774 S.E.2d 458
S.C.2015Background
- Respondent Henkel was involved in a single-vehicle crash and later found walking on I-385; officers administered Miranda warnings and an HGN test in an ambulance before video recording was practicable.
- Sergeant Hiott activated audio recording during the HGN test; no video captured the initial Miranda warning or the HGN/ABC tests.
- After learning Henkel would not go to the hospital, Hiott moved him to the patrol vehicle, arrested him, and then activated the in-car video camera (which recorded thereafter).
- Henkel moved to dismiss, arguing the videotape failed to comply with S.C. Code Ann. § 56–5–2953(A) because it did not show him being Mirandized before field sobriety tests. Trial court denied the motion; Court of Appeals reversed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the subsection (B) exception modifies when full compliance with subsection (A) must begin and reversed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Henkel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether videotaping satisfied § 56–5–2953 when initial Miranda and some sobriety testing occurred before video was practicable | The phrase “as soon as videotaping is practicable” applies to both when videotaping must begin and what it must show; requiring replaying warnings/tests would be impracticable and unnecessary | Strict compliance requires the videotape to capture Miranda warnings before any field sobriety tests; absence of that capture mandates dismissal | The Court held the subsection (B) exception means compliance with subsection (A) need only begin when videotaping becomes practicable and continue thereafter; audio of tests plus earlier Miranda given before video practicability satisfied the statute; Court of Appeals reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes requirement to advise suspects of rights before custodial interrogation)
- Sweat v. State, 386 S.C. 339 (S.C. 2010) (statutory language construed in light of legislative purpose)
- Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332 (S.C. 2011) (purpose of DUI videotaping statute is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest)
- Sloan v. S.C. Bd. of Physical Therapy Exam'rs, 370 S.C. 452 (S.C. 2006) (statutes must receive practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation)
- Mid-State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65 (S.C. 1996) (court should consider statute as a whole when ascertaining legislative intent)
- Lester v. S.C. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 334 S.C. 557 (S.C. 1999) (ambiguous statutes must be construed by courts)