 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. South Carolina Dep't of Motor Vehicles11/22/2005
Submitted November 1, 2005
REVERSED
T. D. Williams, IV was arrested for driving under the influence . Williams failed to consent to a breath test offered by the arresting law enforcement officer. As a result, the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (the Department) suspended Williams' driver's license. Williams challenged the suspension. An administrative hearing was held, and the hearing officer affirmed the suspension. The circuit court reversed. The Department appeals the circuit court's decision. We reverse.
FACTS
On June 14, 2003, South Carolina Highway Patrol Trooper S. S. McKenzie arrested Williams in Sumter County for driving under the influence . Trooper McKenzie transported Williams to a breath test location for a breath test pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-5-2950 (Supp. 2004). At the breath test facility, he advised Williams of his implied consent rights, orally and in writing, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-5-2951 (Supp. 2004). Upon reading the implied consent rights from the prescribed form, Trooper McKenzie requested that Williams sign a document acknowledging that he received a copy of the advisement form. Williams declined to sign the document.
Trooper McKenzie prepared the breath test machine according to State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) procedures and waited the standard twenty minutes. During that time, Williams asked numerous questions of Trooper McKenzie, but Trooper McKenzie limited his responses to the information in the SLED advisement form.
When the twenty-minute observation period elapsed and the breath test machine indicated it was time to take the test, Trooper McKenzie requested that Williams take the test. Williams declined the breath test on the basis that his questions had not been answered to his satisfaction. Based on Williams' refusal, Trooper McKenzie issued Williams a Notice of Suspension.
The Department suspended Williams' driver's license for ninety days, as required by S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-5-2951 (Supp. 2004). Williams requested an administrative hearing to challenge his suspension. The Department held a hearing on August 20, 2003.
At the administrative hearing, Trooper McKenzie maintained that Williams refused to submit to the breath test.
Williams testified that when Trooper McKenzie indicated the breathalyzer machine was ready to receive a sample, he responded that he was not fully advised of his rights. When questioned further about his decision to refuse the breath test, Williams stated, "I elected to continue trying to fully understand my rights." Williams explained, "I just simply ... my questions weren't being answered."
The hearing officer sustained the suspension. In his report, the hearing officer made the following findings of fact:
6. The officer began the 20 minute observation period. When the 20 minutes expired, he asked Mr. Williams if he wanted to submit to a breath test and he responded "No."
7. The officer concluded that Mr. Williams refused to submit to a breath test.
Williams appealed to the circuit court, arguing he never refused to submit to the breath test, and the hearing officer made findings of fact without factual support. The circuit court judge initially upheld the suspension and held there was substantial evidence in the record that would permit reasonable minds to conclude Williams refused to submit to a breath test. However, he later reversed the hearing officer's decision pursuant to a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion for reconsideration. In his reversing order, the judge found the hearing officer based his decision to uphold William
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|