Home » Women's Interest Articles » Mt. Pleasant Had No Excuse For Not Using Cameras For DUI Arrests
Mt. Pleasant Had No Excuse For Not Using Cameras For DUI Arrests
The South Carolina Supreme Court dismissed a DUI case by the Town of Mt. Pleasant for failing to videotape the arrest. The Court found the Town's interpretation of the statute "nonsensical," as it appeared the Town was willfully attempting to circumvent the videotaping law.
October 16, 2011 /Womens Interest PR News/ -- The Town of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, likes to make DUI arrests. According to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), the Town made 2,796 DUI arrests between 1998 and 2008. Based on these arrest records, the Town ranked first out of all municipalities for total DUI arrests.
Being the number one municipality for DUI arrests placed Mt. Pleasant in a priority position for obtaining in-car camera systems from the Department of Public Safety. Despite this privilege, the Town requested only 1 camera in 2001 and only 6 in 2002.
Why are video recordings so important in DUI cases? Because it is the law! The South Carolina Legislature passed a statute in 1998 requiring that all DUI arrests be video recorded. A recent DUI defendant argued her 2007 charge should be dismissed because the city failed to record the arrest more than eight years after the video recording law became effective.
The Town argued that it was exempt from compliance with the statute due to language contained in subsection (G) of the statute, which says that the requirements of the statute become effective "once the law enforcement vehicle is equipped with a videotaping device." The Town further argued that it was not required to ask for cameras because the law doesn't say it has to ask for cameras.
Because the officer's vehicle was not equipped with a video camera, the Town argued that the videotaping provisions of section 56-5-2953 didn't apply and, thus, the failure to videotape the arrest did not warrant the dismissal of the DUI charge.
The defendant argued that the Town had willfully attempted to avoid the statue by not installing video cameras. She noted that the Town had fewer video cameras than towns nearby that made far fewer DUI arrests, such as the Town of Moncks Corner that made 198 DUI arrests from 1998 to 2008, and had received 13 cameras.
The Town could not claim poverty, as the defendant noted that the Town had spent quite a lot of money recently, just none of it on video cameras:
- $65,145 for the replacement of a "Town of Mt. Pleasant" sign at the Long Point Road Exit off I-526 East
- $100,000 for a marketing firm's development of a new Town slogan and logo
- $1,328,064.70 for the renovation of the "Farmer's Market" on Coleman Boulevard
- $6,000,000 for a parcel of property known as the "O.K. Tire Store," which was intended to be developed into a park
Videotaping is Mandatory
The South Carolina Supreme Court had already ruled in an earlier case that the videotaping requirements of the statute were mandatory (Suchensk).
And all of the appellate courts that interpreted the statute ruled, consistent with the law, that a case must be dismissed when a law enforcement agency inexcusably failed to videotape a DUI arrest with an existing video camera.
In this case, the Mt. Pleasant had failed to create a videotape of the DUI arrest because the patrol vehicle had never been equipped with a video camera.
Excuses Excuses
The South Carolina Legislature did create a few exceptions to the videotaping requirement. Subsection (B) of the statute outlines the exceptions that excuse noncompliance with the mandatory videotaping requirements.
Noncompliance is excusable:
- if the arresting officer submits a sworn affidavit certifying the video equipment was inoperable despite efforts to maintain it
- if the arresting officer submits a sworn affidavit that it was impossible to produce the videotape because the defendant either (a) needed emergency medical treatment or (b) exigent circumstances existed
- in circumstances including, but not limited to, road blocks, traffic accidents, and citizens' arrests
- for any other valid reason for the failure to produce the videotape based upon the totality of the circumstances
Is That A Good Excuse?
In this case, the first three exceptions did not apply. Consequently, the Supreme Court phrased the question as whether the Town's failure to request additional video cameras constituted a "valid reason for the failure to produce the videotape based upon the totality of the circumstances."
The South Carolina appellate courts have looked at the statutory "escape valves," but they have only reviewed cases involving situations where a law enforcement agency had failed to create a video recording of the DUI arrest because the video camera malfunctioned.
The Supreme Court was unsympathetic to Mt. Pleasant defenses; the cameras did not even cost the Town any money, as the Department of Public Safety supplied them.
The Court stated, "We find the Town's explanation is disingenuous given its significantly higher number of DUI arrests as compared to smaller municipalities."
And they further noted, "The Town's interpretation of subsection (G) is nonsensical as the requirements of section 56-5-2953 could be circumvented in perpetuity if a law enforcement agency purposefully does not request additional video cameras."
Which appears to have been the Town's plan. The Town lost its appeal and the DUI was dismissed. Interestingly, once the problem was addressed in 2009, the Town requested fifty (50) additional cameras from the Department of Public Safety.
Article provided by Carroll Law Firm
Visit us at www.carrolllawfirm.net
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com |
|
|
Press Release Contact Information:
Findlaw PR
|
|
|
|
|
| WOMEN'S INTEREST ARCHIVE SEARCH |
|
|
| |
| SUBMIT WOMEN'S INTEREST NEWS |
|
|
| |
|
|
Advertise With Us |
About Us |
Contact Us