ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me for a hearing on the suspension of the hunting and fishing privileges of Petitioner Travis
Jackson (Petitioner). After timely notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on February 16, 2000 at the Administrative
Law Judge Division, Columbia, South Carolina. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, Petitioner's hunting and
fishing privileges are hereby suspended.
STIPULATED FACTS
At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the following facts:
1. On September 30, 1998, Petitioner was convicted in Magistrate's Court of violating S.C. Code Ann. § 50-11-10 (Supp.
1998) for hunting doves over bait. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (Department) charged Petitioner
with eight (8) points, as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 50-9-1120(2)(e) (Supp. 1998).
2. On August 17, 1999, Petitioner was convicted in Magistrate's Court on three counts of violating S.C. Code Ann. § 50-11-2200 (Supp. 1998) for hunting deer over bait, failing to wear orange clothing while hunting, and baiting deer. The
Department charged Petitioner with twenty-four (24) points, as required by § 50-9-1120(1)(k) (Supp. 1998).
3. As of August 17, 1999, the total points charged to Petitioner totaled thirty-two (32). On this basis, the Department
suspended Petitioner's hunting and fishing privileges for a period of one (1) year, as required by § 50-9-1140 (Supp. 1998).
4. On August 20, 1999, the Department mailed to Petitioner an "Official Order of Suspension," which was returned to the
Department by the U.S. Postal Service. On October 28, 1999, Petitioner was personally served with an "Official Order of
Suspension."
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into
account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact.
1. On October 24, 1998, Petitioner was cited by the Department for three violations of S.C. Code Ann. § 50-11-2200 (Supp.
1998) that are at issue in this case.
2. The property on which Petitioner was hunting at the time of these citations was part of Game Zone 2 (Western Piedmont
Hunt Unit).
3. At the hearing, Petitioner argued that the hunting and fishing license should not be suspended because Petitioner has
appealed as improper the three Magistrates Court convictions from August 17, 1999. According to Petitioner, the basis of
that appeal is that Petitioner was hunting on leased property, as opposed to wildlife management area lands.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Stipulated Facts and Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following. The
Administrative Law Judge Division is authorized to hear this contested case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B)
(Supp. 1998) and S.C. Code Ann. § 50-9-1150 (Supp. 1998).
S.C. Code Ann. § 50-9-1120 (Supp. 1998) establishes the point system to be used by the Department in assessing points
against an individual's hunting and fishing license for violations of statutory and regulatory provisions. S.C. Code Ann. § 50-9-1130 (Supp. 1998) provides that upon conviction of a violation, as set forth in § 50-9-1120, the Department shall assess
points against the holder of the hunting and fishing license.
Consistent with the statutes cited above, the Department assessed twenty-four (24) points to Petitioner following his
conviction in Magistrate's Court on August 17, 1999 on three counts of violating game management area regulations.
Petitioner was cited for hunting deer over bait, failing to wear orange clothing while hunting, and baiting deer. Each of these
activities constitutes a violation of the Hunt Units and Wildlife Management Area Regulations, set forth in 27 S.C. Code
Ann. Regs. 123-40. Under Reg. 123-40, § 2.9, hunting over a baited area and baiting is prohibited. Under Reg. 123-40, §
7.1, hunters must wear solid, visible international orange. Under § 50-9-1120(1)(k), the Department must assess eight (8)
points for each of these violations of game management regulations, for a total of twenty-four (24) points.
In this case, the inquiry of this tribunal is limited to "a determination of the validity of the violations and the points assessed
thereon." S.C. Code Ann. § 50-9-1150(c) (Supp. 1998). The criminal convictions remove any duty to re-examine the facts
that must have existed in order to sustain the criminal violation. "It is firmly established that a criminal conviction may not be
the subject of a collateral attack in an administrative proceeding." S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Dep't v. Kunkle, 287
S.C. 177, 336 S.E.2d 468 (1985) (citing DeWitt v. S.C. Dep't of Highways and Pub. Transp., 274 S.C. 184, 262 S.E.2d 28
(1980)); S.C. Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Breeland, 208 S.C. 469, 38 S.E.2d 644 (1946); cf. Yeargin v. S.C. Dep't of
Highways and Pub. Transp., 313 S.C. 387, 438 S.E.2d 234 (1993) (no hearing required where conviction on criminal charge
leads to statutorily mandated revocation of driver's license). Given Petitioner's conviction in Magistrate's Court on the three
counts of violating S.C. Code Ann. § 50-11-2200 (Supp. 1998), the Department assessed Petitioner with twenty-four (24)
points, as required by § 50-9-1120(1)(k) (Supp. 1998), including eight (8) points for each violation of a game management
area regulation.
The Department is statutorily required to suspend for one year the hunting and fishing privileges of any person who has
accumulated eighteen (18) or more points. S.C. Code Ann. § 50-9-1140 (Supp. 1998). The Department properly assessed
Petitioner with twenty-four (24) points, and the Department is required to suspend Petitioner's hunting and fishing privileges.
Petitioner contends that his license should not be suspended because he was hunting on leased property, as opposed to
wildlife management area lands. The property on which Petitioner was hunting when he was cited for violating § 50-11-2200 on October 24, 1998 was part of Game Zone 2 (Western Piedmont Hunt Unit). The game and fish laws of the State
apply to all zones of the State, unless otherwise specified. S.C. Code Ann. § 50-1-70 (Supp. 1998). Further, the
Department is charged with enforcing these laws. S.C. Code Ann. § 50-1-80 (Supp. 1998). According to Petitioner,
however, this issue is the basis of his appeal from the Magistrate's Court. Nonetheless, as long as the criminal convictions
stand, this tribunal has no authority to attack collaterally those convictions and determine that the points assessed were
invalid.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the hunting and fishing privileges of Travis Jackson are suspended for a period of one year.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
February 18, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
