in Boswell, the NET agreement in the instant case does not reference section 23-20-50 or contain a provision outlining the public safety situations identified in section 23-20-30. Thus, we agree with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals regarding the inapplicability of Boswell. However, we find the court interpreted Boswell too narrowly as it infers that section 23-20-50(A) either conflicts with or is mutually exclusive from sections 23-1-210 and 23-1-215. This is an incorrect reading of Boswell. Because all of these code sections are contained within Title 23, which is entitled “Law Enforcement and Public Safety,” these sections cannot be read in isolation as the Court of Appeals appears to have done. See Higgins v. State, 307 S.C. 446, 415 S.E.2d 799 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Although we question why the General Assembly
holding that statutory provisions cannot be read standing alone instead they must be construed in light of the entire act of which they are a part recognizing that the constitutional right to appeal must be given a practical construction holding that statutes must be read so as to give effect to all statutory language holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole recognizing rule of statutory construction that statutes must be read as a whole and sections which are part of the same general statutory scheme must be construed together and each given effect if it can be done by any reasonable construction