Customer Inquiry

(704) 351- 7979

Email

SC DUI Attorney – Miranda Warnings – New Decision on Old Rules

Apr 16, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized

This recent SC Court of Appeals case will be considered a major change in SC DUI law. However, it really is not. “Miranda warnings” are widely known by the public thanks to television shows and movies showing arrests of criminal defendants. The actual case has been around for decades. No one is really certain from where this “fifth Miranda warning” originated, but the right to terminate police interogation by asking for a lawyer has never been expressly a part of Miranda. Rather, it is largely incorporated into the first “Miranda” right to remain silent. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals has now formally clarified this apparent confusion and resolved the issue. If this case is pursued to the SC Supreme Court, there is little doubt this decision will be affirmed.

The criminal attorneys at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP, focus their practice on SC DUI and NC DWI. In addition to the years of criminal and civil case experience, the firm also highlights Tyler Burns who is a former Sixteenth Circuit (York County) DUI prosecutor. Mr. Burns now takes his prosecutor’s evaluation of cases to defend those individuals who have been charged with a DUI or DUAC. Our firm encourages potential clients to carefully compare our lawyers’ credentials to any other law practice. Then call us today at 877-374-5999 for a private consultation. For more information, please visit our website at www.rjrlaw.com.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Appellant,

v.

Mark Allen Hoyle, Respondent.

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No.  4963
Heard March 19, 2012 – Filed April 4, 2012

REVERSED

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Brackett, of York, for Appellant.

John M. Foster, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PIEPER, J.: This appeal arises out of Appellant Mark Allen Hoyle’s magistrate’s court conviction for driving under the influence (DUI).  The circuit court found the magistrate erred by failing to suppress the incident site video recording due to incomplete Miranda[1] warnings; consequently, the circuit court remanded the case to the magistrate’s court for a new trial.  On appeal, the State argues the circuit court erred in ordering the suppression of the video recording because the arresting officer gave Hoyle sufficient Miranda warnings in compliance with section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011).  We reverse.

FACTS

On March 21, 2009, Hoyle was charged with DUI. Upon his arrest, the officer advised Hoyle of the following: (1) he had the right to remain silent; (2) anything he said could be used against him in a court of law; (3) he had the right to an attorney; and (4) if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him prior to questioning.  The officer did not advise Hoyle that he had the right to terminate the interrogation at any time and to not answer any further questions. Hoyle was convicted of DUI.  Hoyle appealed his conviction, arguing the magistrate’s court erred in refusing to dismiss the charge, or in the alternative, erred in failing to suppress certain evidence, because (1) he was not fully advised of his Miranda rights and (2) certain audio portions of the sequence of events were missing.[2]  At the hearing before the circuit court, Hoyle relied on State v. Kennedy, 325 S.C. 295, 479 S.E.2d 838 (Ct. App. 1996), and argued the incident site video recording should be suppressed because it did not contain the officer instructing Hoyle of the Miranda warning that a suspect has the “right to terminate the interrogation at any time and not to answer any further questions.”  The circuit court agreed, remanded for a new trial, and ordered the incident site video recording be suppressed.  This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In a criminal appeal from the magistrate’s court, the circuit court does not review the matter de novo; rather, the court reviews the case for preserved errors raised by appropriate exception.  Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 341, 713 S.E.2d 278, 282 (2011).  The circuit court “may either confirm the sentence appealed from, reverse or modify it, or grant a new trial.”  S.C. Code Ann. § 18-3-70 (Supp. 2011).  “The appellate court’s review in criminal cases is limited to correcting the order of the circuit court for errors of law.”  State v. Johnson, 396 S.C. 182, 186, 720 S.E.2d 516, 518 (Ct. App. 2011).

LAW/ANALYSIS

The State argues the circuit court erred in suppressing the incident site video recording and remanding for a new trial because Hoyle was given appropriate Miranda warnings in compliance with section 56-5-2953.  We agree.

“‘All rules of statutory construction are subservient to the one that the legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used, and that language must be construed in the light of the intended purpose of the statute.'”  State v. Sweat, 386 S.C. 339, 350, 688 S.E.2d 569, 575 (2010) (quoting Broadhurst v. City of Myrtle Beach Election Comm’n, 342 S.C. 373, 380, 537 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000)). The court should look to the plain language of the statute.  Binney v. State, 384 S.C. 539, 544, 683 S.E.2d 478, 480 (2009).  If the language of a statute is unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, then the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose a different meaning.  State v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23, 33, 667 S.E.2d 728, 733 (2008).

The applicable provisions of the statute in question follow:

(A) A person who violates Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 must have his conduct at the incident site and the breath test site video recorded.

