No Changes are Needed to South Carolina’s DUI Video Recording Law

No Changes are Needed to South Carolina’s DUI Video Recording Lawcategories: DUI

In 1998 South Carolina became one of the first states to require and mandate video recording from the officer’s dash cam in DUI/drunk driving cases. In 2009 the South Carolina legislature passed a new, amended and updated law requiring both incident site and breath test site video recordings in DUI cases. Our current law requires that a driver who is accused of violating the DUI law “must have his conduct at the incident site and the breath test site video recorded… the video recording at the incident site must: not begin later than the activation of the officer’s blue lights; include any field sobriety tests administered; and include the arrest of the driver for the DUI violation and show the driver being advised of their Miranda rights.” Likewise – a video recording of the complete breathalyzer testing procedure must also be provided (see full text of SC Code Section 56-5-2953 link below).Read More

In 2009 the legislature also dramatically increased and stiffened penalties in most DUI cases. For instance – a driver convicted of DUI in South Carolina with a breathalyzer reading of .16 or higher is subject to ninety (90) days in jail. Recent court decisions have mandated that law enforcement simply follow the law when making DUI/drunk driving cases – and that the dash cam and breathalyzer videos must comply with the law currently in place. Our courts have developed a harsh remedy for non-compliance with the video recording requirements – potential dismissal of the DUI charge.

Quite simply – the law is in place and the stakes are high – so dismissal must be the only and appropriate remedy for police officers not following the law with video recording.

Yesterday in Columbia, South Carolina, some members of the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association, prosecutors and victim advocates from across South Carolina met on the statehouse grounds and called upon the South Carolina General Assembly to eliminate and cut back the video recording provisions of the state’s DUI laws that I noted above. During the media conference, officials presented four videos that showed DUI suspects where the videos did not meet the requirements of our law – and the cases were dismissed.

Legislation has been introduced in both the South Carolina House and Senate that would prevent a DUI case from being dismissed if a problem exists in the video recording of the initial stop.

Sixteenth Circuit Solicitor Kevin Brackett, York County Sheriff Bruce Bryant and MADD state director Steven Burritt were among those who addressed the media requesting that our legislature cut back on the current video recording requirements in DUI cases.

I am not one of those voices, and I will continue to appear at legislative subcommittee hearings to fight any attempts to scale back on our videotape law in DUI cases. I have done so many times in the past – and will do so again this year. It is only common sense that if field sobriety tests are going to be used to gain a conviction in court – that they be completely viewable to a jury. It is critical that this fair and well thought out law passed in 2009 requiring video recording in DUI cases be kept completely intact. To cut back on our video law would take us back to the days of when police officers could fabricate how a driver performed on certain field tests in front of a jury. The mandated video recording evidence should – and does – speak for itself in a jury trial for DUI. Let’s hope that any changes to our DUI law eliminating or cutting back on video recording do not take place.

Greenville, South Carolina DUI Attorney Steve Sumner primarily handles misdemeanor and felony DUI/drunk driving cases. Steve is a former DUI prosecutor and has been in private practice since 1994. Steve has been recognized as a South Carolina Super Lawyer® in the field of DUI defense since 2013. He is a member of the National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers™ for criminal defense. He is a member of the National College for DUI Defense and has held a judicially endorsed AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell® and a “Superb” (10.0 out 10.0) ranking with Avvo since 2011.

Link to The State article

Link to South Carolina Code Section 56-5-2953

Continue Reading...

No Changes are Needed to South Carolina’s DUI Video Recording Law

No Changes are Needed to South Carolina’s DUI Video Recording Law

In 1998 South Carolina became one of the first states to require and mandate video recording from the officer’s dash cam in DUI/drunk driving cases.  In 2009 the South Carolina legislature passed a new, amended and updated law requiring both incident site and breath test site video recordings in DUI cases.  Our current law requires that a driver who is accused of violating the DUI law “must have his conduct at the incident site and the breath test site video recorded… the video recording at the incident site must: not begin later than the activation of the officer’s blue lights; include any field sobriety tests administered; and include the arrest of the driver for the DUI violation and show the driver being advised of their Miranda rights.”  Likewise – a video recording of the complete breathalyzer testing procedure must also be provided (see full text of SC Code Section 56-5-2953 link below).

