A recent Supreme Court ruling has decided that a man, who was given a blood test without his permission or a warrant, was not to be charged after evidence of the breath-test was offered. Two lower courts tossed out the evidence, which is why the case was brought before the Supreme Court. The SC upheld the lower court’s ruling that the dissipation of alcohol in someone’s blood stream was not sufficient to override the requirement that police get a warrant before subjecting that person to a blood test.
In this particular case, the driver was pulled to the side of the road after the officer observed the man speeding and swerving.
When the officer approached the car, he found that the man had been charged with two previous drunk driving incidents. The man also failed several field sobriety tests, and after he refused to submit to the breath-test, the officer drove him to the hospital to give the man an official blood test.
However, the man had never agreed to do so, and the officer had never obtained a warrant. While, in the State of South Carolina, officer testimony regarding a driver’s intoxication is permitted, the problem in this case is that the officer used the tainted breath-test evidence. All of the courts here found that the evidence was inadmissible.
If you or a loved one has been charged with a DUI in South Carolina, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP for a confidential consultation toll-free at 877-374-5999.by