(1)(a) The video recording at the incident site must:

(i) not begin later than the activation of the officer’s blue lights;

(ii) include any field sobriety tests administered; and

(iii) include the arrest of a person for a violation of Section 56-5-2930 or Section 56-5-2933, or a probable cause determination in that the person violated Section 56-5-2945, and show the person being advised of his Miranda rights.

S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2953(A)(1)(a) (Supp. 2011).

To give force to the Constitution’s protection against compelled self-incrimination, the United States Supreme Court established in Miranda “certain procedural safeguards that require police to advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments before commencing custodial interrogation.”  Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 201 (1989).  The Miranda court held that a suspect in custody must be warned of the following rights:

He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

384 U.S. at 479.

The court also explained that “[o]nce warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear.  If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.”  Id. at 473-74.  Furthermore, if the suspect decides, after receiving the Miranda warnings, that he wishes to remain silent, the custodial officers must “scrupulously honor[]” his “right to cut off questioning.”  Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104 (1975).

In State v. Kennedy, this court cited Miranda, stating:

A suspect in custody may not be subjected to interrogation unless he is informed that: he has the right to remain silent; anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; he has a right to the presence of an attorney; if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning, if he so desires; and he has the right to terminate the interrogation at any time and not to answer any further questions.

325 S.C. 295, 303, 479 S.E.2d 838, 842 (Ct. App. 1996), aff’d as modified, 333 S.C. 426, 510 S.E.2d 714 (1998).

The issue in Kennedy was whether the defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.  Id. at 306, 479 S.E.2d at 844.  The court did not discuss the sufficiency of the warnings given, and the court did not discuss whether the officer informed the defendant of his right to terminate the interrogation. Id. at 306-09, 479 S.E.2d at 844-46.  On the other hand, in State v. Cannon, police gave the defendant the following Miranda warning:

You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned; if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning if you wish one.

260 S.C. 537, 542-43, 197 S.E.2d 678, 680 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1067 (1973).  The defendant appealed, arguing the warnings were insufficient and should have included the following language: “If you decide to answer any questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time or until you talk to a lawyer.”  Id. at 543, 197 S.E.2d at 680.  The South Carolina Supreme Court disagreed and found that Miranda does not require an officer to inform a suspect of his right to stop answering questions at any time. Id.

The language in Miranda is clear that the right to terminate the interrogation at any time and to not answer any further questions is not a required Miranda warning.  Miranda only requires four warnings, and the United States Supreme Court did not include the right to terminate the interrogation at any time as one of the four warnings.  See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479 (holding a suspect in custody must be warned prior to any questioning that “he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires”).  Furthermore, pursuant to Miranda, the right to terminate an interrogation arises after warnings are given.  See id. at 473-74 (“Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.”).

Recent United States Supreme Court decisions interpreting Miranda also recognize Miranda includes four rights.  See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250, 2259 (2010) (quoting Miranda for the proposition that a suspect “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires” (internal quotation marks omitted));  Florida v. Powell, 130 S. Ct. 1195, 1204 (2010) (noting that “[t]he four warningsMiranda requires are invariable, but this Court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must be conveyed”).

Our interpretation of Miranda and Cannon is also consistent with other jurisdictions that have considered the issue and determined that under Miranda an officer is not required to inform a suspect of a right to stop questioning after it has begun.  See United States v. Lares-Valdez, 939 F.2d 688, 690 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that the Miranda court contemplated the right to cease questioning and declined to include it among the warnings necessary to protect a suspect’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights); Mock v. Rose, 472 F.2d 619, 622 (6th Cir. 1972) (holding Miranda warnings do not include the right to stop answering questions at any time);  Flannagin v. State, 266 So. 2d 643, 651 (Ala. 1972) (holding an officer is not required under Miranda to inform a suspect that he has the right to stop questioning at any time because “[t]he right of an accused to exercise [the four Miranda] rights at any time during the proceeding is not a separate right of which he must be independently informed.  It is, instead, the practical result of his exercising those other rights at a time of his choosing”); Katzensky v. State, 183 S.E.2d 749, 751 (Ga. 1971) (“Miranda does not require the officers to advise the individual that he may withdraw the waiver of his constitutional rights at any time during the interrogation.”).

