In State v. Bash, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the circuit court’s decision to suppress drug evidence because the court found that officers had entered the surrounding area of someone’s home, also known as the curtilage of the home, for the purpose of conducting a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If you have a drug charge, contact Fort Mill Criminal Lawyers at Pisarik Law Firm to find out if you have been the subject of an illegal search. 803-415-2733.

Officers coming into a person’s backyard does not constitute a legal “knock and talk”

In State v. Bash, Officers received an anonymous tip of illegal drug activity occurring behind a residence. They responded to the call by driving on a public road behind the residence and walking “into the grassy area” surrounding the residence. Once in the grassy area, the officers observed a number of people gathered, including the Defendant, and observed someone throw something that appeared to be cocaine down on the ground and another individual fleeing the scene. The officers proceeded further into the grassy area and found cocaine weighing scales and cocaine base. They arrested the Defendant and charged him with trafficking cocaine and cocaine base.

At trial, Defendant moved to suppress the drugs arguing that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals, in part, from unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons and homes including the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home. Officers are allowed to approach your home to “knock and talk” like other members of the public but that only applies when an officer approaches a residence by a route available to the general public, knocks on the front door of the residence, and speaks with an occupant of the residence who responds to the knocking. Here, the Court held that the grassy area behind the home was closely enough associated with the home to be protected by the Fourth Amendment and that entering this area by the back yard with the intent to follow up on the drug tip did not constitute a “knock and talk.” Accordingly, the ruling to suppress the drug evidence was upheld.

Contact Fort Mill criminal lawyers at Pisarik Law Firm if you have received a criminal charge to discuss your criminal defense

If you think your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by an unlawful search and seizure in a drug case, a DUI case, an underage possession of alcohol case or other criminal case, contact experienced Fort Mill Criminal Lawyers at Pisarik Law Firm at 803-415-2733.

The post Officers Can’t “Roll Up in Somebody’s Backyard” When Their Sole Purpose Is To Search The Yard appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.

In Wilson v. SC Department of Motor Vehicles, the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the Circuit Court’s order preventing the DMV from suspending Ms. Wilson’s driver’s license. In 2009, Ms. Wilson pled guilty to the offense of DUI, paid her fines, and enrolled in and completed the DUI Driver’s License Suspension Overturned Due To Long Delay By South Carolina DMV appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.

In several previous DUI posts, here and here , I wrote about the case of State v. Gordon in which the South Carolina Supreme Court held that in order to satisfy the requirements of S.C. Code Section 56-5-2953 (DUI videotape statute) the video recording of the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test must include recordings of the motorist’s head. The Court offered no further clarification about what, if any, part of the head must be recorded; although, the facts in Gordon provide some insight. In Gordon, the court specifically noted that the DUI statute was satisfied because the following could be seen or heard on the video: the officer’s administration of the HGN test, depictions of Gordon’s face, the officer’s flashlight and arm, and the officer’s instructions. The Court noted that during the HGN test, the officer had Gordon stand in the light of his patrol car’s headlights and further illuminated Gordon by shining a flashlight directly on his face.

Last month, the South Carolina Court of Appeals seems to have taken the Gordon ruling one step further. In State v. Walters, the officer did the exact opposite of the officer in Gordon by having the motorist turn away from the patrol car during the HGN test, purportedly, “to prevent the flashing lights from causing a false positive on the HGN test.” Although the Court of Appeals never explicitly states it, based on the Court’s recitation of the facts, it appears that no part of Walters face could be seen during the HGN test, only the back of his head. In finding that the recording was sufficient to satisfy the statute, the Court relies upon the presence of the following: Walter’s head (no mention of the face) is visible, the trooper’s arm is visible as he administers the test (although it notes that his finger disappears as his hand moves in front of Walter’s face), and the trooper’s instructions are audible.

