 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
HORNE v. S.C.D.H.P.T.10/29/1990
Heard October 17, 1990.
Decided October 29, 1990.
William L. Horne appeals from a circuit court order affirming the decision of the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation to suspend for 90 days Horne's driver's license because of his refusal to submit to a breath test following his arrest for driving under the influence
An officer arrested Horne at 2:15 a.m. on January 1, 1988 and charged him with
Following the Department's notification to Horne that his license to drive was being suspended for 90 days because of his refusal to submit to a breath test, a hearing was conducted on March 31, 1988, pursuant to Section 56-5-2950(e) of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976 Annotated (Supp. 1989), to determine whether the Department's action should be either rescinded or sustained. The hearing officer sustained the Department's suspension of Horne's driver's license, finding that Horne had been arrested for
The Department is required by the implied consent law to suspend for 90 days the driver's license of a person arrested for
As he did before the hearing officer and the circuit court, Horne contends the breath test operator did not make a lawful offer of a breath test because the operator did not follow the guidelines prescribed by SLED for the administration of the test. In particular, Horne argues the evidence shows the operator did not observe him for 20 minutes before requesting that he submit to the test.
Horne's contention has no merit for the simple reason that he was not given a breath test. The validity of Horne's suspension for refusing to submit to a test does not depend at all upon whether the foundation for the introduction of the results of a breath test was properly laid. The question of the validity of test methods employed by a breath test operator does not arise until a test is given and its results are offered as evidence. Halloway v. Martin, 143 Ariz. 311, 693 P.2d 966 (Ct. App. 1984); see In re Rogers, 94 N.C. App. 505, 380 S.E.2d 599 (1989) (the failure of a breathalyzer operator to perform a simulator test in the presence of a witness requested by the driver did not preclude revocation of license for refusal to take the test).
We therefore hold the Department can suspend the driver's license of a person arrested for
Affirmed.
SANDERS, C.J., and GARDNER, J., concur.
|