To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




City of North Charleston v. Harper

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Harper appeals his jail sentence on the grounds the city ordinance is void.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A city ordinance, that is inconsistent or in conflict with state law, is void.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

It is well settled that where there is a conflict between a State statute and a city ordinance, as where an ordinance permits that which a statute prohibits, the ordinance is void.

View Full Point of Law

Harper was arrested and convicted for possession of marijuana. Harper appeals his sentence, a mandatory thirty-day sentence under City Code § 13-3, offended Article VIII, § 14 of the South Carolina Constitution.


Whether a city ordinance that conflict with the state law is null and void.


Yes, when a city ordinance conflicts or is inconsistent with the state law is null and void.


Under the South Carolina Constitution, a person who knowingly or intentionally possesses a controlled substance shall be served for a term not exceeding thirty days in jail or be fined not less than one hundred dollars. However, under the City Code § 13-3, a person who knowingly possesses marijuana shall serve a period of thirty days in jail, and does not give the judge the discretion of imposing a fine. The City contends that they State creates the outer limits of the sentencing guidelines, and the City may restrict the guidelines further. The court disagrees with the City. Instead, the State creates the guidelines, and any confliction with a city ordinance shall be null and void.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following