828 S.E.2d 596
S.C.2019Background
- Early-morning collision (Nov. 14, 2011) in a highway construction zone left pedestrian Ahmed Garland with permanent brain injuries; Daniel Hamrick admitted striking Garland but disputed whether impact occurred in the lane of travel or inside the construction zone.
- Officers arrived within minutes; Hamrick refused early field sobriety tests, was detained, later performed tests, was arrested at 4:40 a.m., taken to station (breath device failed), refused breath test, then taken to hospital where blood was drawn at 6:55 a.m. without a warrant; BAC = .113%.
- Hamrick moved pretrial to suppress blood results (arguing no exigency/need for warrant and statutory 3-hour rule), and at trial challenged point-of-impact evidence and sought admission of his expert’s experiment video.
- The State’s case relied substantially on Officer Andrew Harris’s opinion placing the point of impact inside the construction zone; Hamrick’s expert (Poplin) testified the impact could not have occurred where Harris said and conducted a videotaped experiment the trial court excluded.
- Trial court denied suppression, admitted Officer Harris’s opinion as lay testimony (without on-record Rule 702 qualification findings), excluded Poplin’s experiment video, and Hamrick was convicted; conviction was later vacated for a belated appeal and this Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Hamrick's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Admissibility of warrantless blood draw (Fourth Amendment) | Warrantless blood draw violated McNeely; exigency not shown so results should be suppressed | Exigent circumstances or implied-consent statute justified warrantless draw; alternatively officers acted in good faith | Court did not decide exigency/consent on merits; applied good-faith exception and declined suppression |
| 2) Statutory three-hour sampling requirement (S.C. Code §56-5-2950(A)) | Blood was drawn >3 hours after arrest (argued arrest at 3:40 a.m.); results must be excluded under §2950(J) if delay materially affected reliability | Delay did not materially affect accuracy or fairness; §2950(J) exclusion inapplicable here | Court affirmed refusal to exclude: no evidence delay materially affected accuracy/reliability |
| 3) Officer Harris’s accident-reconstruction testimony | Officer lacked qualifications; his reconstruction opinion should be excluded under Rule 702 | Officer investigated scene and had training/experience; testimony could be received as lay opinion under Rule 701 | Court reversed: testimony was expert reconstruction, not proper lay opinion, and State failed to lay Rule 702 foundation; admission was error requiring new trial |
| 4) Exclusion of Poplin’s videotaped experiment | Video was relevant substantive evidence showing impact could not have occurred in construction zone and should have been admitted; trial court misapplied rules | Court permissibly excluded as an impermissible re-creation or misleading demonstration | Court held exclusional analysis was erroneous (video was relevant/substantive) but did not decide abuse of discretion because Harris’s improper testimony requires remand; on remand trial court must reconsider under correct legal framework (including Rule 403) |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural metabolization of alcohol does not create per se exigency for nonconsensual blood draws)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (compulsory blood tests are Fourth Amendment searches; exigent-circumstances analysis governs warrantless blood draws)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule does not apply when police act with objectively reasonable good-faith belief their conduct is lawful)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (warrantless searches are only reasonable if they fall within established exceptions to the warrant requirement)
- State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1 (1999) (trial court must make on-record Rule 702 foundational findings when admitting expert testimony)
- State v. Ellis, 345 S.C. 175 (2001) (law enforcement may be qualified to testify about certain scene facts but not to offer expert reconstruction absent proper qualifications)
- State v. Kelly, 285 S.C. 373 (1985) (police officers may not give opinions as to cause of an accident unless qualified as experts)