Case Name: Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY AT 1518 HOLMES STREET (Happy Town Part of Lot 6 Block C) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 004644-03-19, Located in "Happy Town" Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Sam Johnson, on June 25, 1945, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Sam Johnson Personally, and Security Federal Savings and Loan Association of Columbia, a Corporation, Respondents; And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY AT 1520 HOLMES STREET (Happy Town Part of Lots 5 and 6 Block C) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 004644-03-20, Located in "Happy Town" Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Rebecca Johnson, on February 13, 1984, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Rebecca Johnson Personally, Respondents; And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY AT 1522 HOLMES STREET (Happy Town Part of Lots 4 and 5) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 004644-03-21, Located in "Happy Town" Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Rebecca Johnson, on May 28, 1976, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Rebecca Johnson Personally, Respondents; And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY BEHIND 1520 HOLMES STREET (Lot 4) and At 1528 Holmes Street (Lots 2 and 2B) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Numbers 004644-03-030 and 004644-03-029, Located in "Happy Town" Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Julius Livingston on February 14, 1989, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Julius Livingston Personally, Respondents; And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY .4 MILES SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 378, .4 Miles West of Leaphart Street (Lots 3 and 3B, 63 X 115) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 994644-03-032, Located in "Happy Town" Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Samuel Johnson and Rebecca Johnson, on July 24, 1972, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Samuel Johnson and Rebecca Johnson Personally, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1991-10-14
Citations: 306 S.C. 232
Docket Number: 23493
Parties: Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY AT 1518 HOLMES STREET (Happy Town Part of Lot 6 Block C) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 004644-03-19, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Sam Johnson, on June 25, 1945, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Sam Johnson Personally, and Security Federal Savings and Loan Association of Columbia, a Corporation, Respondents. And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY AT 1520 HOLMES STREET (Happy Town Part of Lots 5 and 6 Block C) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 004644-03-20, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Rebecca Johnson, on February 13, 1984, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Rebecca Johnson Personally, Respondents. And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY AT 1522 HOLMES STREET (Happy Town Part of Lots 4 and 5) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 004644-03-21, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Rebecca Johnson, on May 28, 1976, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Rebecca Johnson Personally, Respondents. And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY BEHIND 1520 HOLMES STREET (Lot 4) and At 1528 Holmes Street (Lots 2 and 2B) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Numbers 004644-03-030 and 004644-03-029, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Julius Livingston on February 14, 1989, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Julius Livingston Personally, Respondents. And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY .4 MILES SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 378, .4 Miles West of Leaphart Street (Lots 3 and 3B, 63 X 115) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 994644-03-032, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Samuel Johnson and Rebecca Johnson, on July 24, 1972, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Samuel Johnson and Rebecca Johnson Personally, Respondents.
Judges: Gregory, C.J., and Harwell and Toal, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 306
Pages: 232–241

Head Matter:
23493
Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY AT 1518 HOLMES STREET (Happy Town Part of Lot 6 Block C) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 004644-03-19, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Sam Johnson, on June 25, 1945, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Sam Johnson Personally, and Security Federal Savings and Loan Association of Columbia, a Corporation, Respondents. And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY AT 1520 HOLMES STREET (Happy Town Part of Lots 5 and 6 Block C) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 004644-03-20, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Rebecca Johnson, on February 13, 1984, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Rebecca Johnson Personally, Respondents. And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY AT 1522 HOLMES STREET (Happy Town Part of Lots 4 and 5) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 004644-03-21, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Rebecca Johnson, on May 28, 1976, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Rebecca Johnson Personally, Respondents. And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY BEHIND 1520 HOLMES STREET (Lot 4) and At 1528 Holmes Street (Lots 2 and 2B) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Numbers 004644-03-030 and 004644-03-029, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Julius Livingston on February 14, 1989, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Julius Livingston Personally, Respondents. And Donald V. MYERS, as Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Appellant v. REAL PROPERTY .4 MILES SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 378, .4 Miles West of Leaphart Street (Lots 3 and 3B, 63 X 115) Designated by Lexington County Tax Map Number 994644-03-032, Located in “Happy Town” Near the City of West Columbia, Lexington County, South Carolina, and All Buildings, Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Deeded to Samuel Johnson and Rebecca Johnson, on July 24, 1972, and All Personal Property and Monies Located Thereon, and Samuel Johnson and Rebecca Johnson Personally, Respondents.
(411 S.E. (2d) 209)
Supreme Court
Attorney General T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Edwin E. Evans, and State Atty. Georgia L. Lewis, Columbia, Asst. Sol. Thomas E. Pope, Lexington, for appellant.
Desa A. Ballard and L. Joel Chastain, both of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Barnwell, H. Patterson McWhirter, of McWhirter & Associates, Lexington, and Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Bolt, Popowski, McCulloch & Strom, Columbia Correspondents.
Heard June 11, 1991;
Decided Oct. 14, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1991.

Opinion:
Chandler, Justice:
This appeal involves the constitutionality of South Carolina Civil Forfeiture Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-520, et seq. (Cum. Supp. 1990). Circuit Court found no due process violation but held that operation of the statute constitutes a "taking" of property without compensation.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS
From November, 1989 until February, 1990, the Lexington County Sheriffs Department conducted an undercover investigation of drug trafficking in an area of West Columbia known as "Happy Town." As a result of the investigation, "affidavits for seizure" were filed pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-500, alleging that drug trafficking was taking place on real property and residences owned by Respondents. Circuit Court issued ex parte notices and seizure warrants, resulting in confiscation of Respondents' properties.
