Release of Scott tapes halted
Hearing planned; phone recordings made after arrest for DUI
A circuit judge has stopped The Post and Courier from publishing audiotapes of phone calls state Sen. Randy Scott made from his holding cell at the Dorchester County Detention Center last month.
And the judge has ordered the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office to stop disseminating the tape.
Sen. Randy Scott
Scott was arrested on April 19 and charged with driving under the influence. The first-term Republican from Summerville has argued that the arrest was politically motivated; he is up for re-election and faces opposition in the June primaries. The Sheriff's Office has said the arrest had nothing to do with politics.
In his order, 1st Circuit Judge James Williams Jr. said that attorneys for Scott contend that release of the tapes could hurt his chances of receiving a fair trial.
The tapes, obtained this week by the newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act, were released to The Post and Courier and an organization called Stender & Associates, which bills itself as "certified fraud examiners."
Williams said in a Friday order that if either organization circulated the information, made copies of the tapes or transcripts, they will be held in contempt of court.
A hearing on the tapes will be held Tuesday in the Greenwood County Courthouse. Post and Courier attorney John Kerr said he will make the newspaper's case for releasing the tapes at that time.
"The newspaper will, of course, abide by Judge Williams' ruling and be present in Greenwood to request that he withdraw the restraining order," Kerr said.
Robby Robbins, who is representing Scott in this case, said he did not want the tapes released before any hearing on the subject, and questioned the speed with which the Sheriff's Office released them.
"The release of that tape may have the ability to prejudice his right to a fair trial," Robbins said Friday. "We have issues with the taping of someone in a holding cell to begin with. ... All we want is the ability to argue that before a circuit judge."
According to Williams' order, Scott made several phone calls from his holding cell after his arrest, and they were recorded by Dorchester County Detention Center employees.
Williams made his decision, according to the order, after a conference call with Scott's attorneys and wife, as well as Kerr. The judge said in his order that he could not find representatives of Stender & Associates to include them in the call.
Efforts by The Post and Courier to reach Stender & Associates were also unsuccessful.
Reach Brian Hicks at 937-5561 or bhicks@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
The auditor also is checking other bookkeeping irregularities, including payments to S&R Promotions, which installed a computer system for the Sheriff's Office. The company is owned by Ralph Reahard
of Tampa, Fla. He's married to the sister of Franklin Smith, Nash's administrator.
There's no indication of any wrongdoing, but the accounting of how the money was spent leaves much to be desired, saidaccording to auditor Ron Wise of Rachlin, Cohen & Holtz
of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Wise will spend the next several weeks looking more closely at the records.
Another forensic auditor watching the investigation questioned why Nash would allow a relative to get the contract in the first place.
'That's a classic conflict-of-interest situation, because he's a related party,' said Jock Stender of Mount Pleasant, a fraud examiner and president of the Coastal Carolina Chapter of Internal Auditors.
Nash defended Smith's decision to bring in his brother-in-law. He said the department's computer system crashed, and none of the county's information specialists could fix it. Smith mentioned that his brother-in-law was a retired computer expert, and Nash said to go for it.
'His (Smith's) sister just happens to be married to a very competent computer consultant who has done a good job getting our system out of the mess it was in,' Nash said. 'On one extreme is to hand out political favors. The other is not to hire any relatives, and that would be wrong.'
Jan 4 2008 P&C Dave Munday.(shouldn't He have a Phone number for his source)
May 3, 2008 at 5:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
I find this interesting. When I tried to File a harassment charge against a specific Lieutenant at the Jail Because of a Phone Conversation that occurred telling the man in the tower after I called for assistance "to never contact her again in reference to me or He would be suspended....I received a letter from Nash that He referred this to David Pascoe and SLED.... I'll just bet that the Telephone conversation was taped and thats whyI haven't been contacted by anyone....
Did Mr Scott ask for an Attorney? What are the wiretapping laws in SC?
May 3, 2008 at 6:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Although most of these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping - listening in on conversations of others without their knowledge - they usually apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including phone calls and in-person interviews.
Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.
At least 24 states have laws outlawing certain uses of hidden cameras in private places, although many of the laws are specifically limited to attempts to record nudity. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. Journalists should be aware, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy.
More Lawsuits?
May 3, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
South Carolina
[Back to state index]
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 17-30-20, 17-30-30: It is a felony to intercept, disclose or use a wire, electronic or oral communication, unless it is done with the consent of at least one party to the communication.
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-15.
Anyone whose communication has been unlawfully intercepted can recover actual damages in the amount of $500 per day of violation or $25,000, whichever is greater, and also can recover punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-135.
Another South Carolina statute makes it a misdemeanor to eavesdrop or be a "Peeping Tom" on the premises of another. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-470. The term "Peeping Tom" includes using video or audio equipment to invade the privacy of others. However, the statute does not apply to bona fide news gathering activities. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-470(E)(5).
An intermediate appellate court held that the "Peeping Tom" statute was not applicable to newspaper reporters who attempted to overhear city council proceedings during a closed executive session because the reporters were on public property - not the premises of another - and did nothing "to enable them to overhear what was going on in the executive session other than to wait in the place provided as a waiting room for reporters and other members of the public." Neither the overhearing, nor the publication of anything overheard, violated the South Carolina statute. Herald Publishing Co. v. Barnwell, 351 S.E.2d 878 (S.C. App. 1986).
May 3, 2008 at 6:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mac0cm4 (anonymous) says...
