Subcommittee continues broad debate on DUI reform: blood draws, Miranda, body-cam evidence and reclassification of felony DUI

The Senate Judiciary subcommittee resumed a wide-ranging discussion of DUI reform, examining S.52 — which would modernize chemical-testing rules, video evidence procedures and penalties — and related proposals such as S.192, which several public witnesses said should reclassify felony DUI as a nonviolent offense.

Sponsor Senator Davis framed S.52 as an effort to address South Carolina’s high DUI fatality rate and the low conviction rate prosecutors report. In remarks to the subcommittee, Senator Davis said the bill is built on implied-consent principles: if a motorist consents to a chemical test, the search is consensual; if the motorist refuses, officers may seek a warrant or apply other statutory penalties. "There are no United States federal constitutional constraints on the sorts of blood tests that are contemplated by S.52 because those blood tests are contemplated being in the course of a probable cause stop and with implied consent," Senator Davis said during his testimony.

The committee debated multiple technical and constitutional questions raised by the Supreme Court decisions Missouri v. McNeely and Birchfield v. North Dakota. Senators and witnesses discussed three circumstances when blood draws are permissible under federal law: warrant, exigent circumstances, or consent (including implied consent under state statute). Several speakers urged caution about warrantless roadside blood draws and who should perform them.

Stan Overby, a former prosecutor who has tried DUI and vehicular homicide cases, described the videotaping statute and related case law. He said video evidence is important in eliminating competing accounts and that South Carolina case law (including State v. Lowry, and prior cases such as City of Rock Hill v. Cichinski and Town of Mount Pleasant v. Roberts) has shaped how the videotaping statute is applied; suppression, not automatic dismissal, may be the remedy where procedures are not followed. Overby cautioned that law enforcement agencies sometimes fail to comply with videotaping protocols.

Peter Adamowski of SCDMV asked that statutory requirements for courts to send orders to DMV be satisfied electronically per DMV processes and requested a 12-month implementation period for system coding changes.

Senators questioned whether officers must give Miranda warnings before field sobriety tests and whether agencies have adopted Miranda-as-policy to avoid downstream suppression claims. Witnesses and committee members described a range of departmental practices; some agencies provide Miranda warnings at roadside by local policy to head off plea claims, though Miranda is constitutionally required only during custodial interrogation.

The hearing included multiple public witnesses advocating DUI reform and reclassification of felony DUI as nonviolent. Carol Bell, Kathleen Murray, Carrie (Murray), Brandy Yakis, Anita Guy and others described personal losses and urged sentencing changes, alternatives to long prison terms and expanded use of monitoring, interlock devices and mandatory treatment programs. Several family members said felony DUI convictions produce long prison terms and housing in high-security facilities alongside violent offenders.

Committee members asked the staff to invite the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to testify at a follow-up hearing; the chair confirmed DPS is expected next week. The subcommittee did not take a final vote on S.52 or S.192 at this hearing; senators indicated more work is needed and that further subcommittee sessions are planned.