For the bench, bar, and law enforcement, we recognize a need may exist to clarify any perceived confusion about the reach of Kennedy.[3]   Regarding the language at issue herein, we interpret that part of Kennedy as being dicta.[4] Moreover, even if we were to interpret the reach of Kennedy otherwise, the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in Cannon serves as the controlling precedent for purposes of our review.  While one panel of this court cannot overturn prior published precedent of another panel of this court absent en banc review, we need not do so in order to apply controlling South Carolina Supreme Court precedent.  Based on the foregoing, we find that the South Carolina Supreme Court does not interpret Miranda to require an oral or written warning on the right to terminate an interrogation at any time and to not answer any further questions.[5]

A review of the incident site video recording indicates the officer gave Hoyle all four warnings required by Miranda; thus, the officer fully complied with both Miranda and section 56-5-2953. See S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2953(A)(1)(a)(iii) (Supp. 2011) (“The video recording at the incident site must . . . show the person being advised of his Miranda rights.”).  Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s order and reinstate the conviction.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is hereby

REVERSED.

KONDUROS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

[1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

[2] To the extent this second issue was independent of the Miranda issue, that issue was neither ruled on by the circuit court, nor argued on appeal to this court.  In fact, Hoyle clarified his argument before the circuit court in stating “the only question I submit to this court that they have to decide, that you have to decide, Your Honor, is whether [Hoyle is] entitled to dismissal or a remand for further proceedings for suppression of evidence for deficient Miranda.”

[3] See Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2009 WL 1968618 (June 4, 2009) (responding to an inquiry by the South Carolina Sheriffs’ Association as to whether Kennedy affords a fifth right that must be included in a Miranda warning).

[4] Notably, subsequent opinions from this court have cited Kennedy when stating the rule on Miranda warnings; however, no case cites the language in Kennedy that an officer must inform a suspect of the right to terminate the interrogation at any time and to not answer any further questions.  See State v. Breeze, 379 S.C. 538, 544, 665 S.E.2d 247, 250 (Ct. App. 2008); State v. Lynch, 375 S.C. 628, 633 n.5, 654 S.E.2d 292, 295 n.5 (Ct. App. 2007).

[5] Hoyle asserted various policy arguments in support of expanded warnings in South Carolina; however, we reject those arguments.

 

SC DUI Attorney – Ignition Interlock Device – Another New DUI Law Coming Our Way

Mar 31, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized

Here is another story about yet another new DUI bill being considered to harshen SC DUI laws even further. As a SC DUI attorney, I see clients weekly who have been wrongfully charged with DUI after merely having a drink at dinner or a beer with a friend. They are perfectly fine to drive. No accident occurs. No one is injured. Yet, they are arrested and jailed overnight for having alcohol on their breath. Next, if they dare to exercise their 5th Amendment right to not incriminate themselves and refuse the breathalyzer, they are immediately suspended from driving. They also face the permanent stigma of being a “drunk driver” and could even lose their job given the current hysteria about DUI. Even if the criminal charges are ultimately defeated, the driving suspension still applies. If convicted, the price of a first time DUI without accident or injury approaches nearly $10,000. You have fines, ADSAP costs, SR-22 insurance for 3 years. The legislature just “killed the moped exception” which will only make it even more difficult for people to get to their jobs after a DUI. And now, there is a bill to add an “ignition interlock” device to cars and further increase the overall costs to families. Seriously, this constant drumbeat of punative DUI legislation needs to stop. We realize it is fashionable to be “hard on DUI” in political circles. While these well intentioned bills do little to lower DUI rates, the real effect is to place significant added expenses onto already struggling families. A little temperment will be much more effective. People who drive drunk and cause accidents and injury should be punished, and harshly. However, let’s not “throw the baby out with the bath water” and ruin those individuals who, at worst, make a questionable error in judgment while out with their spouses and/or friends.

At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our seasoned attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts.  We focus our criminal practice on DUI and DWI cases in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both states and are aggressive criminal trial attorneys.  We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Don’t settle for a lawyer who only wants to reduce your DUI charges to reckless driving. We welcome the opportunity to sit down and personally discuss your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials to any other firm. Then call us today at  803-548-4444 or 877-374-5999 for a private consultation. Or visit our firm’s website at www.rjrlaw.com.