Even the Court notes that the HGN test focuses on eye movement, so it makes little sense that the back of the head alone would be sufficient to satisfy the statute. Further, it makes little sense that a large portion of the actual administration of the test cannot be seen, as presumably, the officer’s finger passes in front of the motorist’s face a number of times, each time disappearing from sight. While the Court notes that the limitations of the dashboard camera make it impossible to record all angles of the test, it is not unreasonable to think they are capable of recording more than the facts here. If you have questions about your DUI videotape or your DUI defense, contact an experienced York County DUI Attorney at 803-415-2733.

Contact York County DUI Attorney Craig Pisarik to review your DUI videotapes and discuss your DUI defense.

The ruling in State v. Walters further complicates and erodes the protections of the DUI videotape statute and makes it even more important to have an experienced DUI attorney. If you have been arrested for DUI or DUAC, contact an experienced York County DUI attorney, trained in DUI Detection and Field Sobriety Testing from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your DUI videotapes. Initial consultations to discuss your DUI defense with a York County DUI attorney are free of charge. 803-415-2733.

The post SC Court of Appeals Further Erodes the Protections Provided for in the DUI Videotape Statute for Recording DUI Field Sobriety Tests appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.

In a previous DUI post about State v. Gordon, 408 S.C. 536 (2014), I discussed how the South Carolina Court of Appeals followed previous precedent in strictly interpreting the DUI videotaping statutes. In Gordon, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether a person having his eyes checked during the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test must have his head recorded on the DUI field videotape during the test. The Court of Appeals ultimately required strict compliance with the videotape provision and determined that a person’s head must be visible during the test or the DUI case must be dismissed.

In taking this case up, the South Carolina Supreme Court weighed in on the videotape requirements in a DUI case. While the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that a person’s head must be recorded during the HGN field sobriety test, the Court declined to make a more definitive statement of what constitutes “recording the head” during this eye specific test. If you have been arrested for DUI, contact an experienced Rock Hill DUI lawyer, trained in DWI Detection and Field Sobriety Testing from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your DUI videotape. Initial consultations to discuss your DUI defense with a Rock Hill DUI lawyer are free of charge. 803-415-2733.

Case:

State v. Gordon, Appellate Case No: 2014-001337 (2015)

Issue:

Whether a DUI field videotape must show a person’s head during the HGN field sobriety test and whether the videotape in this particular case did in fact record the person’s head.

Facts:

Visit this previous DUI blog post for a discussion about the facts of this case.

Holding:

The Supreme Court ultimately decided this case on a factual basis by using still shot photos of the video to find that Gordon’s head was visible during the HGN eye test. Thus the Court found that this DUI field videotape did comply with the requirements of SC Code Section 56-5-2953. This factual finding differed from that of the Court of Appeals which found that Gordon’s head was not sufficiently visible on the DUI videotape to comply with the statute.

Despite using a factual finding to ultimately decide this case, the Court did specifically affirm the Court of Appeals conclusion that the DUI videotape statute requires that the motorist’s head be recorded on the DUI videotape during the HGN test. However, the Court did not give further explanation about what constitutes “recording the head” during the HGN test.

Perhaps, the most interesting and important aspect of this case comes from language in the opinion that appears to set up a new two prong test for analyzing DUI videotape issues. The first prong appears to be an analysis of whether the field sobriety test is completely videotaped. If it is not, then a per se dismissal of the DUI case as discussed in Town of Mount Pleasant v. Roberts and City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski is the appropriate remedy. However, unlike previous cases, the Court appears to establish a second prong where the Court must determine if videotapes that completely record field sobriety tests should still be excluded as evidence because of the poor quality of the recording. The Court must determine if the quality of the video is so poor as to make its admission more prejudicial than probative. To determine whether your DUI videotape complies with the DUI videotaping statutes, contact an experienced DUI lawyer who represents people in York, Chester, Lancaster, and surrounding counties in South Carolina.

Contact DUI Lawyer Craig Pisarik in Rock Hill to review your DUI videotape and discuss your DUI defense.

The law in DUI cases can be vast and complicated. Contact an experienced DUI lawyer, trained in DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, to discuss your DUI defense today. Just because you have been charged with DUI or DUAC does not mean that you are guilty of DUI or DUAC. A DUI lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm will be able to review your DUI videotape and determine whether it complies with the DUI videotaping laws. Call for a free consultation today. 803-415-2733

The post S.C. Supreme Court Revisits DUI Videotape Requirements for the HGN Field Sobriety Test appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.

