City of Rock Hill v. Wallace

THIS
OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

City of Rock
Hill, Respondent,

v.

Lori Elizabeth
Wallace, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-516

Heard October 6, 2010 – Filed December 1,
2010   

AFFIRMED

Leland B. Greeley, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.

Paula Knox Brown, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Lori Elizabeth Wallace appeals the circuit court's order affirming the
magistrate court's denial of her motion to dismiss her indictment for driving
under the influence, arguing the video recording of her conduct at the incident
site failed to comply with section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code (2006).[1]  Specifically, Wallace maintains the
arresting officer's failure to remove the audio-recording device from its
charger in his patrol vehicle did not constitute a valid reason for failing to
produce a videotape based upon the totality of the circumstances in accordance
with subsection (A).  Subsection (A), in relevant part, provides:

A
person who [commits a DUI] must have his conduct at the incident site and the
breath test site videotaped.

(1)The videotaping
at the incident site must:

(a)
begin not later than the activation of the officer's blue lights and conclude
after the arrest of the person for [DUI,] or a probable cause determination
that the person [committed a DUI]; and

(b)
include the person being advised of his [rights pursuant to Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),] before any field sobriety tests are
administered, if the tests are administered.

Because the videotape began with the activation of the officer's
blue lights, concluded after Wallace's arrest, and the parties agree it depicted
the arresting officer advising Wallace of her Miranda rights in
accordance with the statute, we find the circuit court properly affirmed the
magistrate court's ruling.  Accordingly, the circuit court's order is

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] Because Wallace was charged in 2007, prior to the
2009 amendment of this section, we apply the language of the pre-amended
statute.