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...

South Carolina Legislative Bill “H.3441″ Would Gut Current Video Recording Requirements in South Carolina DUI Cases

South Carolina Legislative Bill “H.3441” Would Gut Current Video Recording Requirements in South Carolina DUI Casescategories: DUI

On January 28, 2015, SC House Bill “H.3441” was introduced and read for the first time in the 2015 South Carolina General Assembly session; and on that same day it was referred to the South Carolina House Judiciary Committee (see link below to full version of the bill). In summary, H.3441 would substantially cut down and virtually eliminate current mandatory video recording requirements for DUI/drunk driving investigations in South Carolina. The primary changes proposed in H.3441 consist of replacing the words “must” and “shall” with “should”. In other words – the video recording “should” begin no later than the activation of the officer’s blue lights; “should make a reasonable attempt to video record the driver”, ” should include the entire breath test procedure”, etcetera.Read More

While there are many reasons to vigorously oppose this bill, below please find a few that quickly come to mind:

1. That it is not difficult for law enforcement to comply with the requirements of our current statute in video recording the complete field sobriety tests in a DUI case. Since the performance and results of a field sobriety test are critical are often relied upon as critical evidence in a DUI prosecution, the requirement that all field sobriety tests be completely viewable by a jury should remain intact.

2. The recent South Carolina Court of Appeals opinion in State vs. Taylor has clarified what elements a field videotape must have – and that anything not statutorily required does not have to be captured on the videotape for successful prosecution to occur. Since 2009 our appellate courts have done an excellent job of interpreting and clarifying the requirements of our videotaping law. This latest opinion shows the common sense approach of our courts – and how that is progressing steadily.

3. “Cutting back or watering down” our current dash cam requirements would probably result in monies currently being used for installation and maintenance of cameras to be diverted elsewhere. If the law does not require it – then those dollars are ultimately going to be placed somewhere else in the budget. In just a few short years many of the police cars currently equipped with functioning dash cams could disappear. There is no way to overstate the evidentiary value of video recording in 2015. There is simply no way to do it.

As I have done in the past – I will continue to vigorously oppose any changes to our DUI video recording law in South Carolina.

Link to H.3441

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.

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...

Firefighters, DUI and Video tape

We recently resolved a DUI arrest in Howard County against an aggressive State's Attorney who enjoys litigating every case s/he gets their hands on! This firefighter, a State employee who risks his life for the benefit of others was arrested on suspicion of DUI following a simple traffic infraction and field sobriety exercises performed on the street. The charging document had all the normal [magic] language in it (cut and pasted from some other charging document as the gender is wrong half the time in these documents) accusing the firefighter of driving drunk. There was the smell of alcohol, slurred speech and poor coordination on the fields, all the normal stuff that makes the prosecutor gitty as a school child and permits the judge to find the defendant guilty! Fortunately, the arrest was also videotaped so we could see everything that happened in "real time" [Jack Bauer time]

We order the video tape in our extensive discovery to see what really happened here because half the time the video and the cut and pasted statement of facts are in stark contrast to what really happened- starting from the gender description and going on from there [you would be surprised how many officers have difficulty telling a man from a woman in their statement of facts]. We receive the video and sit down and watch it with the client. We watched it again, and then a third time and aside from the video showing our client and his car being stopped, there is nothing in the video that supports what Mr. deputy police officer put in his statement of facts.

This is not the first time this travesty of justice has occurred, it happens with some regularity and its very unfortunate because judges and jurors listen intently to the exaggerations and lies of some law enforcement officers and are all too happy to convict unwitting defendants of DUI. I once had a case in Anne Arundel County that we got dismissed and I then proceeded to lecture the young arresting officer in the hallway about this type of crap and not to do it again lest he get in trouble and lose his job. Without the video tape as proof, there is sometimes little that can be done to protect the citizen against bogus trumped up charges. Most seasoned officers know what to write in their reports and how to testify in court and if there is no video tape, the cop has a high likelihood of winning and the Defendant and the people of this State loose. The citizens of Maryland loose because every Defendant who is wrongly convicted of DUI as a result of lies and exaggerations and sloppy police work is a threat to the liberty of all citizens in this State. You must remember, if this behavior can happen to them, it can easily happen to you on the way home from dinner with your spouse after a single glass of wine.

Did you know that the published legal limit for alcohol in Maryland is .08? Did you know that you can be arrested and convicted for DUI/DWI for blowing a .07, .06, .05 or lower? Bet you didn't know that; the Government doesn't publish this little tid-bit of information on their overhead roadsides on interstate 695, that but the police know it and this information helps their DUI arrest numbers and annual fiscal budget.

We now have another firefighter from Baltimore City and this new case is even more serious then the last one, [which we got dismissed before Court; even the fighting prosecutor did not feel like trying to overcome this pack of lies!] There exists equally hasty and sloppy police work in the pending case so we will see what happens here. One important message for any DUI defendant and their attorney is to always check on the existence of a video of the arrest and obtain it to make sure what is being said by the officer actually occurred.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Broward DUI Defense & Video Evidence

Video evidence is among the most important evidence the Assistant State Attorney can use against a DUI defendant, but it can frequently work in the defendant’s favor, depending on what the video shows. There are any number of possible scenarios in which a DUI video provides evidence useful to a defendant, according to experienced Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney William Moore.

In the case of a DUI suspect who performs the roadside field sobriety exercises, decent or good performance can work in his favor. This is true regardless of whether or not there is a breath test reading. For instance, if the driver suspected of DUI performs the roadside tests reasonably well, especially in light of the fact that they are unusual activities drivers are not accustomed to performing, the video is more helpful to the suspect and his DUI defense attorney. One interesting argument in this scenario is when the driver actually receives a very high breath test reading. These two things occasionally happen. If a driver blows a 0.32 breath test reading -- four times the “legal limit” at which intoxication is presumed -- yet still performs the exercises well, a reasonable jury may well understand that the breathalyzer may have been faulty or inaccurate.

If a video captures the time leading up to a traffic stop, the driving pattern may also be under scrutiny. If a person is pulled over on suspicion of driving under the influence, the police officer will need to be able to justify the traffic stop. Failure to maintain a single lane, just by itself, will probably not cause reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop if the driver is not affecting other traffic. However, weaving, drifting into another lane, failing to go at a green light, and very slow driving speeds may all trigger traffic stops.

Another possible scenario would be when a non-English speaking driver is pulled over by an officer who cannot communicate effectively with him. As a result, the driver may not understand the instructions for either the roadside field sobriety tests or the breath test machine. If a police officer fails to adequately (or correctly) explain the consequences of refusal, regardless of the language the officer and the driver are communicating in, that may also work in a DUI defendant’s favor. Likewise, a police officer or breathalyzer operator who is extremely rude or expresses a bias may not win favor with a jury hearing the DUI case.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...