Today the Supreme Court handed down an order in Hall v. State, in response to Petitioner Hall’s allegations of unfairness in the Court’s original jurisdiction in the case. In Hall v. State, the Court had to determine “what relief, if any, may be available to inmates who are being adversely affected by unserved [arrest] warrants.”
The Court concluded that the complaints coming from inmates of the South Carolina Department of Correction (SCDC) concerning adverse impacts as a result of unserved arrest warrants can be solved by administrative action. The Court found the underlying issue to be that local law enforcement was unaware of SCDC’s Office of General Counsel policy that made SCDC responsible for serving arrest warrants on SCDC inmates, if those warrants are forwarded to it. This policy was reflected in a 1986 memorandum and reiterated in a 2012 memorandum issued by the South Carolina Judicial Department.
In an effort to help further disseminate the SCDC policy, the Court republished the pertinent part of the memorandum in the order. Subsequently, the Court dismissed this matter as the issued raised is now moot.