State v. Gordon
777 S.E.2d 376
S.C.2015Background
- State appeals Court of Appeals' affirmation of circuit court interpreting 56-5-2953(A) to require head visibility in HGN video.
- Gordon stopped at a license/registration checkpoint; HGN test recorded via dashboard camera with imperfect lighting.
- Circuit court found Gordon's head not sufficiently visible during HGN and dismissed the DUI charge.
- Court of Appeals affirmed in part, remanded for factual findings on recording the HGN test with head visible.
- This Court reinstates Gordon's conviction, holds statute requires recording of any field sobriety tests, and vacates remand mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §56-5-2953(A) require the motorist's head to be visible on video during HGN testing? | State: statute requires head visibility in recording. | Gordon: no explicit head-visibility requirement in statute. | Yes; head visibility is required. |
| Is Murphy v. State controlling given the statute's current wording? | Murphy applies only to prior statute version; current version requires tests recorded. | Murphy still governs if applicable; or not distinguishable. | Murphy distinguished; current statute governs. |
| If the video is of poor quality, is dismissal or redaction the proper remedy? | Record must show HGN; otherwise dismissal may be warranted. | Remedy is redaction of the test, not dismissal. | Redaction is proper; evidence otherwise supports conviction; dismissal not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. State, 392 S.C. 626 (Ct. App. 2011) (statutory requirement focused on recording conduct, not necessarily visibility of head under older version)
- Town of Mount Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332 (2011) (addresses video recording requirements for DUI-related testing)
- City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12 (2007) (video recording standards in DUI context)