In 2009 the legislature also dramatically increased and stiffened penalties in most DUI cases.  For instance – a driver convicted of DUI in South Carolina with a breathalyzer reading of .16 or higher is subject to ninety (90) days in jail.  Recent court decisions have mandated that law enforcement simply follow the law when making DUI/drunk driving cases – and that the dash cam and breathalyzer videos must comply with the law currently in place.   Our courts have developed a harsh remedy for non-compliance with the video recording requirements – potential dismissal of the DUI charge.

Quite simply – the law is in place and the stakes are high – so dismissal must be the only and appropriate remedy for police officers not following the law with video recording.

Yesterday in Columbia, South Carolina, some members of the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association, prosecutors and victim advocates from across South Carolina met on the statehouse grounds and called upon the South Carolina General Assembly to eliminate and cut back the video recording provisions of the state’s DUI laws that I noted above.  During the media conference, officials presented four videos that showed DUI suspects where the videos did not meet the requirements of our law – and the cases were dismissed.

Legislation has been introduced in both the South Carolina House and Senate that would prevent a DUI case from being dismissed if a problem exists in the video recording of the initial stop.

Sixteenth Circuit Solicitor Kevin Brackett, York County Sheriff Bruce Bryant and MADD state director Steven Burritt were among those who addressed the media requesting that our legislature cut back on the current video recording requirements in DUI cases.

I am not one of those voices, and I will continue to appear at legislative subcommittee hearings to fight any attempts to scale back on our videotape law in DUI cases.  I have done so many times in the past – and will do so again this year.  It is only common sense that if field sobriety tests are going to be used to gain a conviction in court – that they be completely viewable to a jury.  It is critical that this fair and well thought out law passed in 2009 requiring video recording in DUI cases be kept completely intact.  To cut back on our video law would take us back to the days of when police officers could fabricate how a driver performed on certain field tests in front of a jury.  The mandated video recording evidence should – and does – speak for itself in a jury trial for DUI.  Let’s hope that any changes to our DUI law eliminating or cutting back on video recording do not take place.

Greenville, South Carolina DUI Attorney Steve Sumner primarily handles misdemeanor and felony DUI/drunk driving cases.  Steve is a former DUI prosecutor and has been in private practice since 1994.  Steve has been recognized as a South Carolina Super Lawyer® in the field of DUI defense since 2013.  He is a member of the National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers™ for criminal defense.  He is a member of the National College for DUI Defense and has held a judicially endorsed AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell® and a “Superb” (10.0 out 10.0) ranking with Avvo since 2011.

Link to The State article

Link to South Carolina Code Section 56-5-2953

Continue Reading...

New Changes to Pennsylvania DUI Law

A new law has passed the in the Pennsylvania State Senate which has increase

Pennsylvania passes new DUI laws

d the penalties for a  DUI conviction.  These new penalties apply to those DUI cases where a passenger is a minor (under the age of 18). These penalties are in addition to any existing penalties (see Pennsylvania DUI laws and penalties for more details) . We have summarized the new changes below:

1st Offense:
minimum fine of $1,000 (up from $300)
mandatory 100 hours of community service2nd offense:
Prison Time: 30-60 days imprisonment (minimum increased from 5 days to 30)
minimum fine $2500 (up from $500)3rd Offense:
Prison Time: 6 months- 2 years imprisonment (minimum increased from 10 days to 6 months)

Additionally, all DUI charges with a minor are graded as 1st degree misdemeanors.

If you are charged with a DUI in Pennsylvania please call 1-866-MCSHANE to understand the charges against you and how you can protect your rights.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Changes in DWI Law in Texas

Posted on September 1, 2009 by Ken Gibson

As of today, September 1, two new laws go into force that deal with DWIs in Texas.  Section 724.017 of the Transportation Code is now expended to allow more situations where police can do a forced blood draw without a warrant.  Mandatory warrantless blood draws are now allowed if a person is arrested for DWI, or BWI, the person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen volutarily, and: 1) an individual other than the person arrested has suffered bodily injury and was transported to a hospital or other medical facility for medical treatment; 2) the person is arrested for DWI with a child passenger under 15; 3) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI two or more times; or 4) the officer has reliable information that the person has been previously convicted of DWI with a child passenger under 15, intoxication assault, or intoxication manslaughter.