Unfortunately, in jail, all of your calls are recorded or at least monitored. There was probably a notice somewhere that stated the calls are recorded. Your reasonable expectation of privacy is pretty much gone when you're in jail.
And FYI - no where in the Constitution does it guarantee your right to a phone call. Find the word 'telephone' in it for me.
May 3, 2008 at 6:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
I understand Jail conversations are legal. It is supposed to be used for imminant danger purposes or for court proceedings(basically if they admit to the crime or cause a danger to society).Attorney Client Priveleges are protected conversations under the law and so are personal conversations not pertaining to the actual crime committed or threat. Am I correct?
Now a Judge will Have To look at the conversations and Determine What pertains to the case can be released or not?
What doesn't pertain to the crime charge should not. In My opinion?
May 3, 2008 at 7 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Mac.. I forgot to add something.If there wasn't a sign or notice there will be shortly...Put it near the MRSA notice.
I worked there and didn't see a sign but was told that some phones are recorded.
May 3, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
The issue is not whether the tapes were legally obtained, that would be determined during the discovery process I believe, but whether they should be released to the public before trial. I'm not sure why Nash would allow that. I can't see any legitimate reason to do so and can see a number of reasons not to do so.
Maybe he's hoping the trial will be tossed on a technicality (that he conveniently provided) so he can say the defendant was guilty but escaped justice through a loophole, rather than have it found in public trial that the arrest wasn't legitimate or was political in nature.
May 3, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
And the judge has ordered the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office to stop disseminating the tape.
Sen. Randy Scott
Scott was arrested on April 19 and charged with driving under the influence. The first-term Republican from Summerville has argued that the arrest was politically motivated; he is up for re-election and faces opposition in the June primaries. The Sheriff's Office has said the arrest had nothing to do with politics.
Not Politics?LOL Why Release the telephone conversation then?Is Mr Scott have a right to a Fair and Impartial trial?Has anyone gotten a freedom of information Request for info From Ray Nash and DCSO in that period of Time?
May 3, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Still waiting on the full results of the audit findings to be released.
Who Ordered the stop By Telephone of Mr Scotts car?
May 3, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Slick50 (anonymous) says...
It is primary time folks...choose wisely. It is time to clean house in Dorchester County.
May 3, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
No taxpayer Monies Go into teaching of the Police Dynamics program-?
Police dynamic materials are not charged to Dorchester County-?
Ray Nash Is not a Member of Bill Gothards Organization-?
Ray Nash Handles taxpayer Monies with Responsibility and accountability?
Mgt of america 2003 -Dorchester County Sheriffs Office is a well managed agency?
Trust is Built on character and competency?
Solving crimes is only one piece of the puzzle. Just putting bad guys in jail is a Band-aid?
Crime is not really the problem. Crime is a symptom of the problem?
Crime is dropping in Dorchester County and it's just wrong and irresponsible for LC Knight to suggest Otherwise- 2004?
Drug Forfeitures are the only way we have of supplementing our finances when council refuses to provide the funding we need?
The audit was a witch Hunt?
I will cooperate with the audit?
There has been only one escape in My Tenure as Sheriff?
There are no case of MRSA at the jail?
I am not firing or intimidating people that do not support me?
I do not have any affiliation to Christian exodus?
The issue with Mr Scott is Not political?
May 3, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
Breath!!! Breath deep chrispia, it will all be over soon. Then we can all go back to Randy Scott driving drunk around the county and nobody doing anything about it....
May 3, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Creeker... LOL Breath ! Breath! I demand an Attorney 0-0-0
Ring Ring! Lock Him Up..That ChrisPia guy has hurt me with facts! But tell everyone this was not political(wink)
May 3, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FrankCastle (anonymous) says...
Case law has established that inmates, whether they're warned that their calls are recorded or not, have no expectation of privacy.
May 3, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Chrispia certainly isn't the brightest crayon in the box here. I'm a little uncertain why someone in law enforcement isn't aware of the basic laws regarding the FOI Act in SC and privacy rules while incarcerated. The communication in the jail is only private if it is under attorney client privilege. Yeah I know the next thing out of your mouth is he was denied an attorney - again not the case, he just didn't get the attorney when he demanded it which was within the scope of the law. The tapes were released LEGALLY after a FOIA request was made to the Sheriff's office. The Sheriff cannot refuse a FOIA request or he is in violation of state law.
Interesting to note that two weeks ago Reese Joye was clamoring for the release of the tapes to "vindicate" his client - why the change of heart? More threats from the Senator possibly this time to officers of the court? We may not know until after the election.
May 3, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Perspective (anonymous) says...
Please continue Chrispia.... you are overwhelming us with your massive insight and greater intelligence.... geeze.
To Everyone Else: Do you guys also skip the posts from those that rant and babble?
May 3, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Here is Joye's comment from the PC article on Monday, April, 21, 2008: "Both of those videotapes are required by law, and if they are not immediately forthcoming, then we can assume this incident was politically motivated to damage Scott a few weeks before an election," Joye said.
Now that we have them he doesn't want us looking at them - wonder why? It will eventually be obvious that there is a pattern of action seeking special treatment. I wonder how Rod Shealy will spin this one for Scott?
May 3, 2008 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Perspective (anonymous) says...
Clearly the jail tapes reflect his guilt or his attornies would be pushing for their release just like they did with the Roadside tape and Breathalyzer Tape. I hope the tapes find their way to YouTube or something.
ps: Chrispia - It is called jail. The only thing private in jail is direct communication between lawyer and client. Even those can end up monitored, but nothing said would ever make it into a courtroom.
