South Carolina Dispensary Defendant Releases Audio Recording He Says Exposes Legal Gaps in Hemp Trafficking Case
Why It Matters
A South Carolina trafficking case against a hemp dispensary operator has intensified a statewide debate over whether prosecutors are enforcing existing law or effectively creating new legal standards through indictment. The case raises significant questions about the separation of powers, the limits of executive-branch policy guidance, and how states are regulating hemp products in the absence of clear statutory frameworks.
The outcome could influence how law enforcement agencies across South Carolina — and potentially other states — approach enforcement of hemp and THC-adjacent products that occupy a legal gray zone under both federal and state law.
What Happened
Jesse Turner, a South Carolina House candidate indicted last month alongside attorney Ashaley Boatwright in a statewide grand jury trafficking case, released a six-minute audio recording on social media that he claims undermines the legal foundation of the prosecution against him.
The recording, which Turner said he had originally intended to reserve for court, appears to capture a conversation between a dispensary operator and a Spartanburg-area law enforcement officer. During the exchange, the officer acknowledged the absence of clear statutory authority governing the products in question while simultaneously referencing guidance from the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office and the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED).
“There is no law on it,” the officer states at one point in the recording, before noting that enforcement decisions follow the attorney general’s position. The speaker identified as the business operator maintained throughout the call that the products were compliant under both federal and state law, citing the 0.3% Delta-9 THC threshold established under the 2018 federal Farm Bill and third-party certificates of analysis.
By the Numbers
- 0.3% — The Delta-9 THC threshold established by the 2018 Farm Bill that the dispensary operator cited as the compliance standard for the products at issue.
- 6 minutes — The length of the audio recording released by Turner to social media.
- 2 — The number of defendants in the statewide grand jury trafficking indictment, Turner and co-defendant Ashaley Boatwright.
- Multiple jurisdictions — According to defense attorney Erika Baldwin, different law enforcement agencies across South Carolina are applying their own individual policies in the absence of a unified statutory standard.
The Defense Argument
Turner’s attorney, Erika Baldwin, described the case as a “policy vs. law” problem. In a statement provided to FITSNews, Baldwin said Turner had taken proactive steps following an earlier raid on his Anderson dispensary — directing legal counsel to notify law enforcement agencies ahead of new store openings and explicitly inviting officers to test products for compliance verification.
Baldwin argued the audio recording reveals that even law enforcement acknowledges the absence of a governing statute. “What you hear in this phone call is a Spartanburg City Police Department officer effectively stating that no law exists regarding THCA products — only ‘opinions’ and ‘guidelines’ from the Attorney General’s Office — and that the only way to determine the law is through prosecution,” she said, according to FITSNews.
She further alleged that officers declined to conduct compliance testing despite being invited to do so, suggesting enforcement decisions were made in anticipation of prosecution rather than in response to documented violations. “This is not enforcing the law,” Baldwin said. “This is going rogue.”
Baldwin also drew a comparison to earlier fentanyl trafficking prosecutions in South Carolina, in which prosecutors reportedly relied on policy interpretations before the legislature created a specific governing statute — arguing that the same pattern is now repeating itself with hemp-derived products.
Zoom Out
South Carolina is not alone in grappling with these enforcement ambiguities. Across the country, the proliferation of hemp-derived cannabinoids — particularly THCA and Delta-8 products — has outpaced legislative action, leaving prosecutors, courts, and law enforcement agencies to interpret the 2018 Farm Bill’s framework on their own terms. Several states have moved to pass specific statutes addressing these compounds, while others continue to rely on attorney general opinions or enforcement guidelines. The Department of Justice has separately signaled a more aggressive posture on federal enforcement priorities in 2025 and 2026, adding another layer of complexity to state-level regulatory gaps.
What’s Next
Turner’s defense team has signaled it intends to use the audio recording as a centerpiece of its legal strategy, arguing that the absence of clear statutory authority should preclude criminal prosecution. The case is expected to proceed through South Carolina’s court system, and its outcome may pressure state legislators to define enforceable standards for hemp-derived THC products through formal legislation. Baldwin indicated the defense would continue to challenge prosecutorial actions it characterizes as substituting policy guidance for duly enacted law.