Scott's DUI case takes another turn
Solicitor from Spartanburg called in
The Post and Courier
State Sen. Randy Scott, R-Summerville
Audio clip
Senator Randy Scott makes several phone calls to his wife after being arrested for driving while intoxicated. WARNING: Contains strong language
Video
DUI stop
A Dorchester County sheriff's deputy pulls over State Sen. Randy Scott on Froman Drive on April 19.
SUMMERVILLE — The continuing drama of a state senator demanding a trial after spending a night in jail on a DUI charge enters a new chapter.
State Sen. Randy Scott, R-Summerville, who was arrested April 19 and released the next morning on a personal recognizance bond, will face the Spartanburg solicitor's office when he goes before a jury to fight the charges.
Calling in the solicitor's office for a driving under the influence charge is an unprecedented development for Dorchester County that shows the political stakes of the case, according to Scott's attorney, Reese Joye of North Charleston.
"I've probably handled thousands of cases, and I've never seen it before," Joye said.
Dorchester County Sheriff Ray Nash said he asked 1st Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe to handle the case because of the volatile nature of the charges on both sides.
"It goes back to ensuring everybody gets a fair trial," Nash said Wednesday.
Scott, a longtime critic of Nash, is claiming that the arrest was a politically motivated set-up to derail his re-election bid in the Republican primary June 10. Scott is facing Mike Rose for his District 38 Senate seat. The winner of the primary will take office because there is no Democratic opposition.
Pascoe said he recused himself to avoid the appearance of a possible conflict of interest, since he lives in Scott's district. He said he asked 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy of Spartanburg to handle the case because of Gowdy's reputation for handling DUI cases. Gov. Mark Sanford recently praised Gowdy for backing the governor's efforts to get DUI reforms passed, a law Sanford signed April 15.
Pascoe, a Democrat, said his decision to call in Gowdy, a Republican, had nothing to do with politics.
"Trey Gowdy doesn't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican," Pascoe said. "All he cares about is justice."
In Spartanburg County, the solicitor's office often assists in DUI trials, especially if an officer's credibility is called into question, Gowdy said. Every DUI trial is important, but this trial won't be treated any differently from any other, he said.
"I'm not going to put anything extra into it because it's a state senator," Gowdy said Wednesday. "It's going to be handled like every other DUI case is handled."
Joye scoffed at the notion that no politics was involved by calling in Gowdy. Gowdy is a likely future candidate for attorney general, and this trial will give him exposure, Joye said.
It also was unprecedented for a judge to turn over a recording from a jail telephone to the media before a trial, Joye said.
Nash gave a recording of a phone call Scott made to his wife from the jail to The Post and Courier after the newspaper requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. Jock Stender, a Mount Pleasant fraud examiner, also requested and received the tapes for his own information, he said Wednesday.
Circuit Judge James Williams granted Joye's motion Friday to order the newspaper and Stender not to publish the recordings until after he considered it. Over the weekend, the tapes were published on two Web sites, and Williams ruled on Tuesday that the newspaper could publish the tapes because they were already public.
"We're not just plowing new ground here," Joye said. "We're making new land."
Neither lawyer could predict when the trial might take place. DUI trials normally take a year to come to court, Joye said. He said he filed a motion for a trial before next month's primary but doubts that will happen now that the solicitor's office is involved.
Reach Dave Munday at 745-5862 or dmunday@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
carolinadude (anonymous) says...
Mr. Joye says it's unprecedented for a judge to turn over jail tapes before a trial". Mr. Joye, it's called FREEDOM OF INFORMATION" for which you obviously have reckless disregard. In addition, I appreciate solicitor Pascoe's decision to recuse himself from this case. I would have thought you, Mr. Joye, would have been requesting the "change of venue" in the interest of your client, and rather it's the solicitor who is "doing the right thing" for not only the credibility of this case but also protecting your client with change of venue, in my humble layman's opinion.
May 8, 2008 at 5:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
I think Thomas1776 should be charged with Felony Oxygen Wasting...
Thomas.. you have to be the Worst Poster on this Board... and just think, your mother said you would Never amount to anything!!!
May 8, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bfrank2 (anonymous) says...
