How Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office error voided tickets for masked ‘No Kings’ protesters
An error by the Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office helped void tickets for four protesters who were charged with wearing face coverings at the “No Kings” rallies in June.
Two of the four people accused spent the night in jail before the sheriff’s office realized the citations had been filed under the wrong court, nullifying the misdemeanor charges, Master Sgt. Robert Herlong of the BCSO said. While the citations were never reissued, the arrests have stirred questions about the relevance and enforcement of South Carolina’s mask statute.
The sheriff’s office arrested the protesters on June 12 under a South Carolina law that states no person over the age of 16 may appear in a public setting while wearing a mask or device that conceals their identity. This includes surgical masks, which became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Occurring at two separate rallies — as part of a national day of demonstrations against the policies of President Donald Trump — the arrests sparked confusion among demonstrators and those arrested. While all four masked individuals were charged under the same statute, only two were released at the scene; the other two were transported to the Beaufort County Detention Center.
The next day, on June 13, the sheriff’s office realized that the arresting officers had mistakenly put Magistrate’s Court instead of General Sessions Court on all four tickets, said Daniel Gourley, the agency’s general counsel.
In South Carolina, Magistrate’s Court handles lower-level offenses — typically misdemeanors carrying no more than 30 days in jail and/or a $500 fine — along with minor civil cases. General Sessions Court handles more serious criminal charges, including felonies and misdemeanors with penalties that exceed those limits.
The mask law carries a fine of up to $500 or up to a year of imprisonment if found guilty, meaning, according to Gourley, the misdemeanor would be classified in General Sessions Court. As a result of inputting the wrong court, the sheriff’s office voided the original tickets.
To pursue the charges properly, the sheriff’s office had two options: either rebook all four individuals and issue arrest warrants or ask the Solicitor’s Office to bring a direct indictment.
After speaking with Chief Deputy Solicitor Sean Thornton, Gourley said the solicitor’s office showed no interest in a direct indictment. So the charges were never refiled.
What happened at the rallies
The difference in how the protesters were processed came down to officer discretion and which deputies handled the two locations, said Lt. Daniel Allen, a spokesperson for the sheriff’s office.
The first two arrests took place at the rally on Hilton Head Island. One person, protesters say, wore a Guy Fawkes mask — a symbol often associated with resistance to authority — and the other a green bandana, according to a police report. Both were released from the detention center the next day after appearing in bond court.
Two more people were arrested at the afternoon protest in Bluffton. They were cited and released on the spot. One had been wearing a black surgical mask, and the other a gaiter-style mask, according to photos.
The history behind the law
The South Carolina law prohibiting identity-concealing masks was passed in 1962 to deter members of the Ku Klux Klan from hiding their identities during acts of intimidation and violence.
In 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson wrote in a public statement that the statute was not applicable when individuals were complying with health ordinances requiring masks.
“...The wearer is not attempting to conceal their identity but to comply with a city health ordinance,” he wrote at the time.
For those with health conditions who still wish to attend protests while masked, the Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office said its position is to enforce the law as written.
In 2022, an effort to amend the state’s mask law was introduced in the legislature. The proposed change would clarify that the law does not apply during an active pandemic, epidemic or a lawfully declared state of emergency. However, the bill remains stalled in the state Senate and has not been signed into law.
This story was originally published August 5, 2025 at 9:19 AM.
