State v. Kenneth Taylor
28085
| S.C. | Feb 23, 2022Background
- Early morning traffic stop: officer detected alcohol, open container, slurred speech; Taylor performed poorly on field tests and was arrested and placed in the patrol car.
- Officer began reading Miranda warnings while seated in patrol car but did not activate the in-car camera; the exchange was audible on the recording but Taylor and the officer were off-camera until the drive to the station.
- Taylor moved to dismiss the DUI charge under S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2953(A)(1)(a)(iii) because the video did not "show" him being advised of Miranda rights; the magistrate granted dismissal.
- The circuit court and Court of Appeals affirmed; the State petitioned for certiorari to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held that "show" requires both visual and audible depiction of the Miranda advisement, but clarified that per se dismissal is not the required remedy going forward—suppression of tainted evidence is.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "show" in §56-5-2953(A) | "Show" means "make apparent" or "demonstrate"; audible proof suffices | "Show" includes a visual element; video must depict the officer and defendant during the advisement | "Show" requires both visual and audible depiction: defendant and officer must be seen and heard |
| Remedy when Miranda advisement not shown on video | Per se dismissal of DUI charge is not required; typical Miranda remedies apply | Under prior precedent, failure to comply mandates dismissal absent exceptions | Court affirms dismissal in this case (issue not preserved for change) but announces rule: suppression of tainted evidence—not automatic dismissal—is the proper remedy going forward |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 646 S.E.2d 879 (2007) (held dismissal warranted when statutory video requirement was inexcusably violated under pre-2009 statute)
- State v. Sawyer, 409 S.C. 475, 763 S.E.2d 183 (2014) (upheld suppression where Miranda exchange was not audible on recording)
- State v. Gordon, 414 S.C. 94, 777 S.E.2d 376 (2015) (held video must show the head for HGN test; poor quality calls for redaction/suppression, not automatic dismissal)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes exclusion of statements obtained in custodial interrogation absent proper warnings)
- State v. Henkel, 413 S.C. 9, 774 S.E.2d 458 (2015) (discusses statutory purpose of video recordings to reduce testimonial disputes and protect procedures)