I believe the article to be incorrect. It states that the primary winner will also take office because there is no Democratic candidate. Has the writer forgotten that one may petition to be a candidate or that there may be a write-in winner? This type of reporting gives the public the idea that they must be of one of the two major parties in order to be a participant in our government. I hope that the Post and Courier will address this so that the people know that they are not bound to certain assumptions.
May 8, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Slick50 (anonymous) says...
The "change of venue" will at least put to rest Scott's accusations of an unfair trial. After the primary, he'll get an idea of how his constituents really feel, one way or the other. I am concerned about their playing the "politically motivated" card and will be watching the results closely.
May 8, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PoliGadfly (anonymous) says...
They'd better not only call in another bonafide prosecutor, they need a real lawyer as a judge rather than a non-lawyer magistrate or municipal court judge. Otherwise, the guy from upstate is likely to be treated to a little homecooking. Wonder if that'd be because of "politics?"
May 8, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UrGatorbait (anonymous) says...
Politicians=carsalesman/conartists. I think the good ol' boy network will get 'em set free..Uh huh
May 8, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
astrofan (anonymous) says...
Hey ColdBeer, did you ever think about running for State Senator? I'll vote for you. You have got to be a step or two above the two we have to choose from right now!
May 8, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Just how oh how are they going to keep this in the Newspaper tomorrow??
This has more play than Teddy Kennedy's DUI!
May 8, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scienceguy (anonymous) says...
raregar67:
A reading of .08 on a BAC does not automatically convict a person. A jury can still acquit based upon other evidnece, such as videotapes. DNA test results are conclusive on the issue of identity and paternity. So, the two tests are not "kinda" alike.
Before someone starts screaming "O. J.," let me remind you that there was some evidence of evIdence tampering and mishandling of the DNA evidence in the criminal case.
I wonder if the good folks in Spartanburg County agree that this is the best use of their Solicitor's time. I guess they will bill Dorchester County.
May 8, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RedHorse7 (anonymous) says...
It's obvious from the in-car video that Scott was deliberately being contrary when asked to perform the FST's. In the BA room, he wanted "his lawyer". Your right is to a lawyer "before questioning". He wasn't being questioned. He was asked to give a breath sample, where he deliberately did not blow enough air into the machine. With all the hot air he was spouting, it should have been easy to satisfy the BA requirements. Now he'll whine that he did try to give a breath sample and will blame the machine for not working properly.
May 8, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnS (anonymous) says...
I have watched the tape several times. Mr. Scott seemed to ok on the video. I don't believe his was legally drunk. I do feel for Mr. Scott having to pay extra legal bills due to the case being handled this way. State Sen pay is less than 10K a year. He will be paying Joye at least that to defend himself.
May 8, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
The same old crowd just keeps switching the jobs around. A relative retires or loses and another relative or friend moves right on in. The only change in Dorchester County in the last 40 years is that, due to the population shift towards Summerville and a shift in national politics, the gob's from Summerville have wrestled power from the gob's of St. George. All or most of them were once democrats and are now republicans. Rose and Knight are no changes at all other than the names. It's all the same group of friends and relatives. I do not see an improvement in the quality of life in Summerville or that end of Dorchester County.
May 8, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
The Breathalyzer WILL NOT read .000 when there is not enough air flow for a determination!!! It gives an error reading.... It does that so a person can NOT try to trick it!!!
Come on guys think a little bit! Do you not think they thought of that when the machine was DESIGNED!!!!
May 8, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
OK something people are missing here.1)He admits to drinking 2 glasses of wine 2)The machine was timing out
Let's address issue 1.If you drink 2 glasses of wine are you legally drunk?Probably NOT.(is in fact thats all he drank) BUT- you will NOT have a BAC of ZERO!!!Because you have consumed alcohol.Issue 2-He was purposely pretending to blow and timing out the machine.And some machines WILL show .000 for inadequate flow.This guy acted like an pompous jerk.Standing up out of the chair cursing and threatening officers.Are ya kidding me?He's lucky his smart behind didnt get tased.Those officers handled him perfectly-with kid gloves.And yet he's complaining.The man couldnt follow simple instructions,say his ABC's or freakn count properly!?
May 8, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
It takes one hour for your body to "process" one drink... How long was it from the time he drank the wine and took the test... Well over two hours... It could and was .000...
I know facts do not sit too well with you, but it is what it is!