The Legislature also tried to give some assurance to the health care providers that actually draw the blood persuant to a blood warrant, or mandatory blood draw.  Section 724.017 of the Transportation code was amended to provide protection to those who take blood specimens according to "recognized medical procedures."  However, this change in the law DOES NOT relieve a person from lability for negligence in the taking of a blood specimen.  And there lies the danger to anyone that takes blood under these intrusive warrant/warrantless blood draws.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

A Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Discuses Changes In MA Parole System Due To Homicide Of Woburn Police Officer- Attorney Sam’s Take

If you heard a cacophony of crashing noises yesterday from the direction of Boston’s Beacon Hill, it was the sound of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick , along with a certain Parole Board, caving in to public ridicule and political pressure.

As you have heard time and time again, the now-infamous Massachusetts Parole Board released a repeat violent offender in 2008. Of course, it was not the first time that this has happened. However, this time, said offender , in 2010, was involved in a robbery to which the late police officer John Maguire responded. There was a gunfight and the officer, as well as the offender, were killed. Since that time, amongst various reports of unexplained police shootings of suspects and non-suspects, a state-wide hand-wringing has been occurring.

Naturally, in 2011, tragedy must be someone’s fault. Someone living’s fault. Thus, it was the Parole Board’s fault.

At first, Governor Patrick had the gall to be a leader and indicate before rushing to judgment and demanding the Parole Board’s heads on a stick, that perhaps we should concentrate on the victims, then gather all the evidence and then decide fault.

Well, so much for that kind of nonsense.

Governor Patrick has now announced “sweeping changes” at the Massachusetts Parole Board. The political broomstick has swept out, for example, the five Parole Board members at issue (through their own resignations, of course).

Said sweeping also includes a moratorium to remain in place on executive sessions for high-risk offenders, he said. The governor also promised to file legislation calling, among other things, for tougher sentencing for repeat offenders and greater truth in sentencing. According to press accounts, Governor Patrick wants paroles of repeat violent offenders to stop until the Parole Board can demonstrate an ability to oversee their release.

Patrick also said at the news conference he was appointing Josh Wall, first assistant district attorney in Suffolk County, as the interim executive director of the board. He also said he had nominated Wall to the board and intended to appoint him chairman.

During my many years as an experienced Boston criminal defense attorney , I have had many dealings with assistant district attorney Wall. He is an experienced prosecutor and, as the late Jerry Williams would say, “Not a bad guy”.

He is, of course a seasoned prosecutor which means he is well indoctrinated to that point of view. I suppose that’s ok…the assumption at parole is, after all, that the potential parolee “did it”.

The problem is when the governor, who should know better, succumbs to the weight of political expediency. Statements like no paroles should be allowed until the Parole Board can guarantee that it can oversee all parolees is a command not rooted in reality and he knows it.

Parole cannot guarantee that. Not enough resources.

One might as well say that nobody will be placed on probation any longer because the Department of Probation cannot guarantee adequate oversight. Anyone in the system will tell you that, actually, they can’t if they are honest.

I wonder if, given the above-referenced police shootings and beatings, whether we should hold off on giving police officers weapons until we can guarantee that they are all fit and properly supervised. Ahh, but now I am talking crazy...!

Again, in a system where we try to cure everything by criminal sentences and prison terms, it is not possible. There are not enough resources and there will be less tomorrow. Raise taxes for it? Come on…you know better than that.

On the other hand, the governor claims he wants better “truth in sentencing”:. Actually, we have that. A sentence of 10 years, for example, means that you will basically serve 10 years. However, “life sentences” which sound so good ‘n tough cannot actually always mean life. First of all, it would not be appropriate for all those who receive such sentences. Further, again, we would not have the resources to keep all of them in for life. Finally, take away all hope of freedom and all such prisoners would have nothing to lose by their conduct. In short, an already inadequate and, n my view dangerous, correctional system will become more out of control.

On the other hand, such “tough talk sounds mighty good when you say it fast, doesn’t it? True, it might trample on a few felons’’ rights, but, after all, they are criminals, so we don’t really care about their rights.

Nor the problems the resulting anger, bitterness and realization that the “Justice System” is anything but that in the “big house” will bring.

At least, for now.

Until the whole system shuts down.

But we can continue to play our word games until then, can’t we?

In the meantime, if you want to cut down on the odds of your becoming one of these “human beings turned statistics” after being accused of a crime, you want a criminal defense attorney with experience. If you want that attorney to be me, If you would like that attorney to be me, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

Have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/governor_announ_2.html?p1=News_links

View the original article here

Continue Reading...