A South Carolina legislative candidate facing criminal charges over hemp product sales released an audio recording this week that he says shows law enforcement lacked clear legal authority for the prosecution.
Jesse Turner, indicted last month on trafficking charges alongside attorney Ashaley Boatwright, posted the six-minute recording to social media along with a statement criticizing state enforcement of hemp regulations.
Why It Matters
The case highlights an ongoing conflict in South Carolina over hemp-derived THC products, where state lawmakers have not enacted specific statutes governing their sale. Prosecutors and police have moved forward with enforcement actions based on guidance from the attorney general’s office, while business operators argue they are following federal law.
Turner is running for a South Carolina House seat while defending against the statewide grand jury indictment.
What the Recording Shows
The audio appears to capture a conversation between a dispensary operator and a Spartanburg-area law enforcement officer. During the exchange, the officer acknowledged uncertainty around statutory authority.
“There is no law on it,” the officer stated during the call, according to the recording. The officer added that enforcement decisions are based on positions taken by the state attorney general’s office and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.
The business operator in the recording maintained that products met federal standards under the 2018 Farm Bill, which permits hemp products containing no more than 0.3 percent Delta-9 THC. The operator cited third-party test results as evidence of compliance.
The officer responded that authorities follow attorney general and SLED guidelines, and that legal disputes over hemp products are being resolved through court proceedings or potential legislative action.
By the Numbers
The 2018 Farm Bill set the federal threshold for legal hemp at 0.3 percent Delta-9 THC by dry weight. South Carolina has not passed legislation establishing state-level testing standards or regulatory frameworks for hemp-derived products sold in retail settings. Turner was indicted in April 2026, roughly one year after opening dispensaries in the state’s Upstate region.
Defense Arguments
Turner’s attorney, Erika Baldwin, said her client took steps to notify law enforcement before opening new locations and invited officers to test products for compliance. She described the audio as evidence that enforcement is being driven by policy guidance rather than enacted law.
“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,” Baldwin said in a statement.
Baldwin also said officers declined to conduct testing when invited to do so, instead conducting tests only in connection with suspected criminal activity. She argued this approach suggests enforcement decisions were made in anticipation of prosecution rather than verified violations.
Zoom Out
The South Carolina case reflects a pattern seen in other states where hemp legalization at the federal level has outpaced state regulation. Disputes over intoxicating hemp-derived compounds have emerged nationwide as retailers sell products containing THC variants not explicitly banned under state law.
Several states have moved to regulate or prohibit sales of certain hemp-derived intoxicants, but South Carolina lawmakers have not enacted such measures. The attorney general’s office has issued guidance indicating certain products violate state drug laws, but that guidance has not been codified in statute.
What’s Next
Turner and Boatwright face prosecution in state court. Baldwin indicated the defense will argue that the absence of clear statutory authority undermines the trafficking charges. The case is expected to raise questions about prosecutorial discretion and the separation of powers between executive enforcement policy and legislative authority.
Turner said he initially planned to reserve the recording for use at trial but released it publicly to challenge what he described as enforcement overreach.