This machine does NOT show .000 for low flow!
May 8, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
The interesting thing to me is this: What in the world was he out "cruising" for at that time of the morning, and that neighborhood? Seems to me like he should have been home with his wife instead of "just riding around" (pretty sure that is what he said). He starts yelling about it being political, but then starts name dropping...saying his buddy LC Knight will have their jobs...a few weeks before this happened a friend and/or relative got thrown in jail and Mr. Scott went to the jail demanding they cut the guy loose, again trying to use his political connections...He is just needs to take it like a man and quit whining.....
May 8, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
Also, it was said that he is diabetic. If he had 2 glasses of wine he might not have been "legally drunk", but he was probably impaired. And if you listened to the call to his wife, her voice and remarks tell a whole other story to go along with this.
May 8, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Mrjblaleslee.. Read the Journal scene.. Mr Scott has had many of his signs damaged.. the ones mentioned in the paper were cut down with Chain Saws... funny the Bright RED one standing near by was undamaged... i know it is probably just a coincidence.
He got a tip one of his signs was being vandalized... and before you say he should call the Sherriff...stop.. laugh and think of the Irony!!!!
SET up????.... NASHHHHH.. um i mean NAHHHHHH
May 8, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
Hey, where's ChrisPia today? I haven't had my fix of 10 yr old articles.
May 8, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
eyeinthesky: Bottom line is this: I would not vote for him or his buddy if they were the last people on earth....and I am sure that neither one of them or you care if I do or not......
May 8, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Like a faithful partner, it is not only wise to not do anything wrong but also wise to not to appear to have done anything wrong.
May 8, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
jblakeslee ... True... and I do not even care if you are the NEXT person to leave the earth!!!
May 8, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jkjb3 (anonymous) says...
I am so amazed by everyone and their crystal balls. Nice to know that there are people who can see how it truly went down and can see how it will truly go from here. And, so why haven't any of you won the lottery if you have the ability to look into your crystal ball and see what the past held and the future holds?? I am just curious - why is Summerville so "bad off" due to the passing of political seats from generation to generation of families or from the same people running for/being elected for different political seats?? I still think Summerville's issues are no different than most towns across the U.S. And, I was born right there in the old S'ville hospital and my mother raised right there on Main Street... So, I know first hand of the transitions S'ville has gone through for a long time. I still love the place and the people! And, yes, even all the "Bubba's"... Don't let the country twang and chewing tobacco fool you - there are some smart, rich country boys out there - and I would put my money on one of them over a cocky, abrupt Northerner anyday! This story is just another story - it is political, but it happens every day to "common folk".. So, please, all of you know-it-alls, who wins the Presidential race in the end??? I am dying to know!!
May 8, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geekguy2008 (anonymous) says...
It's so much fun to hear Reese Joye cry and whine hehehehe
Dude sounded just like a drunk redneck on that phone cussing at that female and bossing her around like he's some big shot. She should have hung up on him.
May 8, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
I appoligze: I did not read the Journal Scene, but if that is what he said to them he said something different to the Post and courier or one of the papers got it wrong. In the Post and courier it was reported that Mr. Scott said he had been at the church, then went home, then went out to visit a supporter...and that is the place where he pulled in the driveway....the Post and courier did not mention anything about signs.....so eithr Mr. Scott changed his story, or one of the papers got it wrong...
Still would not vote for either one of them.....
May 8, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
Coldbeer has a good point. He did not mention anything about checking signs to his wife....just told her the same thing the Post and Courier reported, that he was "just driving around"......his story changes like the weather....
May 8, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
BINGO Coldbeer.His stories don't match up.Why wouldnt you tell your wife you were going to check on your signs?She had no idea what he was doing.She also said they had things to talk about and then reminded him that she was smart and knew they were being recorded!So eyeinthesky are you saying that the senator is just so freakn stupid he doesnt know his ABC'c and 123's?LOL I have PERSONALLY for fun made my BAC register .000 by NOT blowing into it properly.(Oh and I had consumed approx.15 drinks LOL) This isnt rumor,urban legend or thinking I freakn know it all-I HAVE DONE IT!Granted it wasnt using a Dorchester County machine-it was in another state-but it WAS a Police Issued field BAC roadside testing device.I'll be fair and say maybe Dorchester County's machines won't do that.But it IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE!