Bill Would Require Ignition Interlocks for First Offense DUIs in SC

Ignition Interlock Device

Ignition Interlock Device

By: Robert Kittle | WSAV News 3
Published: February 01, 2012
COLUMBIA, S.C. –South Carolina already requires drivers guilty of a second drunken driving offense to put ignition interlock devices on their cars. A driver has to blow into the machine to start the car, but if the ignition interlock detects an illegal alcohol level, the car won’t start.Sen. Joel Lourie, D-Columbia, wrote that law. Now, he’s sponsoring a bill that would require ignition interlocks after a first offense DUI.”By the time they’ve committed their second offense, they’ve hurt somebody,” he says. “So what we want to do is if you get a DUI conviction in South Carolina, we’re going to make you put an ignition interlock on your car and we’re going to monitor it and make sure you do what you’re supposed to do.”A state Senate subcommittee heard testimony in support of the bill Wednesday, but senators did not take a vote. They’re planning further debate next week and possible amendments. One possible change would be to also require ignition interlocks for anyone who refuses to take a breathalyzer test after being stopped on suspicion of DUI. Sen. Lourie expects the bill to be on the full Senate floor by the end of the month.Jeff Moore, executive director of the South Carolina Sheriffs’ Association, says he thinks the bill would save lives.”There are only two ways to stop the repeat offender from repeating, and that is either to put them in jail for a lengthy period of time and simply take their ability to drive away from them, or you put a device like this on their vehicle after the first charge is made,” he says.According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 15 states require ignition interlocks after the first offense. (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah and Washington.) MADD says repeat DUIs are down an average of 67 percent in those states.And while Lourie says the bill would save lives, it also wouldn’t cost taxpayers any money. The offenders would have to pay to have the ignition interlocks installed on their vehicles.

 

SC DUI Attorney – Update: SC Supreme Court Orders DUI Backlogs Reduced – One Year Later

Mar 29, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized

Nearly one year since the SC Supreme Court ordered the backlog of pending DUI charges be reduced, courts around the state have made significant progress in moving cases. In the counties where our firm practices, we have seen an improved streamlined process implemented, and cases are being called to trial much more quickly now. While this is welcomed news,  the practical effect is that DUI lawyers must investigate their cases and be prepared to litigate in a shorter time frame. It is even more important than ever that persons arrested for DUI retain experienced lawyers immediately so that they can get to work to fight a DUI prosecution. Better make sure your DUI attorney has enough time to get ready for court to protect you and your family.

At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our seasoned attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts.  We focus our criminal practice on DUI and DWI cases in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both states and are aggressive criminal trial attorneys.  We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Don’t settle for a lawyer who only wants to reduce your DUI charges to reckless driving. We welcome the opportunity to sit down and personally discuss your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials to any other firm. Then call us today at  803-548-4444 or 877-374-5999 for a private consultation. Or visit our firm’s website at www.rjrlaw.com.

The push to close thousands of South Carolina’s DUI cases
Thousands of drunk driving cases may be closing soon after a South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice issues a statewide order.

News 12 at 11 o’clock / Thursday, April 7, 2011

Reporter: Amanda Perez

AIKEN COUNTY, S.C.—Thousands of drunk driving cases may be closing soon after a South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice issues a statewide order. Some of these cases are more than 10 years old, but officials say it could begin to affect you now. Some South Carolina troopers say the backlog of DUI cases can keep them tied up with the courts and off the highways.

Now courts across the state are focusing on getting these cases to the judge as quickly as they can–especially those in the summary courts right now. Public Safety Director Mark Keel says, “unfortunately South Carolina has…for the past couple of years…always been number one or two in the nation for impaired driving fatalities.” He says these DUI cases need to be cleared in order to make highways safer. It’s going to result in us not having to ring those door bells at night and tell somebody that someone in their family has been killed because of a drunk driver.

Last year alone, South Carolina Highway Patrol made nearly 16-thousand DUI cases. Mark says the state was bumped to number three in terms of drunk driving fatalities. “We’re not satisfied with that…we want to be at the bottom of this list,” he says.

In Aiken County, there are around 250 DUI cases in the last four months that have been rescheduled or are still pending. He says the solution is to prosecute these cases quickly. “We need to reduce the backlog. If we don’t reduce that backlog, we are not going to get to the cases that they’re making today.” He says if these cases are not properly prosecuted, then it becomes everyone’s problem. The sooner the cases are dealt with, the quicker some of the troopers are back out on the highways looking to prevent more DUI fatalities.

As for some of the older cases, the trooper may no longer be working in the state anymore or there may be a lack of evidence. If there’s no trial, then there’s no conviction and that means it can be dismissed. Public Safety wants to prevent this from happening.

Due to the cuts in state funding, some jurisdictions lost their DUI prosecutors. Recently, Public Safety worked to get grant money to get it back. The Director of Public Safety says they’re hoping for change and he believes this court order is one step closer to bringing awareness.

