839 S.E.2d 91
S.C.2020Background
- Serious head-on collision; victim suffered life-threatening injuries and required extrication; multiple officers and emergency personnel responded.
- Troopers observed empty beer cans and signs McCall was impaired by a substance (glassy, dilated pupils); officer interviewed McCall at scene and again at the hospital.
- McCall was arrested about 2 hours 23 minutes after the crash; implied-consent form was read and (according to officers) signed; urine drawn ~8:45 p.m. and blood drawn ~9:05 p.m. (≈3 hours 15 minutes after accident).
- Blood and urine tested positive for methamphetamine and benzodiazepines.
- McCall moved to suppress arguing Section 56-5-2946 allows warrantless compelled testing in violation of the Fourth Amendment; the State argued implied consent and exigent circumstances; trial court denied suppression.
- At trial McCall sought new counsel and a continuance, was relieved of counsel and proceeded pro se; convicted of felony DUI and sentenced to 15 years; the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed based on exigent circumstances and did not decide the statute’s constitutionality.
Issues
| Issue | McCall's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless blood/urine draws under §56-5-2946 violated the Fourth Amendment | §56-5-2946 creates a per se exception to the warrant requirement; tests were unlawfully compelled | Tests were lawful as consent under the statute and/or exigent circumstances justified warrantless testing | Affirmed: warrantless blood/urine admissible here because exigent circumstances justified the draw; court did not decide statute’s constitutionality |
| Whether the trial court violated McCall's Sixth Amendment right by relieving counsel and denying a continuance | Relief of counsel and denial of continuance deprived McCall of counsel and was reversible error | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; defendant was warned and motions were dilatory | Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b) and controlling authorities; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw upheld where emergency and delay threatened destruction of evidence)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (no per se exigency for blood draws; exigency is a totality-of-circumstances inquiry)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (warrantless breath tests permissible incident to arrest; blood tests not per se allowed)
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (unconscious driver exception: blood draw without warrant may be reasonable under exigent-circumstances analysis)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (warrant requirement; searches reasonable only if an exception applies)
- State v. Gamble, 405 S.C. 409 (State bears burden to prove a warrant exception)
- State v. Adams, 409 S.C. 641 (deferential standard of review for suppression rulings)