On June 4, 2015, Governor Nikki Haley signed the Domestic Violence Reform Act into law which overhauls criminal domestic violence offenses and penalties in South Carolina. This new law creates degrees of criminal domestic violence (CDV) which incorporate the previously used system of graduated penalties based on prior convictions. (To review discussion of the previous law click here) The Domestic Violence Reform Act went into effect immediately upon being signed into law. If you have been charged with criminal domestic violence contact a criminal domestic violence lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your domestic violence defense. 803-415-2733

Domestic Violence Reform Act Creates New Degrees of Criminal Domestic Violence

SC Code Section 16-25-20(A) remains unchanged in the Domestic Violence Reform Act and defines criminal domestic violence as: 1.) cause physical harm or injury to a person’s own household member; OR 2.) offer or attempt to cause physical harm or injury to a person’s own household member with apparent present ability under circumstances reasonably creating fear of imminent peril.” However, the Domestic Violence Reform Act does create three new degrees of criminal domestic violence based on certain aggravating factors and redefines the charge of domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature.

Criminal Domestic Violence in the First Degree

To be charged with criminal domestic violence in the first degree the following must be present:
1.) A violation of 16-25-20(A); AND
2.) One of the following aggravating factors:
a.) great bodily injury occurs;
b.) great bodily injury is likely to occur;
c.) person violates a protection order in the process of committing criminal domestic violence in the second degree;
d.) person has two or more prior convictions of CDV in the past ten years;
e.) person uses a firearm in any manner;
f.) in the process of committing criminal domestic violence in the 2nd degree one of the following results:
i.) the offense is committed in the presence of or while being perceived by a minor;
ii.) the offense is committed against a person known, or who reasonably should have been known by the offender to be pregnant;
iii.) the offense is committed during the commission of a robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or theft;
iv.) the offense is committed by impeding the victim’s breathing or air flow;
v.) the offense is committed using physical force or threatened use of force to block the use of that person’s cell phone or other electronic device to obstruct that person from making a report to law enforcement or requesting medical assistance.

Criminal Domestic Violence in the Second Degree

To be charged with criminal domestic violence in the second degree the following must be present:
1.) A violation of 16-25-20(A); AND
2.) One of the following aggravating factors:
a.) moderate bodily injury occurs;
b.) moderate bodily injury is likely to occur;
c.) person violates a protection order in the process of committing criminal domestic violence in the third degree;
d.) person has one prior conviction of CDV in the past ten years;
e.) in the process of committing criminal domestic violence in the 3rd degree one of the following results:
i.) the offense is committed in the presence of or while being perceived by a minor;
ii.) the offense is committed against a person known, or who reasonably should have been known by the offender to be pregnant;
iii.) the offense is committed during the commission of a robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or theft;
iv.) the offense is committed by impeding the victim’s breathing or air flow;
v.) the offense is committed using physical force or threatened use of force to block the use of that person’s cell phone or other electronic device to obstruct that person from making a report to law enforcement or requesting medical assistance.

Criminal Domestic Violence in the Third Degree

To be charged with criminal domestic violence in the third degree the following must be present:
1.) A violation of 16-25-20(A)

Domestic Violence Reform Act Changes Domestic Violence of a High and Aggravated

In addition to creating new degrees of criminal domestic violence, the Domestic Violence Reform Act changes the previous charge of domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature.

Domestic Violence of a High and Aggravated Nature

To be charged with domestic violence of a high and aggravate nature the following must be present:
1.) A violation of 16-25-20(A); AND
2.) One of the following aggravating factors:
a.) person commits the offense under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life and great bodily injury results;
b.) person commits the offense with or without an accompanying battery under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, and would reasonably cause a person to fear great bodily injury or death;
c.) person violates a protection order, and in the process of violating the order, commits domestic violence in the first degree.