May 3, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
local boy- get a clue, this isn't about the video tapes, those have been out for a while, these are the phone converstaions that he was having with his family and or attorneys. what he says to his wife, friends or attorneys while under a politically motivated arrest is nobodys business. He stayed in jail until 7 am...i don't see any special treatment. All anyone can clearly see is that his "position" didn't get him out of jail, it got him IN jail.....
May 3, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
I am Not condoning Mr Scotts actions..Only He can apologize for HIS actions to the officers and also His LC Knight Comments.He was wrong. He is still not Guilty of DUI and deserves a fair trial...I am Just saying that the only reason these tapes would come out is because it is political..
May 3, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinadude (anonymous) says...
I certainly hope that the press association lawyers are present for the hearing in Greenwood. Scott's reprehensible behavior toward the arresting officer, the deputies in jail and his "elitist attitude" in general should at least be public record and yes, should effect the outcome of the forthcoming election.
May 3, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(WILLIAM WALLACE!)
All info should be made public immediately!! So LAWYERS can't use some loophole to suppress it. THIS IS the 21st century? When you commit a crime ...all pertinent info such ATM Pictures....phone calls.....GPS from car.....I-26 traffic CAMS or any other public camera...Credit card receipts......WEBSITES visited...etc. etc. are ALL public domain info PERIOD!!! ANYTHING.. except what happens in your house!!!
Now..if we could just get these pesky banking records of all these elected officials and extended family and college roommates opened up!! We've got to move this STATE ...FORWARD!!!!
May 3, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Why hasn't the P&C Requested The Phone Records of The SGt Before the Stop?...Who made the call to order the stop?
Why not do a two sided investigation?
May 3, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
really - I have a clue - more than a clue in fact, the tapes in question were briefly posted. Only a portion of the tapes were publicized. This is about phone calls alright but not to family members.
This is really political too you can tell by the way the Post Courier who is seeking the release of the tapes is such a huge supporter of Mike Rose, Scott's opponent. I think they've donated all of his campaign funds and I think he may be their new front page editor beginning next week! What the clue here is that no one deserves special treatment and Scott didn't get it from the Sheriff's Department regardless of his ranting, raving, belligerence or phone calls threatening people. Justice proved to really be blind here!
If someone needs a clue its those folks who continue to support the Good Ol' Boy system of government here is SC (my native state) to the detriment of common South Carolinians. I hope those sitting on the dais this am with Mark Sanford heard his message loud and clear - it's one all true conservatives need to hear! This archaic 1880's form of government, established to keep whites in control in the Reconstructed South Carolina needs drastic change NOW! It's not about black and white it's about right and wrong!
May 3, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
LocalBoy? Did You just change your mind?
May 3, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
Looks like Scott wasn't the only one "ranting"....
Bottom Line:
What is good for the Goose.. Pia is correct, let's hear the officers calls just prior to the arrest. Let's hear when Mike Rose got the call and who made that call. Let's hear who Ray Nash was on the phone with at midnight....these calls will prove political "corrupt new boy" behavior as opposed to "good Ol Boy" behavior.
Scott's calls will not prove guilt or innocence. They are only to serve as a tool to try to embarrass him for comments he may have made while under extreme stress due to a situation that was created by the corrupt DCSD.
He wasn't asking for SPECIAL treatment, he was asking for FAIR treatment...
I dont think I have ever heard Senator Scott called an "elitist"....
" I want my lawyer, I want an state officer to administer an additional test, and I want a blood test" 0-0-0.....
May 3, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Pia - Did I change my mind? If you're referring to my call to reform state government NO! The current crop of State Senators and representatives aren't about reform - the are about keeping the status quo. You need to really look at the voting records of the current crop and not just buy their rhetoric.
I had one state representative call me to tell me she voted against a bill that would have increased the COLA for she and her colleagues to over 4 times what other state employees get. Of course she knew it was a voice vote and I couldn't check - what she failed to realize is that I do know folks who sit in the gallery and record those votes themselves. She voted for the bill she assured me she voted against. Its this Good Ol Boy (Girl) system that is keeping us from getting new school busses for our kids among other things! Scott has voted to overturn all but one of Gov. Sanford's vetoes. There is much more to this than what they tell you over a beer or two cups of wine as the case may be.
Really - You've got to be joking! The lame excuses for his behavior are just that lame! Extreme Stress - you bet! I'd be stressed too if I was running for public officer and got caught DUI. How about embarrassing him for comments made while intoxicated? Attempting to coerce law enforcement officers with threats on their job and doing the same to officers of the courts with the intent of receiving special treatment is "special" in any thinking persons book.
May 3, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
0-0-0.........0-0-0.......no blood test to PROVE innocence....
May 3, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
localboy.. So it is Political? There is much more to this than what they tell you over a beer or two cups of wine as the case may be.( I have never met Senator Scott nor spoke to him EVER)
Attempting to coerce law enforcement officers with threats on their job and doing the same to officers of the courts with the intent of receiving special treatment is "special" in any thinking persons book( I Have Met Ray Nash Though)
May 3, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
chrispia, you keep saying this is political. So with that comment, you accuse the deputys of doing wrong for the Sheriff.
The 0-0-0 just means he sandbaged the test. You being a former police officer should know that it does not take much to complete that test. 0-0-0 means he REFUSED to give a proper sample by defrauding the machine....
Once again driving is a privilage , not a right. Certian rules have to be followed to ensure the safety of all.