May 8, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
I see STUPID people... Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're Stupid...
jblakeslee .. you may just BUMP into Thomas1776!!!!
May 8, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
highclass (anonymous) says...
jkjb3- I totally agree with your post. I was born raised and still live in "Flowertown in the Pines." I love it and its people.
May 8, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stephansdad (anonymous) says...
1. Sheriff's deputy observes a vehicle driving in a manner consistent to impaired driving for that time of the morning.
2. He runs the license plate and finds that it is registered to a State Senator.
3. Sheriff's deputy calls for another crusier with dash cam, (could be construed as CYA).
4. Deputy smells alcohol asks standard question Scott admits to drinking 2 glasses of wine.
5. Scott brought into station and given breathalyzer. There is a reading given by the test and decided by the deputy's to arrest Scott for DUI.
Take away all the other issues, this is what we see. Forget the phone call home, political axes to grind, pigs flying, what ever is out there these are the 5 basic issues we can agree on.
Now it is up to a court of law and a jury of his peers, to look at all the evidence and render a verdict.
The Sheriff's office is to "protect and serve". Collect all evidence and present what they have recovered. The prosecutor is to look and see if there has been a crime committed and if so represent us, Joe/Jane citizen, and bring this case in front of the court.
Scott must now defend himself. If he is not guilty then let that be found by the court, if he is guilty, then treat him just like the rest of us and administer the appropriate punishment for the crime.
Any more or less would be inappropriate.
Why is this so hard for many to understand. What is the difference between Scott being picked up on DUI, John Q Public, or any celebrity in Hollywood. NOTHING! They will either be found guilty or innocent period.
May 8, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
stephansdad: Only the thing is: #2 is a lie. You dont have to RUN the tag to know it is a state senator. You just have to read it. It clearly states State Senator. He knew exactly who he was following. One lie....that is a fact...Could also be a lie about "smelling" the alcohol. Cant see that on a tape.
To those who hate this state/town: If everyone hates this town and state so much, move the heck out! we were doing just fine without you!
May 8, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
I agree there is no difference between Mr. Scott and John Q. ...if that were just it...but Mr. Scott is a State Senator and HE started the political side of this when HE tried to use his position and friends to get him out of it.....by making his LC Knight statements......
The second police car was called in because it has the newest most up to date video system in it....the systems in the other cars are not as up to date as that one.....so yes, I guess it was a CYA, they wanted to make sure they had the most up to date equipment at the location.
Eyeinthesky: It there a particular reason that when you do not agree with someone you have to call them names? No one else on here is getting angry and resorting to name calling.
May 8, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bfrank2 (anonymous) says...
Same name calling posts as usual. There is not enough information for a definitive decision to be made in this case from the sidelines. I don't mind discussing facts and probabilities but it seems as if everyone has made up their mind one way or another. May I be fortunate enough to naver have to face most of you on a jury if I am ever charged with a crime. It appears as if the majority of posters would convict me on my appearance and dialect rather than taking an honest look at the evidence presented. Rather than be presumed innocent, I would be presumed guilty because of my station in life.
May 8, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jkjb3 (anonymous) says...
AMEN bfrank2!! AMEN!!
AMEN really234!! AMEN!!!
May 8, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
I agree with bfrank2.....and on that note, I bid you all farewell.....
May 8, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stephansdad (anonymous) says...
really234
OK take away the running of the plate. Take away the smelling of alcohol, hell just use #1 and #5, which is used as the only means in many areas in this country. You still have probable cause, (appearance of impaired driving for that time of the morning, and the breathalyzer). This is enough in what, I would venture to say, for all areas of the country to hold a person for a "dry out" period.
Scott is innocent today, tomorrow and in the future until he has been proven otherwise in a court of law.
What ever the political issues are, the deputy's still must use judgment when administering an arrest. You may agree or disagree with that judgment, but that's the way it is
It's easy for me to say he was impaired, but that's not enough nor is it fair. The same goes with those who insist on his innocence. This immediately disallows the deputy's judgment.
Wait for the court date, the evidence, the jury decision. If the final outcome is not what you like, but was rendered by those means, then you need to rethink your entire position.
