S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-520
(a) The following are subject to forfeiture:
(b) Any property subject to forfeiture under this article may be seized by the department having authority upon warrant issued by any court having jurisdiction over the property. Seizure without process may be made if:
(j) When property and monies of any value as defined in this section or anything else of any value is seized, the law enforcement agency making the seizure, within ten days or a reasonable period of time after the seizure, shall submit a report to the appropriate prosecution agency.
(1) The report shall provide the following information with respect to the property seized:
(2) If the property is a conveyance, the report shall include the:
(3) In addition to the report provided for in items (1) and (2), the law enforcement agency shall prepare for dissemination to the public upon request a report providing the following information:
(k) Property or conveyances seized by a law enforcement agency or department must not be used by officers for personal purposes.
SECTION 44-53-520 does not violate the "takings" clause of the constitution by providing that property which facilitates trafficking in various controlled substances is subject to seizure and forfeiture, since forfeiture is within the legitimate exercise of the police power, not the power of eminent domain, and is directed to the prevention of serious public harm. Myers v. Real Property at 1518 Holmes Street (S.C. 1991) 306 S.C. 232, 411 S.E.2d 209.
2. In general
After seizing property due to controlled substances violations, city police department and county sheriff's office had no duty to defend against city's independent legal process to condemn the property due to building, structural and fire code deficiencies; forfeiture and condemnation proceedings were distinct competing legal processes. Gadson v. Hembree (S.C. 2005) 364 S.C. 316, 613 S.E.2d 533, rehearing denied. Controlled Substances 178; Health 392; Health 393
A law enforcement agency that seizes property that is subject to forfeiture due to controlled substances violations has a duty to take reasonable steps to maintain the property once a warrant is issued for seizure of the property. Gadson v. Hembree (S.C. 2005) 364 S.C. 316, 613 S.E.2d 533, rehearing denied. Controlled Substances 178
Trial court finding that the State failed to establish probable cause to support the forfeiture of defendant's truck was legal error; evidence was presented by the State to show that defendant's truck was used to transport and conceal crack cocaine, and the State presented evidence that approximately 20 grams of cocaine had been in defendant's truck. Pope v. Gordon (S.C.App. 2004) 359 S.C. 572, 598 S.E.2d 288, rehearing denied. Controlled Substances 184
The State failed to establish probable cause that the money in defendant's bank accounts contained proceeds traceable to illegal drug transactions, and thus the bank accounts were not subject to civil forfeiture; evidence established that defendant's bank accounts contained legitimate business income, there was no evidence that the deposit ticket seized from defendant's nephew showed the deposit of drug money or money from defendant's business, and there was no evidence that defendant was "washing" large amounts of undocumented money through the bank accounts. Pope v. Gordon (S.C.App. 2004) 359 S.C. 572, 598 S.E.2d 288, rehearing denied. Controlled Substances 184
The forfeiture of car under Section 44-53-520, on the ground that it was used to facilitate sale of a controlled substance, was not warranted where the evidence showed only that the arrestee drove the car on the day he was arrested for the sale of drugs to an informant, and that he had its keys in his pocket when police arrested him. Condon v. One 1985 BMW, 4 Door, VIN No. WBAAE6403F0704170 (S.C.App. 1994) 312 S.C. 431, 440 S.E.2d 895, rehearing denied, certiorari denied.
The only persons who may apply pursuant to Section 44-53-586 for the return of seized items which are normally used for lawful purposes, are third parties who hold an interest in the property seized, and who did not consent to, were not privy to, or did not have knowledge of the use of the property which made it subject to seizure or forfeiture. Medlock v. 1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up VIN 1FTDF15YGFNA22049 (S.C. 1992) 308 S.C. 68, 417 S.E.2d 85.
3. Jury trial
A defendant-owner of property, normally used for lawful purposes but which was seized pursuant to a drug offense, was entitled to a jury trial in a civil forfeiture action since forfeiture proceedings and similar actions were triable to a jury under the common law when the State Constitution was adopted, and since the defendant-owner would not have a right to replevy against the state for the property, if wrongfully forfeited. Medlock v. 1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up VIN 1FTDF15YGFNA22049 (S.C. 1992) 308 S.C. 68, 417 S.E.2d 85.
The forfeiture procedure articulated in Section 44-53-530(a), which provides that forfeiture proceedings pursuant to Sections 44-53-520 and -530 be held before a judge alone, is unconstitutional to the extent that it denies a property owner the right to a jury trial in those cases where the property subject to forfeiture is normally used for lawful purposes, since the legislature may not abrogate the right to a jury trial simply by designating a proceeding as a civil action without a jury. Medlock v. 1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up VIN 1FTDF15YGFNA22049 (S.C. 1992) 308 S.C. 68, 417 S.E.2d 85.