Domestic Violence Reform Act Establishes New Penalties for CDV Crimes

The Domestic Violence Reform Act establishes the following penalties for criminal domestic violence crimes:
Domestic Violence of a High and Aggravated Nature: imprisonment 0-20 years
Criminal Domestic Violence 1st Degree: imprisonment 0-10 years
Criminal Domestic Violence 2nd Degree: imprisonment 0-3 years AND/OR fine $2500-$5000
Criminal Domestic Violence 3rd Degree: imprisonment 0-90 days AND/OR fine $1000-$2500

The Domestic Violence Reform Act also classifies domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature and criminal domestic violence in the 1st degree as violent offenses.

Domestic Violence Reform Act Strips Gun Rights from People Convicted of Criminal Domestic Violence

In addition to the increased penalties for the various degrees of criminal domestic violence, the Domestic Violence Reform Act makes it unlawful for a person to ship, transport, receive, or possess a firearm or ammunition for certain criminal domestic violence convictions. For a conviction of domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature or criminal domestic violence first degree a person loses their firearm and ammunition rights. For certain convictions of criminal domestic violence second degree and third degree a person may also lose their firearm and ammunition rights. Contact a criminal domestic violence lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss how a criminal domestic violence charge will affect your gun rights. 803-415-2733.

Contact a Criminal Domestic Violence Lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm

If you have been charged with criminal domestic violence, contact a criminal domestic violence lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your criminal domestic violence defense. Just because you have been charged with CDV does not mean that you are guilty. 803-415-2733

The post Criminal Domestic Violence Laws Overhauled in South Carolina appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.

Police departments have increasingly used drug dogs to search vehicles during routine traffic stops. A common scenario is where an officer makes a traffic stop on a vehicle. While the vehicle is pulled over, officer 1 calls a second officer to bring a drug dog to the scene of the traffic stop to search the vehicle. Meanwhile, the motorist who has been pulled over is required to sit and wait beyond the time of the original traffic stop until the K-9 Officer shows up on scene. In Rodriguez v. United States, the Supreme Court reviewed this scenario and put limits on this unconstitutional practice. If you have been charged with a drug crime contact a criminal lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your criminal defense. 803-415-2733

Case:

Rodriguez v. United States, No: 13-9972 (2015)

Issue:

Whether a traffic stop and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution where a motorist was detained beyond the scope of the original traffic stop in order to wait for a K-9 Officer to show up on scene and search the car with no reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.

Facts:

Dennys Rodriguez was stopped by K-9 Officer Struble for driving on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. Officer Struble issued a traffic ticket warning for this offense. After Officer Struble finished everything related to this traffic stop, he asked Rodriguez for permission to walk his drug dog around the car. Rodriguez refused to give consent to this search. At that point, Officer Struble detained Rodriguez while he called another officer to the scene. When the second officer arrived at the scene, Officer Struble walked his drug dog around the car. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs, and the subsequent search revealed methamphetamine in the car. The total time that elapsed from the time the officer created the warning ticket to the time the dog alerted was seven or eight minutes.

The criminal lawyer representing Rodriguez argued that Officer Struble had extended the original traffic stop without reasonable suspicion. However, the Magistrate Judge found that the minimal seven or eight minute intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights made the search permissible.

Holding:

The Supreme Court held that police may not extend a traffic stop in order to conduct a drug dog sniff absent some reasonable suspicion that the suspect possesses drugs. The Court equates a traffic stop to a brief Terry v. Ohio stop and not an arrest. That means the acceptable duration of the stop is determined by the stop’s mission. Here, the mission of the stop was to address Rodriguez’s traffic violation. Once the Officer gave Rodriguez a warning traffic ticket for his traffic violation, the mission of the stop ended. Therefore, the Officer violated Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights by extending the original stop in order to complete a drug search.

