Opinion ID: 1359961
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Grounds

Text: The Sheriff's Office and SLED argue that the magistrate's ruling is void because (1) an actual controversy did not exist, and (2) SLED was not notified of the proceedings. We disagree with both arguments. First, in support of their argument that the magistrate's ruling is void for lack of controversy, the Sheriff's Office and SLED claim that they were not given the opportunity to present evidence that the machines were illegal. While it is true that the magistrate's order only cites evidence presented by Respondents, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that the Sheriff or other law enforcement officials did not have an opportunity to present evidence that the machines were illegal. Second, a plain reading of the statute does not support the argument that the magistrate's order should be voided because SLED was not notified of the forfeiture hearing. See State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991) (a statute must be given its plain and ordinary meaning). The statute states that the machines may be seized by any law enforcement officer. Nothing in the statute specifically provides that SLED must be notified before the magistrate makes a determination. Therefore, the magistrate's order should not be voided for lack of controversy or lack of notice to SLED.