We can appeal your administrative license suspension, but it must be done immediately! The clock is ticking and you only have 30 days from the date of your arrest to request a hearing with the DMV in order to avoid an automatic suspension. Within 24 hours after you hire us, we will make the request to get your temporary driving privileges back.


What Is an Administrative Hearing in South Carolina in DUI/Drunk Driving Cases?

First, this is a confusing area of the law for many drivers who find themselves arrested or charged with DUI and also facing an “administrative suspension.” If you are confused, it is probably because it is confusing. What is an “administrative suspension” and what is an “administrative hearing?”

Greenville County Circuit Judge Reverses DUI Conviction

CASE NAME: Kathryn Key vs. South Carolina (Case No.: 2016-CP-23-06517; February 4, 2017)


On December, 10, 2015, the Appellant (” Key”) was involved in an automobile wreck at approximately 8:47 a.m. Shortly thereafter, emergency medical personnel (“EMS personnel”) arrived on scene. As EMS personnel were removing Key from her vehicle, Trooper Campbell, (“Campbell”) the investigating/arresting officer, arrived at the scene of the accident. At that time, Campbell did not speak with Key because she was unconscious. EMS personnel transported Key to the emergency room at Greenville Memorial Hospital. Initially, Campbell remained at the scene of the accident in order to conduct an investigation as to the cause of the accident.

Georgia State Court Suppresses HGN Test and Breath Results from DUI Trial

CASE NAME:  Georgia vs. Council (Case No. 16-T-18312; December 14, 2016)


On November 2, 2016, the above-styled case came before this court for a specially set trial, with pending motions filed by the Defendant to be heard immediately prior to trial. The Defendant’s Second Amended Motion in Limine and the evidence produced at the motion hearing through witness testimony and exhibits focused on two issues: (1) exclusion of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) for lack of proper administration; and (2) whether the administration of the breath alcohol test, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 40-5-67.1(b), was constitutional. The constitutional issues presented focused on the Georgia Constitution 1983, Article I, Section I, Paragraph XVI.

South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Suppresses Blood Test Results in Deadly Felony DUI Case

Case Name: South Carolina vs. Shannon (Orangeburg County, SC; Court of General Sessions; Case Number 2014A3810700545; Filed August 9, 2016)


On February 16, 2014, Shannon and Eartha Lee Kennerly (“Kennerly”) were traveling south on Bozard Road in Orangeburg County. While on Bozard Road, Shannon drove through a stop sign, went off the road, and struck an embankment, causing the vehicle to overturn. Law enforcement and medical personnel responded to the scene shortly thereafter. Kennerly died from internal injuries sustained in the accident. Shannon, however, was coherent, but in pain. While medical personnel were attempting to remove Shannon from the vehicle and stabilize him—a process which took approximately two hours—Officer Norton of the South Carolina Highway Patrol drove to Richland County to obtain a search warrant to conduct a blood test on Shannon.

Officer Norton ultimately obtained a search warrant to conduct the blood test. Although the search warrant was obtained through the proper procedures and signed by the issuing magistrate, it did not contain an affidavit of probable cause signed by Officer Norton. Nevertheless, acting on the warrant, Shannon’s blood was drawn while he was being hospitalized and prior to being arrested. The test revealed that he had alcohol and cocaine in his system at the time of the collision. Shannon was later arrested and charged with felony driving under the influence resulting in death.

Shannon filed a motion to suppress the blood test results, arguing that the taking of the blood test without his consent violated the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 10 of the South Carolina Constitution. The State conceded in oral argument that the search warrant was invalid, but maintains that a search warrant was unnecessary under S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2946. This court heard oral arguments of counsel on November 12, 2015.

“Spartanburg Circuit Judge Agrees with Dismissal of DUI Charge”

CASE NAME: South Carolina v Taylor; Docket Number 2016-CP-42-2066; October 20, 2016


On June 11, 2015, at approximately 4:35 a.m., Lance Corporal R.B. Thornton of the South Carolina Highway Patrol responded to a call regarding a vehicle in a ditch on Nahant Street off of Hayne Street in Spartanburg County. Upon arriving on scene, Lance Corporal Thornton was met by Deputy Woodward of the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office, who had placed a call to the South Carolina Highway Patrol for assistance after locating the vehicle.

“South Carolina Court of Appeals Issues Latest DUI Decision”

CASE NAME:  State vs. Walters (SC Ct. App. No. 5443; September 28, 2016)


On July 13, 2014, Walters was arrested for DUI in York County. On that date, Trooper Mike McAdams, the arresting officer, administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. While his dashboard camera was recording, Trooper McAdams positioned Walters in front of his patrol car facing away from the camera and conducted the test. According to Trooper McAdams, Walters was turned away from the patrol car to prevent the flashing lights from causing a false positive on the HGN test.

Janssen vs. Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety

Minnesota Court of Appeals Issues Latest ‘Implied Consent’ Court Opinion

CASE NAME: Janssen vs. Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety (Minnesota Court of Appeals; Opinion No. : A16099; August 22, 2016)


Appellant David Janssen was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). A preliminary breath test indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.196. After the impliedconsent advisory was read to him, appellant agreed to take a breath test. The first sample resulted in an alcohol concentration of 0.174, the second in an alcohol concentration of 0.167. Appellant’s driver’s license was revoked for a year and his license plates were impounded because his alcohol concentration was “twice the legal limit [of 0.08] or more 3 as measured at the time or within two hours of the time of the offense.” Minn. Stat. § 169A.54, subd. 1(3)(iii) (2014); see also Minn. Stat. § 169A.60, subd. 1(d)(3) (2014) (providing that driving with an alcohol concentration twice the legal limit or more is a “plate impoundment violation”).

“Can the Police Get My Medical Records?”

This topic or question often comes up when we represent clients accused of DUI/Drunk Driving that have been involved in an accident and have been taken to a hospital and are charged with DUI in the process.  Most of the time our clients have refused to provide a blood sample for testing when requested by the police officer – but can the police subsequently go back and try to obtain a copy of the medical records and see if the hospital ran a blood alcohol test on their own during treatment?

Recent Results

November 2017

  • State v. C.E.G.

    • Charge: DUI
    • Court: Pickens County Magistrate Court
    • Facts: Client was pulled over due to an anonymous call
    • Result: DUI dismissed; Client receives ticket for “Reckless Driving”
  • State v. B.A.F

    • Charge: DUI, Failure to Obey Traffic Control Device
    • Court: Greenville County Magistrate Court
    • Facts: Greenville County Magistrate Court
    • Result: DUI and Failure to Obey Traffic Control Device dismissed; Client receives ticket for “Reckless Driving”
  • State v S.J.R.

    • Charge: DUI & Disregarding Red Light
    • Court: Greenville County Magistrate Court
    • Facts: Client was pulled over for running a red light
    • Result: DUI dismissed; Client receives ticket for “Reckless Driving” & “Disregarding Red Light”

Steve Sumner

  • 112 Manly Street
  • Greenville, SC 29601
  • Phone
  • (864) 235-3834
  • Fax
  • (864) 233-8781

Contact Us