State v. Kinard, 831 S.E.2d 138

On Nov. 3, 2015, Kinard was involved in a two-car accident; he was loud, combative, handcuffed, arrested for disorderly conduct, and placed in Deputy Snelgrove’s patrol car.
Trooper Barnett arrived, activated his in-car camera, parked behind Snelgrove’s vehicle, smelled alcohol, and arrested Kinard for DUI; Barnett Mirandized Kinard on camera but Kinard is not seen or heard on the recording.
Kinard moved to dismiss the DUI charge pretrial, arguing the video did not satisfy S.C. Code § 56-5-2953(A) because it did not show him during the Miranda warning.
Trial court granted dismissal for noncompliance with § 56-5-2953(A); it later denied the State’s motion to reconsider.
State appealed arguing (1) the video satisfied § 56-5-2953(A) because it records the officer Mirandizing Kinard, and (2) any noncompliance was excused under § 56-5-2953(B).
Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal: it agreed § 56-5-2953(A) was violated but held subsection (B) excused the failure under the totality of the circumstances and remanded for trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kinard)	Held
Whether the incident-site video complied with § 56-5-2953(A) (must show person being advised of Miranda)	The recording satisfies (A) because it captures the officer Mirandizing the defendant on camera.	Failure to show Kinard during Miranda reading means the video does not capture the person’s conduct as required.	Court: (A) was violated — video failed to show Kinard during the Miranda warning, so it did not comply.
Whether noncompliance is excused under § 56-5-2953(B) (exceptions; totality of circumstances)	The accident scene qualifies as practicable only later; in any event, exceptions in (B) apply so dismissal is not warranted.	Existence of a video means (B) inapplicable; no sworn affidavit of equipment failure and no statutory excuse applies.	Court: (B) applies under the totality of the circumstances (fourth exception); failure excused because practicability was prevented by Kinard’s own combative conduct; dismissal reversed and case remanded.

State v. Elwell, 396 S.C. 330 (Ct. App.) (legislative purpose of § 56-5-2953 is to reduce DUI "swearing contests" by mandating videotaping)
State v. Sawyer, 409 S.C. 475 (silent video does not meet statutory requirement to include reading of Miranda and the person being informed)
State v. Johnson, 396 S.C. 182 (failure to capture breath test administration on video violates § 56-5-2953)
State v. Taylor, 411 S.C. 294 (brief, noncritical omissions from recording may not violate § 56-5-2953 when they do not affect direct-evidence or defendant-rights events)
Town of Mount Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332 (subsection (B) outlines exceptions excusing noncompliance)
Teamer v. State, 416 S.C. 171 (no affidavit required for some (B) exceptions)
State v. Henkel, 413 S.C. 9 (medical treatment/exigent circumstances can render recording impracticable and excuse noncompliance)