But like Randy Scott said , "we don't have to worry about this after L.C. Knight takes over"
May 3, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
creeker.. how long do you have to blow to make the test "good"? How many seconds to you have to have the solid beep sound to count as a "good" test...And, that still doesn't explain why not the independent test and why he wasnt allowed to do it again. I wouldn't know, I have never had to do it. Have you? I don't think the Senator has had to do it before either. He would have to have serious clear presence of mind to be able to fool a test like that....not a crazy drunk mind....
May 3, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
I have never had to do it, but what I have heard from law enforcement friends somebody on an iron lung can do it! I know that sounds crazy, but that is how easy it is to do.
I don't know why the deputy didn't give another test, but he must have had his reasons, and I doubt the were political!
May 3, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
Harpo... you are an idiot.. you call a senator a piece of crap and you are worse.. what do you do for a living. Ray Nash has a county paid cell phone and we should ask for his Cell phone records... Trust me someone will. I for one as a CITIZEN would love to know wo he was talking to that night.
Nash's day in the spotlight is coming.. anyone think Pastor acted alone... $360,000... he can try to redirect the attention.. but it will come... How many years of county service does Nash have???? I think 14... how many do you need for a County Pension???? 15... and which candidate has an arrangement with Nash to be hired as a deputy for one year... I think it is the Candidate for Sherriff that nobody is talking about..
Nash and Rose are in this together..I wish the Post and courier would request Sherriff's Cellphone records from that day!!!! Will they???? We will see if there is EQUAL Journalism!!!
May 3, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
creeker is correct about the privilege to drive. Here is the law in that aspect: SECTION 56-5-2950. Implied consent to testing for alcohol or drugs; procedures; inference of DUI.
(a) A person who drives a motor vehicle in this State is considered to have given consent to chemical tests of his breath, blood, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol or drugs or the combination of alcohol and drugs if arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs.
As to the timing and waiting on the video car the answer is here:
SECTION 56-5-2953. Incident site and breath site videotaping; admissibility as evidence; purchase and maintenance of videotaping equipment.
(A) A person who violates Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 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 a violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or a probable cause determination that the person violated Section 56-5-2945; and
(b) include the person being advised of his Miranda rights before any field sobriety tests are administered, if the tests are administered.
(2) The videotaping at the breath site:
(a) must be completed within three hours of the person's arrest for a violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 or a probable cause determination that the person violated Section 56-5-2945, unless compliance is not possible because the person needs emergency medical treatment considered necessary by licensed medical personnel;
(b) must include the reading of Miranda rights, the entire breath test procedure, the person being informed that he is being videotaped, and that he has the right to refuse the test;
(c) must include the person taking or refusing the breath test and the actions of the breath test operator while conducting the test;
(d) must also include the person's conduct during the required twenty-minute pre-test waiting period, unless the officer submits a sworn affidavit certifying that it was physically impossible to videotape this waiting period. However, if the arresting officer administers the breath test, the person's conduct during the twenty-minute pre-test waiting period must be videotaped.
It's political alright! Political in that politician passed the laws and lobbyists/lawyers influence those laws like happened recently. The SC law now requires the jury to determine if you are legally drunk even if you've blown above a .08!
The honest answer is that I believe Scott will get off - not because he wasn't drunk but because of politics! He won't be the first either.
May 3, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
Come on chrispia, are you saying that the deputy's are doing this because of politics. Answer up!!!
SO what if Nash was called, I would bet my house that he said "If you think he's drunk lock him up".
May 3, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sunshine (anonymous) says...
Can anyone tell me of another time that tapes of an inmates personal calls have been released in ANY other case? Has the P & C ever requested the phone call tapes in any other case? Does Stender have some tie, current or past, to Rose? Did someone at the Sheriff's office review these tapes and determine that there may be something embarrassing or personal and thus encourage the FOIA request? This whole situation seems somewhat surreal. It looks like a fish, it swims like a fish and it smells like a fish. It looks like politics on the Sheriff's part, it acts like politics on the Sheriff's part and it smells like politics on the Sheriff's part. Someone please convince me that this isn't what it seems to be!
May 3, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Creeker.. The Officers were ordered by telephone to stop the car. (political). I know they would have been fired if they didn't(My personal experience with Authority without Question).Either way management was responsible for this. Unfortunately,Good officers get caught up in mismanagement's Authority. Chain of command?
Do you think that the officers should have let him keep driving if they suspected him of weaving all over the road and being drunk and watching him for several minutes.
I would like to also find out why or if these video systems were not operating. When your Video system is down as an officer you have to let dispatch know. So why not FOIA those records also. Or how bout the purchase orders for getting them fixed? Are they still down? Who still has the contract? Is there money left to get them fixed?
The officers should have had the proper tools to perform the job.For the safety of them as well as the citizens...If we didn't spend 150k on character training and had mismanagement of 380k plus. Maybe Just Maybe Their equiptment would have been operating....But they still had to wait for the Order By Phone...
I had previously stated that The Officers that stopped Mr Scott were professional and did their job. Mr Scott was not professional to the officers or to LC Knight.Unfortunately in Law enforcement technical things will lose the case.It happens .
May 3, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
Duck, Fish whatever, it stinks like a Rose... Sunshine raises a GREAT point. What other case have they requested tapes from? Wonder why they even thought to request them?
Equal also has a good point...why not request Nash's records...After all, the taxpayers of DC are paying his cell phone bill.....justice for all...
