Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-516 - City of Rock Hill v. Wallace

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

City of Rock Hill, Respondent,

v.

Lori Elizabeth Wallace, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-516
Heard October 6, 2010 – Filed December 1, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Leland B. Greeley, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.

Paula Knox Brown, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Lori Elizabeth Wallace appeals the circuit court's order affirming the magistrate court's denial of her motion to dismiss her indictment for driving under the influence, arguing the video recording of her conduct at the incident site failed to comply with section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code (2006).[1]  Specifically, Wallace maintains the arresting officer's failure to remove the audio-recording device from its charger in his patrol vehicle did not constitute a valid reason for failing to produce a videotape based upon the totality of the circumstances in accordance with subsection (A).  Subsection (A), in relevant part, provides:

A person who [commits a DUI] must have his conduct at the incident site and the breath test site videotaped.

(1)The videotaping at the incident site must:

(a) begin not later than the activation of the officer's blue lights and conclude after the arrest of the person for [DUI,] or a probable cause determination that the person [committed a DUI]; and

(b) include the person being advised of his [rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),] before any field sobriety tests are administered, if the tests are administered.

Because the videotape began with the activation of the officer's blue lights, concluded after Wallace's arrest, and the parties agree it depicted the arresting officer advising Wallace of her Miranda rights in accordance with the statute, we find the circuit court properly affirmed the magistrate court's ruling.  Accordingly, the circuit court's order is

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


[1] Because Wallace was charged in 2007, prior to the 2009 amendment of this section, we apply the language of the pre-amended statute.