Politics is politics, but I still believe in our court system. It's not perfect, but it still is the best in the world.
May 8, 2008 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
The point of my posts were that if that were you or I,we wouldve been brought in too.(and rightfully so)Just because someones a senator they shouldnt be above the law.The officers handled it completely professionally and refused to get reeled into his arguing and ridiculous banter.He was treated VERY well.As I mentioned in my 1st post,had I got out of my chair and started cursing and threatening the cops I wouldve been told to stay seated and shutup.His demeanor was threatening.He's lucky he didnt get tased.Although it wouldve made for a more amusing video.LOL I agree that a trial is what will decide.Thats the American way and I'm all for it.But sometimes if it walks like a duck,looks like a duck...you get the point.
May 8, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
My mother always had a saying, and I still to this day find it applies to most situations - Where there's smoke there's fire. With most people that get pulled for DUI, if they ADMIT to 2 drinks, you can probably pretty much count on that actual number being double that. He got pulled in just like you and I. People that have had too much to drink are alot of time beligerent, a characteristic he showed in the video and his phone call. And the getting Reese Joye to rep. you, almost an admission of guilt in itself!
May 8, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
everytime I go to quit posting, somebody posts a moronic statement that needs to be addressed. Forget.. you are the Lucky Guy this time.
He had to get Reese Joye because people like you and Beans have already convicted some Smoking Duck...
Just when you guys were making some progress!
May 8, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
Not convicted him or anything like that. Full believer in the court system on the most part. But I have lived in Summerville for many years, and have seen personally what goes on up here with our public officials. Anyone remember when Annette Young had her "incident"? And the Reese Joye comment, someone I work with got a DUI, he says himself he was "drunk off my #$%", made the call to Reese Joye, gave him $8500.00, and he never even went to court. He went TO the court on his court date, but never went in front of the judge. And guess what? The DUI isn't even on his driving record. Hmmmm.....
May 8, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LWHITNER (anonymous) says...
"Scott is facing Mike Rose for his District 38 Senate seat. The winner of the primary will take office because there is no Democratic opposition."
DON'T COUNT ON THIS BEING ACCURATE! ANYONE EVER HEARD OF A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE!!
May 8, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Yeah.. and this lady I know who is running for President was shot at by snipers with Machine guns as she got off a plane in Bosnia!
Good story though FORGET... but I do not believe it!!!! Were you ever a student at a small mid-western university????
May 8, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Ever hear of a Write-In candidate WINNING????... Me either!
May 8, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
Coldbeer, that is entirely how I feel about this, if he wasn't drunk, he would have GLADLY have done what they wanted to show the whole county that he is a standup guy. (if it was a "set-up") But his actions and behavior showed something else entirely, all I saw and heard was someone that was arrogant and had a sense of entitlement, and was slightly abusive to not only the deputies but the way he talked to his wife.
I don't really go for the "set up" thing either. Just how would the powers that be KNOW that he was going to have 2 drinks and would be out trolling around that time at night?
May 8, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/a...
1- There is nothing in that report that states that they were looking for updated video equiptment.In Fact The Reports states 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 the R/O not being equipped with one***If You ran a Senator plate Don't you think the Lt. would know it belongs to a Senator***.........So Now The Spin Of an Updated Video system was Needed.
2-You seem to have left this out. (after observing it for several minutes and letting the car back out into the public)Deputy Smith was behind the vehicle and was advised by TELEPHONE to stop the Vehicle.***Deputy Freshman and underwood were dispatched to another call***that would make 4 cars & only one with a video system..
3- with all the money Nash obviously makes on the phone calls you would think that the officers would have the proper equiptment to do the job....But I know other issues other than the officers safety were more important for the jail fund and marshall funds and telephone fund to be used for.
4- Deputy Freshman was the initial probable cause to stop the car not Sgt Botten. He went to another job after Mr Scott was viewed in the Bi-lo parkinglot for several minutes.
5- The telephone recording states that a call MAY BE MONITORED,NOT RECORDED.
6- Ray Nash had an Option whether to release those tapes. It Was Not Mandatory as some suggest.
May 8, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
Never a student at a Mid-Western Univ., but the DUI story is 100% fact. This employee couldn't be on our business insurance with a DUI conviction. I get a copy of their 3 yr driving record every year. Did you check out the Young story? I don't know how many years ago that one was, had to be more than 10 though.