May 3, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
equaltime -it's called The Freedom of Information Act - anyone can request public records that don't relate to personnel or contractual issues. Well, you can request those too, but you won't get them. Some agencies are quick to reply to the FOIA's other take longer. i the law requires "at a minimum cost or delay to the persons seeking access to public documents".
If this is such a big conspiracy I'm certain they've been requested. Otherwise he was simply drunk and got caught and then tried to intimidate his way out.
The facts may come out when the judge views the tapes on Tuesday with the PC lawyers and others if the gag order is released. The point is still very simple - if the tapes only contained innocent phone calls to a wife or attorney it wouldn't have made the news - there is certainly something to be seen or the PC wouldn't be interested. Boring things don't sell papers and typically aren't newsworthy.
May 3, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. A custodial situation is where the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained although he or she is not under arrest. An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. However, police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without first reading suspects their Miranda warnings.[citation needed]
The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination
May 3, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
MIRANDA RIGHTS
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Before a law enforcement officer may question you regarding the possible commission of a crime, he or she must read you your Miranda Rights. He or She must also make sure that you understand them.
WARNING OF RIGHTS
1. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?
2. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?
5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
6. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
As the Public Defender for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit it is my advice to you that, in the event you are ever put into the situation to have a law enforcement officer read you your rights, you immediately inform him or her that you do not wish to speak to them, or make a statement, without an attorney present. By law, at that request, they are not allowed to question you any further
May 3, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Chrispia - maybe it's politics- hmmmmmm?:
SECTION 56-5-2953. Incident site and breath site videotaping; admissibility as evidence; purchase and maintenance of videotaping equipment.
(D) SLED is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, and supplying all necessary videotaping equipment for use at the breath test sites. SLED also is responsible for monitoring all breath test sites to ensure the proper maintenance of videotaping equipment. The Department of Public Safety is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, and supplying all videotaping equipment for use in all law enforcement vehicles used for traffic enforcement. The Department of Public Safety also is responsible for monitoring all law enforcement vehicles used for traffic enforcement to ensure proper maintenance of videotaping equipment.
May 3, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Chrispia - Miranda this:
SECTION 56-5-2950. Implied consent to testing for alcohol or drugs; procedures; inference of DUI.
(a) A person who drives a motor vehicle in this State is considered to have given consent to chemical tests of his breath, blood, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol or drugs or the combination of alcohol and drugs if arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs.
May 3, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
You make the point against yourself Rocket Scientist Localboy... wow would the P&C know if anything was on their if they were not leaked from Christian of the Year.. Did they request telephone tapes from Ravenel.. or any other high profile Arrestee??? I have never heard of that...
Enlighten me if you know of another..
this is just to embarass a man who felt he was subject to an obviously political arrest form an Ungodly Christian Sherriff.. there is a special place in He$$ for guys like the good sheriff that use religion for Worldly personal gains!!!
May 3, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
to chrispia, where did you get the information, as you say "they were ordered to stop the car". Who ordered it? did you hear it? There are no tapes of cell phone calls. Sheriff Nash said in an interview that he did not order anything like that. Call him a liar if you want to.
Why don't you ask him to take a polygraph as to this situation, after all every dept around here makes you take one to be hired.
May 3, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
equaltime in a battle of wits you're obviously unarmed - the tapes were made public by a FOIA request but pursuant to the Judges order they have been now sealed. It didn't take long to yank them as they were briefly posted.
The tapes cannot embarrass anyone - that is a physical impossibility! However, the actions recorded on the tapes that we can't see may well embarrass someone but only the persons who acted in a manner to be embarrassed.
Is Nash gaining anything here? I thought he wasn't running again. If Scott knew it was a political issue he certainly shouldn't have done anything that could be used against him - thinking people would know that - especially if he had nothing to hide! The truth shall set you free!
I'd bet the Ravenel tapes were requested but if ol Tom didn't fight it and there was nothing there nothing was reported. But Kwadjo Campbell's tapes were released few years back because he was up to something and they were made public.
I think FOIA's were sent on Watergate tapes - that took too long though! I'll bet more than one was filed in regards to the tragedy at the Sofa Super Store. Point is, they're files all the time but seldom fought because many judges aren't willing to cover up for folks when they need light for cleansing. Maybe more light is needed.
May 3, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Dorchester County Sheriff's Office report
Monday, April 21, 2008
Narrative from the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office report written and approved by Sgt. Randy Botten, who charged Sen. Randy Scott on Saturday night with drinking under the influence:
On 04-19-2008 R/O was informed by Deputy (Chris) Freshman of a possible DUI suspect. Deputy Freshman stated that the vehicle was being driven in a very erratic manner, drifting from lane to lane. Deputy Freshman stated that he ran the tag was a state senator, and that the vehicle abruptly pulled into the Bi-Lo parking lot on Boone Hill road. R/O arrived at the Bi-Lo and met with Deputy Freshman and (Deputy Alexiss) Underwood. R/O observed the vehicle sitting in the parking lot. R/O watched the vehicle for several minutes. The vehicle stayed in the parking lot with no lights on and with an occupant in the drivers seat.
R/O advised Lt. (George) Hill that the vehicle was registered to a state senator and requested a unit with a camera system be en route, due to R/O vehicle not being equipped with one. Deputy Freshman and Underwood watched with R/O. R/O determined that the vehicle may not leave and was going to make contact with the vehicle and ensure the occupant was safe. R/O advised Deputy (Adam) Smith to come to the Bi-Lo and meet to make contact with the vehicle. Deputy Freshman and Underwood were dispatched to another call and left the area. When the deputies car left the suspect vehicle started driving across the parking lot of the Bi-Lo. The vehicle crossed the entire parking lot from in front of Bi-Lo to the ditch at Orangeburg Road, some three hundred yards, nearly driving into the ditch.