The Supreme Court has held in previous cases that the Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations during a traffic stop, however, they may not lengthen the duration of the stop. The Eighth Circuit reasoned that certain de minimis intrusions into a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights were legitimate given the Government’s interest in stopping the flow of illegal drugs. However, the Supreme Court held that de minimis intrusions have only been allowed when Officer safety is at issue. Here, the Supreme Court held there was no officer safety issue and no reason to prolong this stop beyond its original purpose. Therefore, the search violated Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Contact a criminal lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your criminal defense.

Just because you have been charged with drug crime does not mean that you are guilty. A criminal lawyer may be able to help you with your criminal defense and will be able to review whether your drug search was valid. As was the case in Rodriguez v. United States, there may be defenses to your criminal charge. If you have been charged with a criminal offense, contact a criminal lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm for a free consultation today. 803-415-2733

The post Police limited in extending traffic stop to conduct drug dog search appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.

In State v. Gordon, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed whether a DUI videotape complied with South Carolina law where the suspect’s head was not visible on camera during a field sobriety test where the officer checked the suspect’s eyes. If you have been arrested for DUI, contact an experienced Rock Hill DUI Lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your DUI defense. Initial consultations with a Rock Hill DUI Lawyer are free so contact Pisarik Law Firm to talk about your DUI defense today

Case:

State v. Gordon, 408 S.C. 536 (2014)

Issue:

Whether a DUI field videotape complied with South Carolina DUI videotaping requirements where the suspect’s head was not visible during the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus DUI Field Sobriety Test.

Facts:

Cody Gordon was stopped at a license and registration checkpoint. Officers administered three DUI field sobriety tests to determine if Gordon was under the influence. Following the tests, Gordon was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Gordon moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that the state failed to record the DUI field sobriety test because his head was not visible during the HGN test. The magistrate denied the motion, and Gordon was found guilty of DUI after a jury trial. Gordon appealed the magistrate’s decision.

Holding:

The Court of Appeals held that a suspect’s head must be visible during the HGN test in order to comply with the DUI videotaping statute. SC Code Section 56-5-2953 states that the video recording at the incident site must include any field sobriety tests administered. The Court reasoned that the purpose of SC Code Section 56-5-2953 is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest. The Court further found that because the purpose of the videotaping statute is to create direct evidence of the DUI arrest, if the actual tests can’t be seen on the recording the requirement is pointless. Therefore, because Gordon’s head was not visible on the videotape, the Officer failed to comply with SC Code Section 56-5-2953.

In keeping with previous rulings, the Court dismissed the DUI case for failure to comply with the videotaping statute. The Court stated that by requiring law enforcement to videotape a DUI arrest, the Legislature clearly intended strict compliance with that videotaping statute. Therefore, if there is a violation of the videotaping statute, the case should be dismissed.

Contact Rock Hill DUI lawyer Craig Pisarik at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your DUI defense.

Just because you have been charged with DUI or DUAC does not mean that you are guilty of DUI or DUAC. A DUI lawyer may be able to help you with your DUI defense or DUAC defense. As was the case in State v. Gordon, there may be defenses to your DUI or DUAC charge. If you have been charged with DUI or DUAC, contact a Rock Hill DUI lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm for a free consultation today. 803-415-2733

The post DUI field videos key to DUI defense; must show results of DUI Field Sobriety Tests appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.

In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court reviewed whether a police officer’s search of a cell-phone seized upon a suspect’s arrest violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. If you have been the subject of a police search or seizure, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney at Pisarik Law Firm at 803-415-2733 to discuss your criminal defense with a defense attorney. Initial consultations are free so contact Pisarik Law Firm to see if you have been the subject of an illegal search or seizure conducted by police.

Case:

Riley v. California, No: 13-132 and No: 13-212 (June, 2014)

Issue:

Whether police officers could search a cell phone seized incident to arrest without first obtaining a search warrant.

Facts:

David Riley was stopped for a traffic violation. The stop eventually led to Riley’s arrest on criminal weapons charges. An officer searching Riley found a cell phone in his pocket. The officer accessed information on the phone and noticed the repeated use of terms associated with a street gang. The officer gave the phone to a detective who specializes in gangs. The detective searched the phone at the police station two hours after the arrest. The officer used the information he found on the phone to charge Riley in connection with a previous shooting and sought to enhance Riley’s sentence based on his gang membership. Riley’s criminal defense attorney sought to have the cell phone evidence suppressed.

