South Carolina DUI Lawyer Blog

Would you buy a used car from this machine? I have uploaded for your review, reports of Charleston area breath machine “status codes.” These codes used to be called “error codes” but the state police changed the description.

Remember, these machines replaced the previous breath test machines even though there were not broken, as we say.

However, as brand new machines installed last February, you decide if things are going well. Charleston County Jail Report

In an almost Orwellian sense, the explanation offered for these “status code” reflections is that the error codes, sorry, status codes, mean the machine is working correctly since “it” tells you when it is not. “It?”

Concerns I find relevant include, why did the status occur? What prior or post tests that did not reflect a status were effected? How do we know? Are the codes evidence of a problem warranting more attention? Have any of the machines been sent back to the manufacturer for replacement? Or are the state police making repairs here in South Carolina documenting their work in one line reports like, “voltages checked and/or adjusted?“

In a simplistic sense, an analogy to a new car is unavoidable. Let's say the “check engine” light comes on in your car twelve or more times during the first year of ownership. Each time you take it to the dealer, the dealer assures you that this is a good thing. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the car he says, since the car is telling you when there is something wrong with it. You say something about your expectation that a new car check engine light shouldn't come on at all, much less up to over 20 times. He takes you over to look at the new models.

The only difference is that evidence produced by the breath test machine is used in the prosecution of citizens in criminal proceedings.

Here is a look at a Mt. Pleasant machine's report. Mt. Pleasant Machine Report

Check out a few others.

The City of Charleston Machine Charleston City Police Machine

The Summerville City Machine
Summerville City Machine

The other Mt. Pleasant Machine
Mt. Pleasant Machine no. 2

The Isle of Palms Police Machine
Isle of Palms Machine

The other Charleston City Police Machine
Charleston City Machine no. 2

Charleston County Jail Machine no. 2
Charleston County Jail no. 2

This information is publicly available and was taken from the SLED website. You too can go there and conduct your own research.http://services.sled.sc.gov/ImpCon/LawyerBac.aspx Just pick a police department from the pull down list and select a date range. Then select ”status records“ or better yet, ”Inspection records.”

When arrested for DUI, a person is offered a breath test. This test is offered in a jail setting. South Carolina law provides that the administration of the test must be videotaped. This has been the law for several years.

When this law was first applied, videotaping was accomplished with tape- based, VHS format tapes.

A few years ago, without a great deal of pronouncement, a new system was adopted by the state police, SLED. Digital, web-based recording of the breath test administration replaced VHS tape-based systems.

Whether a person arrested for DUI provided a breath sample or refused to do so, a ticket or test form was printed by the breath machine. This form contained printed information such as identifying information, arrest information, and within the subject of this post, a box containing a unique user name and password for access to the video recording.

These details allowed a person to access, through the SLED Internet website, and with the response to the person's email address, a link to the actual digital video recording of the breath test process. This link will take you to the SLED Web site where the video recording could be downloaded, if the user name and password was possessed. SLED access to video recordings

Of late, it appears that this breath test ticket does not contain this information which has been provided for years. Of late, what this data box contains, is ”Contact officer for video code information.“

It appears that the policies and procedures of SLED, not regulations, address this issue. These policies and procedures can be reviewed by anyone, and I urge you to do so, at SLED Implied Consent Policies and Procedures.

The policy relevant to this issue provides: ”A prosecutor/officer may supply video access to a defense attorney/defendant, upon a valid legal request (i.e. discovery motion, court order).“

I would imagine that I have a least one hundred breath test tickets or forms in my office files for clients that contain access to the ”codes“ permitting immediate review of the video recording of the administration of the breath test. While the language of the SLED ”policy,“ not regulation, has been ”on the books“ for some time, if is difficult to imagine why a change in practice seems to be underway. Many lawyers are at a loss to explain this.

If the statute requires video recording, a person to whom the breath test is administered has no option but .... to be recorded. Why shouldn't that person have immediate access to his or her recording? Particularly when a custom of doing so has been established?