The vehicle stopped abruptly at the ditch. The suspect vehicles lights then came on and then left the parking lot onto Orangburg Road, towards Embassy Drive. Deputy Smith at the R/O's direction followed behind the suspect vehicle. The vehicle made an immediate right onto English when Deputy Smith pulled out. The vehicle continued on English, with the driver not able to maintain the correct lane of travel. The vehicle came to a partial stop at the stop sign and English and Bristow Dr., and turned the left onto Bristow Dr. The vehicle continued on Bristow, and again the driver was unable to maintain correct lane.
Deputy Smith was behind the vehicle and was advised by telephone to stop the vehicle. The vehicle then made a left turn onto Froman Drive, again struggling to maintain correct lane of travel. Deputy Smith and R/O initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle as it pulled into the driveway at 114 Froman Drive. R/O made contact with the driver
+++++This is only half the report++++ Deputy Smith was behind the Vehicle and was advised By TELEPHONE TO STOP THE CAR++ Who Made the call?
May 3, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Creeker... Oh Sheriff Nash said He didn't order anything Like that?
Credibility 0-0-0
May 3, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Chrispia - no response to Miranda or the politics of the SC Dept of Public Safety and SLED's maintenance of cameras? I know it was better when i was the DCSO's fault. Sorry to burst the bubble on both.
And based on the report does it matter who called and said stop the car? Try this one one for your conspiracy theories since you said you can be fired for doing the right thing so to speak. Maybe the officer was not going to stop the car because it had been reported as a Senators car - does that make it any better? I think not. If deference was given to position would be equally bad in your somewhat slanted view of the DCSO?
May 3, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
The mystery person "ON THE TELEPHONE" said to stop the car... not the Deputy at the scene.. "WHO"ordered to let a person "almost" run into a ditch" enter the Traffic putting many lives in Danger... you know.. the person on the telephone... Could Deputy Smith and the the R/O not make a call on their own... It will come out who was the "mystery man" on the phone.. it was not "CHARLIE".. and these guys are no "ANGELS".
May 3, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Localboy....The phone call to stop the car is not a conspiracy according to sgt bottens report? Yet? We have to wait to see if Ray tells the truth again. Then it becomes a Conspiracy.
If I pay for Ray Nash to take a lie detector test Can I ask the questions ?
You State "Based on the report It Does matter who made the call".(Why wait for the call and put that in a report)
How long from the time of first viewing the vehicle swerving by Deputy Freshman to the Time Deputy Smith and Sgt Botten stopped the car. For such a detailed report he left out the times. So that means that transmissions of the radio and phones of all officers will be used in Court as references. Correct?
May 3, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
I'm out of here, chrispia is in his own little world, you can't talk sense to an obviously bitter person with an axe to grind.
May 3, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
You work at the will of the sheriff in this State?
Sheriff gives you and order you follow it so you don't lose your job?
Some don't see this as a problem under a regime that preaches Authority without Question and Citizens are fools.
I do.
May 3, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realityck (anonymous) says...
ChrisPia, You really should, besides get a life, get your own blog instead of subjecting all of us to your stupid postings here! Of the 58 posts at the time I write this, almost 2 dozen are yours... my God ChriPia, enough of you!!!
May 3, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
bye... creeker... do not let the door hit you!
Chris, they do not like u because they can not dispute ANYTHING YOU say!!!!
now if you can get rid of localpuke and doofus1776, the world will be a better place!
May 3, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
But I have a question raregar67 and realityck. Or may I say Sir! May I Have permission to post in this thread or any other thread? Sir yes Sir.
Am I posting at the Order of Raregar67 or realityck?
And realityck How dare you use his name in vain when you get cranky.
Had to put a little Laughter into this. Sorry! 2doz and ONE
May 3, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Equal - Can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen!
raregar67 - I don't think anyone has stopped you from posting - are we stealing your thoughts? Think faster.
May 3, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beachboy2008 (anonymous) says...
Chris Pia & localboy, here are a few suggestions that might help... Go fishing, Call your dad, Go hunting, play tennis, get a girlfriend, go to the beach, watch a movie,Go to the mall, have a beer,call your mom, get a girlfriend. Do anything, just get off this damn post!
May 3, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ldd1 (anonymous) says...
WOW,so many postings.All I can say is,if Mr.Scott is the upright,wonderful senator and citizen that he tells you all he is,he should not be saying any of those bad boy thoughts and words for everyone to listen and read about.Plus,all of this to do about nothing much has given CrisPia,once again,the opportunity to rant and rave about everything in the world but the article in question.
CrisPia,if you are so smart and knowledegable about law enforencement,why aren't you the Sheriff?You should listen to some of the above postings,get off the computer,get a life and pray to God to remove this awful bitterness that you carry around with you.God does answer prayers.Maybe with some of this bitterness taken off,you may become a much better person and put your new found energies to better use.
For those of you that question Ray Nash's christian life and ways,it is not your right to judge him,only God has that right.One day it will be God that judges each and everyone you.
May 3, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
Chrispia and localboy get a freaking room will ya?! At least exchange e-mail addresses. My God one or two post are enough, you made your point early on.
May 3, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chucktownexpat (anonymous) says...