Holding:

The U.S. Supreme Court held that officers generally may not search digital evidence on a cell phone seized from someone during arrest without first obtaining a search warrant. In previous cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that officers may search property found on or near someone who is being arrested without first obtaining a search warrant. The justification for this type of warrantless search was for officer safety and to prevent the destruction of evidence. However, the Court declined to extend this type of warrantless search to data stored on a cell phone.

The Supreme Court found that data stored on a cell phone can’t be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to help the suspect escape. The Supreme Court further held that data on a cell phone is different from other objects that a suspect might carry on them because of the immense amount of data they store. A cell phone can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, and hundreds of videos. This information may be private and likely chronicles most aspects of a person’s life. Therefore, warrantless searches of cell phone data can lead to many privacy consequences. Further complicating these privacy consequences is the fact that most data viewed on a phone is stored on remote servers. So the search may extend well past the papers and effects in the physical proximity of the person when they are arrested.

Contact defense attorney Craig Pisarik at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your possible criminal defense for an illegal search and seizure.

Just because you have been charged with a drug crime or other type of crime does not mean that you are guilty. A criminal defense attorney may be able to help you with a criminal defense based upon an illegal search and seizure. As was the case in Riley v. California, you may have had your rights violated or evidence against you illegally obtained. If you have been charged with a crime, contact a defense attorney at Pisarik Law Firm for a free consultation to discuss your criminal defense today. 803-415-2733

The post Officers generally must obtain search warrant to search cell phone seized during arrest appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.

Once again, the South Carolina legislature has passed a new DUI law. The new DUI law referred to as “Emma’s Law” will take effect on October 1, 2014, and will increase penalties for certain DUI and DUAC offenses including a first offense conviction. More than ever, you may need a DUI defense lawyer to protect your rights. If you have been charged with a DUI or DUAC in South Carolina, contact an experienced DUI defense lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your DUI defense or DUAC defense. It won’t cost you anything to discuss your case with an experienced DUI lawyer and member of the National College for DUI Defense. Call 803-415-2733

New DUI law requires a person convicted of a first offense DUI or DUAC with a blood alcohol score of .15 or higher install an ignition interlock system in their vehicle

The most notable change to the South Carolina DUI law coming from “Emma’s Law” is that a person that is convicted of a first offense DUI or DUAC with a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or higher will now be required to have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle. An ignition interlock device is a machine attached to the inside of a motor vehicle that requires a driver provide breath samples at various times before and during the operation of that vehicle.

Under previous DUI law, only second or subsequent DUI and DUAC convictions required installation of an ignition interlock system. First offense DUI and DUAC convictions were exempt from this requirement. However, now anyone convicted of a first offense DUI or DUAC with a breath score over a .15 will be required to have the system installed. For this type of DUI or DUAC first offense conviction, the ignition interlock system will be required for six months.

Under new DUI law, a person who refuses a breath test and is convicted of a first offense DUI will be ineligible for a provisional license

Registering a breath score over .15 is not the only type of first offense DUI that will see increased penalties with the new DUI law. Under the new SC Code Section 56-5-2990 a person who refuses to take a breath test and is ultimately convicted of a first offense DUI will also face a harsh new reality. Under the old DUI law, a person who refused to submit to a breath test and was convicted of a first offense DUI was still eligible for a provisional license during their six month suspension period.

However, Emma’s Law takes this option away from people who refuse to take a breath test. The practical effect of denying eligibility for a provisional license is that people who refuse a breath test and are convicted of a first offense DUI will likely have to opt for having the ignition interlock installed. While the ignition interlock is not mandatory for people who refuse the breath test as it is with people who register a breath score over a .15, the alternative may be not driving during the six month suspension period.

Cost of ignition interlock for DUI conviction and further penalties

Under South Carolina Law, a person who is convicted of DUI and has an ignition interlock installed in their car must pay the cost of having the ignition interlock unless they are deemed indigent. In addition to this added cost, registering breath alcohol scores over specified limits on the ignition interlock system can lead to further penalties and license suspensions. For a discussion of other DUI penalties please visit our DUI page.