 

SC DUI / NC DWI Attorney – Iginition Interlock Devices Coming Soon to New Vehicles

Mar 24, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized

According the article below, it looks like the federal government is taking a real interest in mandating ignition interlock devices be installed in new vehicles in the future. Such devices are already required in parts of Europe. At least the comments made by the quoted legislator make a distinction between the “drunk driver” and the person who simply has a drink with dinner or a beer with a friend. Unfortunately, the current technology can produce false results and may inhibit otherwise sober drivers from getting their car to start and be left stranded. Oh well. That’s the price the majority of responsible drivers seemingly will have to pay for the sins of those who cannot be trusted to drive safely. Seriously, state DUI laws and now federal intervention are beoming so intrusive that it is simply not prudent to have any alcohol outside of your home. Perhaps this result is the end game goal. However, perfectly safe to drive individuals are being falsely arrested and prosecuted in the current DUI hysteria. We have effectively “thrown the baby out with the bath water.” Let’s be clear. Obviously, no one wants truly “drunk drivers” on the road. However, at some point, we have to have an effective balance so that innocent drivers are not branded with a DUI conviction on their permanent driving record. And, in this very difficult economy, the fines, court costs, alcohol programs, and SR-22 insurance can destroy a family’s finances as they try to “make ends meet.” All a reasonable person wants here is more selective arrests by police and more considered discretion by prosecutors. In the final analysis, it should be remembered that not everyone who has the “smell of alcohol” is guilty of drunk driving. If you or your family member have been arrested for a SC DUI or NC DWI, you should immediately consult an experienced DUI attorney and see what options are available to you before your driving record is ruined by a false charge of “driving under the influence” or “driving while impaired.” We hope that you will consider our firm after you review our credentials and experience in this complicated area of criminal law.

At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our seasoned attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts.  We focus our criminal practice on DUI and DWI cases in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both states and are aggressive criminal trial attorneys.  We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Don’t settle for a lawyer who only wants to reduce your DUI charges to reckless driving. We welcome the opportunity to sit down and personally discuss your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials to any other firm. Then call us today at 877-374-5999 for a private consultation. Or visit our firm’s website at www.rjrlaw.com.

Washington Examiner by Paul Bedard

Not satisfied with putting federal restrictions on driver distractions like cellular phones, the federal government is pursuing technology to prevent cars from starting if drivers are legally drunk–even if they don’t have a DUI record.

Urged on by anti-alcohol groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Senate on a bipartisan vote OK’d a little-known amendment to the just-passed highway bill to provide $24 million over two years to study the “Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety,” a Transportation Department project to put booze detectors in all new cars this decade.

The inevitability that the government will get its way is so great that car makers tell Washington Secrets that they are already planning how to introduce the voluntary systems, likely fingertip sensors on steering wheels or start buttons. The French already require a Breathalyzer system in new cars.

The American Beverage Institute, which represents thousands of restaurants, has mounted a campaign to kill the provision in the House version of the bill. ABI Managing Director Sarah Longwell said while the goal of ending drunk driving is admirable, bad readings by the system in tests show that an estimated 4,000 sober drivers a day won’t be able to start their cars, potentially scaring diners from restaurants.

But others in the alcohol industry have jumped on board and were able to block the Senate legislation from making the systems mandatory. One industry official said it’s more likely the system would be an option on cars, though some Transportation Department documents suggest it will be standard equipment.

A spokesman for Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., a sponsor of the initiative, cautioned that installation of car alcohol detection systems are years off and that the plan now is to simply find the easiest and most accurate technology. What’s more, he said that the goal is not to stop responsible drinkers from downing a beer at dinner, but target drunks responsible for thousands of deaths annually.

SC DUI Attorney – “Drunk Driver” Stereotypes – What Jurors See When They Hear “DUI”

Mar 15, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized

One of the first tasks a DUI lawyer at trial is to reverse the jury’s stereotype of a “DUI” or “drunk driver.” Not all incidents where an individual is driving under the influence are equal, and as with all potential crimes, there are degrees of blameworthiness. What we reinforce to juries in the opening statement is that everyone who finds themselves accused of a crime comes before them “presumed innocent.” Then, the State of South Carolina must prove them guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Why such a high standard of proof required. Because it is the State of South Carolina, with all of its resources, against an individual with limited means to defend themselves. That standard makes the fight just a little more balanced. As you can see, it is critical that you hire an experienced criminal trial attorney as early as possible. There is simply too much at stake to risk hiring the wrong lawyer.

At Reeves, Aiken, Hightower & Burns LLC, our seasoned attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts.  We focus our criminal practice on DUI and DWI cases in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both states and are aggressive criminal trial attorneys.  We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Don’t settle for a lawyer who only wants to reduce your DUI charges to reckless driving. We welcome the opportunity to sit down and personally discuss your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials to any other firm. Then call us today at 803-548-4444 for a private consultation.