Thereafter, Respondents filed motions to quash, alleging that the civil forfeiture statute violates the due process and taking clauses of the South Carolina Constitution.
After a hearing, Circuit Court found no due process violation, but held that the statute, as applied, effects a taking without just compensation.
ISSUES
Does the civil forfeiture statute violate
(A) The Takings Clause?
(B) The Due Process Clause?
A. Takings Clause
South Carolina Constitution, Art. I, § 13, provides, in 1 part:
Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, private property shall not be taken for... public use without just compensation being first made therefor.
This Court has long recognized that the State's exercise of eminent domain is distinguished from its exercise of the police power. "[J]ust compensation is required in the case of the exercise of eminent domain but not for the loss by the property owner which results from the constitutional exercise of the police power." S.C. State Highway Dept. v. Wilson, 254 S.C. 360, 365, 175 S.E. (2d) 391, 394 (1970) (Emphasis supplied). See also Richards v. City of Columbia, 227 S.C. 538, 88 S.E. (2d) 683 (1955); Edens v. City of Columbia, 228 S.C. 563, 91 S.E. (2d) 280 (1956).
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that a state, in exercising its police power, may apply forfeiture statutes to property used in violation of state laws. See Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 465, 47 S. Ct. 133, 71 L. Ed. 354 (1926). More recently, in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 94 S. Ct. 2080, 40 L. Ed. (2d) 452 (1974), the Court upheld a Puerto Rican forfeiture statute against a takings challenge, stating:
. . . state lawmakers, in the exercise of the police power, were free to determine that certain uses of property were undesirable . (citation omitted)____
Plainly, the Puerto Rican forfeiture statutes further the punitive and deterrent purposes that have been found sufficient to uphold, against constitutional challenge, the application of other forfeiture statutes to the property of innocents.
416 U.S. at 686, 94 S. Ct. at 2093, 40 L. Ed. (2d) at 470. (Emphasis supplied).
We find that forfeiture is directed to the prevention of serious public harm, and is within the legitimate exercise of the police power. Accordingly, here, no taking occurred.
B. Due Process
As an additional sustaining ground, Respondents assert that the seizure violated the Due Process clause of the South Carolina Constitution, as no pre-seizure notice was served, nor any opportunity to be heard afforded. We disagree.
In Moore v. Timmerman, 276 S.C. 104, 109, 276 S.E. (2d) 290, 293 (1981) we held:
if all property seized is intended to be subject to forfeiture, then the parties claiming an interest in the property must be afforded the basic due process notice and hearing . [they] must be given an opportunity to come forward and show, if [they] can, why the res should not be forfeited and disposed of as provided for by law. (Emphasis supplied.)
Implicit in this holding is that notice and hearing must be afforded after the property is seized.
We find no authority that seizure of real property requires pre-seizure notice and hearing. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court in Calero-Toledo recognized that seizure for the purpose of forfeiture "presents an 'extraordinary' situation in which postponement of notice and hearing until after seizure [does] not deny due process." 416 U.S. at 680, 94 S. Ct. at 2090, 40 L. Ed. (2d) at 466. Moreover, courts have consistently held that posi-seizure procedures are sufficient. See, e.g., Allen v. Tucker, 715 F. Supp. 266 (E.D. Mo. 1989); U.S. v. 26.075 Acres, 687 F. Supp. 1005 (E.D.N.C. 1988); U.S. v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F. (2d) 625 (11th Cir. 1986). In Allen, the court stated:
A claimant's contention that his procedural due process rights have been violated without a hearing prior to the taking of his property is untenable when the claimant is afforded the full weight of judicial process in proceedings, such as these presently before the Court, to determine if the claimant's property was properly forfeited.
715 F. Supp. at 268 (citation omitted).
South Carolina requires that, once property is seized, the court issue its rule to show cause to all persons with an interest in the property. S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-530(1) (Cum. Supp. 1990). Thereafter, the judge must conduct a hearing to determine whether the property is, in fact, subject to forfeiture. Moreover, any "innocent owner may petition for return of the seized property by demonstrating that he did not consent to, or have knowledge of the use of the property." S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-586 (Cum. Supp. 1990). Lastly, Rule 65, S.C.R.C.P., authorizes property owners, who can demonstrate irreparable injury, to move for a temporary restraining order or injunction.
We, like the majority of jurisdictions, find these procedures satisfy due process requirements.
CONCLUSION
We reverse so much of the order of the Circuit Court as holds that the forfeiture constituted a taking; we affirm its ruling on due process.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Gregory, C.J., and Harwell and Toal, JJ., concur.
Finney, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-520 provides, in part:
(a) The following are subject to forfeiture:
(3) All property which in any manner facilitates trafficking in various controlled substances . or is used, or intended for use, as a container
(b) Any item subject to a forfeiture under this article may be seized by the department having authority upon process issued by any court having jurisdiction over the item. Seizure without process may be made if:
(3) The department has probable cause to believe that the item is directly or indirectly dangerous to health or safety; or
(4) The department has probable cause to believe that the item was used or is intended to be used in violation of this article.
We reject Respondents' contention that seizure of their properties amounts to a taking as they may be "innocent owners." This argument was specifically rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Calero-Toledo. Moreover, assuming they are able to demonstrate that they are, in fact, innocent owners, they may be entitled to return of the property under S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-586 (Cum. Supp. 1990).
S.C. Const., Art. I, §3.