 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sponar v. South Carolina Dep't of Public Safety7/19/2004
it would be unreasonable to require law enforcement to advise out-of-state motorists of the consequences that refusal to take the test will have in their respective states. Accordingly, the court found Percy was adequately advised pursuant to the implied consent statute. Id. at 385, 434 S.E.2d at 265-66.
We find the officer's statement to Sponar that he would be going to jail regardless of his decision on whether to submit to the breath test did not inadequately advise Sponar pursuant to the implied consent statute. First, § 56-5-2950(b)(1) provides that one is conclusively presumed to not be under the influence of alcohol if his or her breath test registers.05% or lower. Such a result does not rule out the possibility that the individual is under the influence of some other intoxicant, or a combination of alcohol and another intoxicant. Indeed, an individual may fail field sobriety tests and/or exhibit other signs of being under the influence of an intoxicant regardless of whether the individual does not have enough alcohol in his or her system to register as being under the influence of alcohol.
Second, the evidence of record shows the officers, as a matter of policy, often do not release an individual, regardless of whether the breath test results show an individual is conclusively presumed to not be under the influence of alcohol. Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that it is improper for authorities to continue to detain an individual after they have registered below a.05% on a breath test, this is irrelevant to an individual's decision on whether to submit to a breath test.*fn3 Officer Whitcomb's statement to Sponar in this regard was simply a truthful explanation of what would happen to him next, and it is irrelevant as to whether continued detention in such a situation would be lawful.
Finally, the statements made by Officer Whitcomb to Sponar did not "trick or mislead" Sponar into refusing the breath test. Such a statement indicated that his decision, either way, would be of no consequence to his subsequent immediate incarceration. Officer Whitcomb explicitly indicated to Sponar that his decision on whether to take the breath test would have no impact on whether he would be jailed. Indeed, the only statement made by the officer to Sponar that could reasonably be said to have affected Sponar's decision on whether or not to take the breath test was that his license would be suspended for a ninety-day period if he refused the test. The authorities are required by law to inform an individual of this consequence before they may administer such a test.*fn4 A common sense reading of the advisory given to Sponar made clear the consequences of both taking the test and refusing to take the test. He was reasonably informed of his rights, duties and obligations, and was not tricked or misled into thinking he had no right to refuse the test. Shaw, 315 S.C. at 113, 432 S.E.2d at 451. Neither was he tricked or misled into refusing the test.
Because we reverse the trial court's decision on this ground, DPS's remaining argument need not be addressed. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (appellate court need not address remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive).
Accordingly, the circuit court's decision is reversed and the suspension is reinstated.
REVERSED.
Page 1 2 3 4 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|