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
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.
The name of the case is Minnesota vs. Fawcett, and it was issued on August 24, 2016, from the Minnesota Supreme Court. The basic facts, arguments and holding appear below:
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,
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Appellant’s driver’s license was revoked for a year and his license plates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
On March 20, 2014, a key subcommittee hearing related to the potential passage of South Carolina Senate Bill S.137 (a/k/a Emma’s Law) was held at the South Carolina Legislature. The hearing was well attended and many voices were present urging the subcommittee to pass “Emma’s Law.” S.137 has been renamed “Emma’s Law” due to the tragic death of the child Emma Longstreet at the hands of a multiple and repeat drunk driving offender in Columbia last year. Her unfortunate death has galvanized community support for the passage of S.137. Debbie Ware, statewide chairman for MADD, emphasized that, according to several national studies, 67 percent of failed drunk driving collisions involve a repeat offender; and additionally, a repeat drunk driving offender is eight times more likely to be involved in a failed DUI accident than a driver with only one prior DUI conviction. After hearing testimony from various citizens, the subcommittee voted 5-0 to send “Emma’s Law” onto the full House of Representatives Criminal Law Committee for its consideration. Most observers believed that “Emma’s Law” will be fully endorsed by the South Carolina House of Representatives, the South Carolina Senate and will be signed into law by Governor Haley before the end of the 2014 session.
Alarm Protection Services – Lighthouse