What's really scary is a state judge is getting away with telling a newspaper what it can't publish.
May 3, 2008 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
Harpo.. the more you talk the more stupid you appear!!!!
Remember it is beter to be silent and be thought a fool than to TYPE A POST and remove all DOUBT... you have a sober evening yourself!
May 3, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
Chucky.. you scare way to easily!!! We have a state Judge trying to keep preducial information underwraps until the trial is over....
Grow up and get a clue!!!!.. this is real life not make believe!!!!
May 3, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Creeker01 (anonymous) says...
I'm just waiting for Pia to claim Nash is responsible for Global "Warming" and those little green men that landed in Roswell, NM. From what I've gathered, he left New York and could only get a job in the jail in Dorchester, so its not like he has loads of experience with traffic stops. I almost wonder if "jailing" work is all he's ever done.
Claiming that someone lay in wait for the Senator to drive by as he was DUI is as stupid as claiming that Cops only stop black people at night because they are black.
I haven't seen him post a comment in any article yet that wasn't laden with conspiracy theory and unmitigated hostility toward Nash... which doesn't garner him much credibility... kinda like a weird Stalker.
May 4, 2008 at 5:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
No experience with car stops..Lol.Thats a good one.I will admit DUi's are not my specialty or even writing summones.I came down to Sc to retire.I decided to get back to the work that I loved(law enforcement). I decided because of Injuries sustained while working as a NYC Police Officer in The StreetCrimes unit I would take a less physical job in law enforcement.Hence ,I decided to Become a Detention Officer.....Then I put an L.c knight sticker on my Car Harassed by Not being sworn in(until I contacted the US Attorney and Others),and You Know the rest....
I did Plainclothes ,sometimes undercover Police work in an effort to Combat Violent Street crime in NYC most violent areas for a vast majority of my 11 year career.I have received the NYC Medal Of Valor From Rudolph Guiliani a Year after I retired. I was nominated for another.And Numerous other medals and awards....For doing my Job.
I have repeatedly Stated I have an axe to grind with Ray Nash. If You or He has a problem with the facts I can't Help that. I will not walk away like the rest of his pattern of abuse victims. I am no threat to Ray Nash unless the facts affect him. So please Refute the facts and as they say "Stay On The Topic".
May 4, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Idd1... It is about right and wrong.
May 4, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realityck (anonymous) says...
ChrisPia, it's not that anyone minds that you have am axe to grind with Nash, I think you're missing the point here. It's just that you are a broken record about it. Trust me, WE GET IT, when it comes to your rants about Nash, we know you can't stand him, have all of your "facts" about him, etc, etc. The problem here is that you go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.....to the point where you just dont know when to quit! Is there just not a way you can say what you have to say in one or two posts instead of 20 something? That's why many of us get sick and tired of your same old dribble. You are free to hate Nash all you want, just spare us all of your crap.
May 4, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chucktownexpat (anonymous) says...
To equaltime's reply: It's one thing for a judge to block release of some public document for a legitimate reason such as helping ensure a fair trial. In fact, that's what the judge should have done here. It's another to try to tell the press what it can't print. That's censorship, and it requires a clear and present danger, which the U.S. Supreme Court has very seldom if ever found -- it's "troop ship" stuff: Publishing secret movements of troop ships during wartime, that kind of thing. This simply should not happen in the United States. I'm almost certain it won't hold up -- why on earth is the hearing in Greenwood?! -- but that any judge in the state can get away with this or even think he can is absurd. The judge should have told the lawyers that they should have protested the release of the recording or its existence, but once released, he can't tell a newspaper what it can't publish. He can move the venue, screen jurors -- come on, how many of our peers really follow the news closely? -- or some other remedy without resorting to censorship.
May 4, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
ChrisPia - Nobody likes a tattle tale, except me!
It is difficult to be a whistle blower when you don't know how many people are in the tank with that person.
Apply at the CCSO Detention center, They could use another good man!
May 4, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
Chucky.. they are having a hearing in Greenwood because that is the way it works... the Judge blocked the Release with input from only one side... I know you all hate due process and hate someone to actually have some Rights. Both side will present their case at the hearing and then the Judge will make a binding decision, until the P&C appeals that one as well.
May 4, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
realtyck...I have gotten that messgae and you have the option of reading it,Not Reading it,Responding to it,Not responding to it etc...that is what is called freedom of choice...
Many threads are read by many people other than yourself. They might not have gained the facts like you have. I will be enlightening the newcomers to the thread with the facts I know in every post in the future. So to you it might be repetitive. To some it's not.
Does that help you understand ?
Just as I read and entertain your negative comments to me repetitively,I also respond repetitively. I ask you to please stop the name calling and try to refute the facts.The key here is I am asking and You and others are telling me what I can and can't do on this board.
Now if you want to say this is an opinion board only. than I can say you have a point .
Idd1...You have a great and Highly qualified candidate running for Dorchester Sheriff L.C. Knight. I wish I had his experience.
May 4, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
It is a Typo..Harpo.. it does not change the fact that you are the BIGGEST LOSER.
And just because you use Spell Check you are still stupid... it's your ideas and the way that you express them that shows your stupidity!
May 4, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
SECTION 16-9-230. Acceptance of rebates or extra compensation.
No person holding an office or position of trust or profit in this State or in the public institutions thereof shall accept rebates or extra compensation in addition to that provided by law. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be fined in a sum not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not less than three months nor more than five years.
This section shall not apply to officers accepting rebates not for their individual use but for the benefit and in behalf of the State.
