 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Frey10/25/2004
2 which provides, in pertinent part:
The failure to follow any of these policies, procedures, and regulations, or the provisions of this section, shall result in the exclusion from evidence any tests results, if the trial judge or hearing officer finds that such failure materially affected the accuracy or reliability of the tests results or the fairness of the testing procedure.
S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2950 (e) (Act No. 61, 2003 S.C. Acts 689). The State's complete failure to provide even minimal proof that the requirement was satisfied left the circuit court with no basis-other than pure conjecture or surmise-to determine the accuracy, reliability, or fairness of the test results. As such, legal prejudice is established. Were we to conclude otherwise in the face of no proof, the safeguards of section 56-5-2950 (a) would be rendered meaningless.
We are mindful of the legitimate concern of the circuit court that law enforcement officers who request blood samples should not be required to demand detailed background information about the hospital employee who shows up to take the sample. This concern, however, is misplaced. There is no basis to find fault with the actions of Trooper Smith. Law enforcement officers may generally rely on the implicit and explicit assurances of medical providers regarding the qualifications of personnel who are assigned to assist them in their investigation. The failure of proof in this case is directly attributable to the lack of preparation by the prosecutor. Had the Solicitor's Office engaged in minimum trial preparation, the qualifications of Scott Darragh would have been easily discovered. Such information, if consistent with the mandatory requirements of section 56-5-2950, would have foreclosed the present challenge.
CONCLUSION
Because the State offered no proof to show Frey's blood sample was obtained by a licensed physician, registered nurse, or "other medical personnel trained to obtain the samples in a licensed medical facility" as mandated by section 56-5-2950, we hold the trial court erred in denying Frey's motion to suppress the results of his blood-alcohol test. Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the circuit court for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|