and commission code enforcement officers with limited custodial arrest authority. The bill defines an animal control officer as a code enforcement officer authorized to enforce animal control laws and ordinances, and it keeps the existing framework that limits arrest powers unless the officer is certified as a law enforcement officer under Title 23.
Second, the bill amends Section 47-3-20 to require counties and municipalities that enact animal care and control ordinances to employ Class 3 animal control officers, and it gives local governing bodies discretion to authorize those officers to carry firearms. The bill would take effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Impact
The bill would change state law by expanding the statutory treatment of animal control officers within county code enforcement and by adding a new statewide requirement for local governments that regulate animal care and control. Counties and municipalities that adopt animal control ordinances would need to employ Class 3 animal control officers, and local governments could choose to arm those officers. The measure also clarifies that animal control officers may have limited arrest authority under the same general framework that applies to litter control officers, subject to law-enforcement certification requirements and existing limits on custodial arrests.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a public safety and enforcement bill rather than a controversial policy overhaul. The inclusion of animal control officers in existing code enforcement provisions suggests an effort to standardize authority and responsibilities for local enforcement personnel. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are available in the provided context, so there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s requirement that local governments employ Class 3 animal control officers and its authorization for those officers to carry firearms. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary to improve enforcement and officer safety, while opponents may be concerned about costs, staffing mandates, and the expansion of armed authority for animal control personnel. Another possible issue is the interaction between local discretion and statewide requirements, especially for counties or municipalities that may already have different animal control staffing models.