SECTION 16-9-240. Taking of consideration or the like by sheriff or other officer for not performing duties.
If a sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or other officer authorized to serve legal process receives from the defendant or any other person any money or other valuable thing as a consideration, reward or inducement for omitting or delaying to arrest a defendant or to carry him before a magistrate, for delaying to take a person to prison, for postponing the sale of property under an execution or for omitting or delaying to perform any duty pertaining to his office he shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three hundred dollars.
SECTION 16-9-250. Unlawful acceptance of remuneration by peace officers for performing official duties.
It shall be a misdemeanor for any sheriff or other peace officer in South Carolina to make any charge for the arrest, detention, conveying or delivering of any person charged with the commission of crime in this State, except the mileage and necessary expenses as now provided by law. Any sheriff or other officer who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned not less than thirty days and not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned at the discretion of the court.
May 4, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/in...
This might give everyone an insight as to Why this Hearing On Tuesday.
May 4, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
My opinion is this. And I may be wrong.
1-The conversation Between Mr Scott and whomever are Legal as far as the Jail Taping them and Using them in a court of Law(except for His laywer conversationS)
2- Mr Scott is a Public Figure and loses some of His presumed rights because of this.But Not his Right to a Fair trial.
3- The tapes that were Released to the Media were Released Under FOIA to The Media:Although they were legally released they shouldn't have been. They are evidence in an upcoming case.If They were released during trial or after. I see no problem with that with permission of One of the people on those tapes
4-I say that because That is the law.The jail legally can listen in on Coversations of prisoners and use it in Court, But that does not exclude the Law for the media to publish private conversations that they are not a party to. The Media on its own would not have the right to publish these private conversations because of the one party rule and implied consent.
5- I don't Think that Mr Scott has Given the Media his consent, nor did any of his other phone callers(This is a guess)
6- I don't think that the press has any rights to those conversations or publish them until it is presented to a jury(and Becomes public record). Just like any average citizen does.
7- The media's First ammendment rights to the information do not piggy back to the personal conversations that are allowed by Jail officials for court Purposes?
May 4, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ldd1 (anonymous) says...
ChrisPia,Since you pretend to know all facts about everything,Who requested the audio tapes besides P&C?Didn't one of the lawyers request and receive them early on?Also,what has happened to Reese Joye that was suppose to be defending Scott?Talk about political plots.There seems to be a lot of that going on in another camp besides the sheriffs' office.
I realize that you think LC Knight is the only qualified person running for sheriff.Have you considered the facts that Terry Boatwright is way more qualified.He has a much stronger record in law enforcement than LC Knight.I personally think LC is riding the coat tails of his father,past sheriff.Just because you are the son,it doesn't mean you are really qualified for the position.
Another food for thought,do you really believe that LC will hire you for his staff?I would like to see just how long you could survive under his rule.A person ,in their right mind,should never hire someone like you who is so biased, bitter,and always running off your mouth.Besides,if you are hired,would it be a partime job since you already have a fulltime job of posting on the internet?
May 4, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
"We wanted to show that the Republican Party supports the military," Dorchester County Republican Party Chairman Arthur Bryngelson said.
They were invited by Jim Emery, a retired Air Force colonel and party leader. Folly Beach Public Safety Director Terry Boatwright, who is running for Dorchester sheriff, bought their tickets
GOP Touts Conservative opinion by Dave Monday Todays Article.
May 4, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
Is the P&C circumventing the court order by keeping the link on this site? I think maybe....
May 4, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
Michaelsadvocate.. SELF EDITED REMARK.. insert your own here!!!
Since it is an OLD TRICK, the manufacturer of the machine has programmed in that if the proper air flow is not given, the machine will give an ERROR... it WILL NOT register .000!!!! Make sense????
He blew enough to get a .000 but the Nash-ites do not care about the truth... they only care to keep the public off of the over $360,000 that is missing from the Sherriff's department that they are trying to blame totally on Mr. Pastor!!!!
May 4, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
I am told by some who know these machines that the datamaster will give a continuous beep if proper airflow is given. The "skipping" beeps show not enough. If you study the tape from the room, and use a stop watch, you will get a steady continuous beep of around 7 seconds or so....shouldn't that be long enough? I'm old too, that is a long time....I would have to think that 000 is an actual level.
May 4, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
Since you know the "old tricks"- care to explain why senator scott wasn't given the additional test requested with the state trooper(or other indepd. source) and the blood test he requested. Seems to me the blood test would have removed all doubt as it tests higher than the "weak winded blow jobs"....But, since the real test was an actual 0, the DCSD must have decided they would need to stay away from someone unbiased and for sure stay away from a blood test...
May 4, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Idd1.. Still can't refute the facts.....Can you tell me Why Mr Boatwright hasn't released his campaign disclosure records which is against the law?...Can You Tell Me Why Mr Boatwright Didn't mention that He was The Commander Of The Sons Of Confederate Veterans Hunley Camp# 143 On His website? Experience? As a mounted Cop or Paper pushing? Maybe You Mean The experience He got From entertaining the Romanian Police Chiefs with Ray Nash? Or The Vast amount of experience Patrolling Folly Beach or an Air Force Base? I am Not Biased. Bitter Yes. Running off my Mouth(technically No)Its a computer no voice is requiered.
I have researched the Candidates Thoroughly and L.C. Knights Record of Experience and integrity by far outweigh Mr Boatwrights record......P.s. It would be an Honor to work For L.C. Knight If I was asked.
May 5, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.