Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts, 713 S.E.2d 278

Roberts was arrested for DUI in Mount Pleasant on November 11, 2007 after a nighttime traffic stop and field sobriety tests.
There was no videotape of the stop, field sobriety tests, or arrest because the arresting officers’ patrol vehicles were not equipped with video cameras.
Roberts moved to dismiss the DUI charge, arguing the statute required videotaping and noncompliance warranted dismissal; the municipal court denied the motion.
Roberts appealed to the circuit court; the Town challenged the appeal on the basis that Roberts failed to post bond or pay the fine before appealing, arguing lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The circuit court reversed Roberts’s DUI conviction and dismissed the charge, ruling the videotaping requirements were mandatory and noncompliance warranted dismissal; the Town appealed.
The South Carolina Supreme Court held the circuit court had appellate jurisdiction and, on the merits, affirmed the dismissal, holding the Town’s failure to equip patrol vehicles with video cameras violated the statute and warranted per se dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court lacked appellate jurisdiction.	Roberts timely filed notice of appeal; bond/fine payment does not divest appellate jurisdiction.	Roberts’ failure to obtain a bond or pay the fine before appeal divested appellate jurisdiction.	Circuit court had appellate jurisdiction; failure to bond/pay did not divest.
Whether the Town's failure to videotape the arrest requires per se dismissal of the DUI charge.	Suchenski requires dismissal for noncompliance with mandatory videotaping.	Gives a grace period until cameras are installed; noncompliance not automatically fatal.	Dismissal is the appropriate sanction; noncompliance cannot be excused by G and B exceptions did not apply.
Whether subsection (G) can excuse noncompliance when a vehicle was never equipped with a camera.	G should not excuse noncompliance given intent of statute.	G provides a trigger for when provisions take effect and may excuse noncompliance if equipment is absent.	Town cannot rely on (G) to defeat the statutory exceptions; purpose of statute defeats evasion.

City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12 (2007) (videotaping requirement is mandatory; failure to tape can warrant dismissal)
State v. Landis, 362 S.C. 97 (Ct. App. 2004) (excusable noncompliance where affidavit shows equipment inoperable)
Murphy v. State, 709 S.E.2d 685 (S.C. Ct. App. 2011) (noncompliance not mitigated by non-exhaustive exceptions can warrant dismissal)
Town of Hilton Head Island v. Godwin, 634 S.E.2d 59 (Ct. App. 2006) (timely appeal prerequisites; procedural bars apply)
City of Cayce v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 706 S.E.2d 6 (2011) (standard of review for appellate-from-municipal-court matters)