Contact a DUI defense attorney at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss DUI penalties and your DUI defense

Now more than ever, a DUI conviction can have serious and long lasting consequences. Before you make any decisions that might affect your case, contact an experienced DUI defense lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your DUI defense or DUAC defense. Initial consultations are free of charge. 803-415-2733

The post Emma’s Law stiffens penalties for certain DUI and DUAC offenses in South Carolina appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.

An often asked question in DUI cases is whether a person can be charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in South Carolina if they have drugs in their system. This question often comes when an accused has taken a DUI breath test and registered a score below .08, yet still been charged with DUI. The quick answer is YES, a person can be charged and prosecuted for DUI under South Carolina law if they are determined to have drugs in their system. Below, I explain the applicable law and the practicalities of “drugged driving” versus “drunk driving”. However, it is important to know that just because you have been charged with DUI does not mean that you are automatically guilty of DUI. Contact an experienced DUI defense lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your DUI defense today. It won’t cost you anything to discuss your case with an experienced DUI lawyer and member of the National College for DUI Defense. 803-415-2733

South Carolina DUI law

South Carolina’s DUI law is found in SC Code Section 56-5-2930. The law states:

(A) It is unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle within this State while under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the person’s faculties to drive a motor vehicle are materially and appreciably impaired, under the influence of any other drug or a combination of other drugs or substances which cause impairment to the extent that the person’s faculties to drive a motor vehicle are materially and appreciably impaired, or under the combined influence of alcohol and any other drug or drugs or substances which cause impairment to the extent that the person’s faculties to drive a motor vehicle are materially and appreciably impaired.

No distinction in South Carolina law for “drugged driving” DUI versus “drunk driving” DUI

As is plainly stated in the statute, a person can be charged with DUI if they ingest drugs, or if they ingest a combination of drugs and alcohol, to the extent that it materially and appreciably impairs their faculties to drive a motor vehicle. The statute does not make a distinction between impairment that is caused by alcohol versus impairment that that is caused by drugs.

A person can be charged with DUI for ingesting lawfully prescribed medications

SC Code Section 56-5-2930 does not distinguish between the ingestion of illegal drugs versus the ingestion of legal drugs. That means that a person can be charged with DUI even if they ingest medications that were lawfully prescribed if those medications impair their faculties to drive to the extent noted in Section 56-5-2930.

South Carolina DUI penalties for alcohol versus drugs

The possible penalties for a conviction of DUI related to alcohol and DUI related to drugs are nearly identical. The only difference is that a DUI related to alcohol has graduated penalties based upon the blood alcohol level that is registered. The first tier of penalties is for a blood alcohol score of .080-.099 or a refusal to take the breath, urine, or blood test. The second tier of penalties is for a blood alcohol score of .100-.159. The third tier is for a blood alcohol score greater than .160. The penalties for the DUI get higher from the first tier to the third tier. (For a further discussion of DUI penalties visit our DUI page.) However, South Carolina law does not make the same tiered distinction for the amount drugs in a person’s system. Therefore, any conviction for DUI related to drugs arguably faces the same penalties as the first tier for an alcohol related DUI.

DUI defense to charges of DUI related to drugs versus DUI related to alcohol

“Drugged driving” DUI cases bring a different set of problems and difficulties compared to drunk driving DUI cases. DUI cases related to drugs may be subject to chain of custody issues, additional constitutional challenges, and further scientific problems. These problems can make it even more important to contact an experienced DUI lawyer to make sure you discuss your DUI defense.

Contact a DUI attorney at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your DUI defense

A DUI conviction can have serious and long lasting consequences. Before you attempt to go it alone, contact an experienced DUI lawyer at Pisarik Law Firm to discuss your DUI defense. Initial consultations are free of charge. 803-415-2733

The post Is “drugged driving” treated the same as “drunk driving” in South Carolina? appeared first on Pisarik Law Firm.