May 8, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
wondering where you were at today Chris.
May 8, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Once the component has processed your request and any fee issues have been resolved, the component will send you a written initial determination. In the vast majority of cases, Department of Justice components will include any documents that can be disclosed along with the determination letter, though in some cases the documents themselves may be sent within a reasonable time afterward. The FOIA provides access to all federal agency records (or portions of those records), except for those records that are withheld under any of nine exemptions or three exclusions (i.e., the reasons for which an agency may withhold records from a requester). The determination letter will advise you of whether any information is being withheld pursuant to one or more of the exemptions. When a page of a record is being withheld in its entirety, the component ordinarily specifies the number of pages being withheld or makes a reasonable effort to estimate the volume of the withheld information.
The exemptions authorize federal agencies to withhold information covering: (1) classified national defense and foreign relations information; (2) internal agency rules and practices; (3) information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law; (4) trade secrets and other confidential business information; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges; (6) information involving matters of personal privacy; (7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent that the production of those records (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; (8) information relating to the supervision of financial institutions; and (9) geological information on wells. The three exclusions, which are rarely used, pertain to especially sensitive law enforcement and national security matters.
+++These are the exemptions that Ray Nash could have used to not release the information++
I'm Done for the day. So Don't whine.
May 8, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bfrank2 (anonymous) says...
Chris Pia
Your statement of facts appear to be correct except for #5. I am quite certain that I heard the recording say that the call may be monitored and is recorded. That said, I am still not sure that he did anything wrong given the circumstances that he felt were true. He did demand a magistrate to come in but he also states that they must have a hearing for all not just him. Has no one ever lost their temper? If we were all recorded at inopportune times, what would we hear from ourselves? I certainly hope he isn't proud of his actions and words but I can't say that I find it devastating to anyone. I still find it interesting that the Sheriff released the tapes so quickly. I can't say that I have ever heard of that happening with that office before. Smoke=Fire? Hiring the best attorney to defend against a respective charge is not an admission of guilt. The innnocent need a better attorney than the guilty. It appears as if this thread has become more civil and that makes it enjoyable to participate in.
May 8, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
It's not so much as the BEST attorney that was hired, but what the attorney is known for. There is an excellent attorney or two that are right in Summerville, he probably knows a few of them personally. I wouldn't have given it a second thought except for what I had seen first hand with someone I know and their DUI.
May 8, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bfrank2 (anonymous) says...
Aren't you usually known for what you do best-or worst? I am sure that there are more than a couple of excellant attorneys in the Summerville area. My question is-If it were you or your family member, would you hire a good attorney or the best you could afford?
May 8, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
silverwings (anonymous) says...
This actually is quite entertaining and, thanks to the incredible amount of time on Mr. Pia's hands, educational. Of course, having spent several years amongst the New Yorkers myself, I don't trust much coming from that part of the continent. They tend to spin information, leave a few things out (as pointed out in the above) and vote for people like Hilary Clinton.
May 8, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
I didn't say one or the other was the best or worst in their area of law. I'm just saying that for the average person who's DUI doesn't end up in the news, for about $8500.00, the "misunderstanding" may just go away. It sounded like, and I'm just speculating, that the "best" attorney is the one that has plenty of "friends". I'm thinking if I was in his shoes, I would have done what they asked me to do. And if I hadn't been drinking, the BAC would have come back in my favor, and then I would have gone home. Then after I have been let go, and they would have had to let me go, then and only then would I have made noise.
May 8, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stephansdad (anonymous) says...
Let's recap....
a) Scott was picked-up on DUI charges.
b) He stayed in custody for the "dry out" period.
c) He must now dispute the evidence compiled against him.
d) His attorney will be given the opportunity to refute or throw out any evidence.
e) He has the right to have a "jury of his peers" hear the case and give a verdict.
Everything else is just blah, blah, blah.
May 8, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stephansdad (anonymous) says...
ColdBeer,
I'd be happy to amend my list and add b1
You're right and I have no "however's, by the ways, regardless'".
Scott's moment in fame that night has been released for all to see and hear and I will refrain from judgment on it. As we say, "it is what it is".
He, frankly, has a very simple DUI to contend with, it's the quote from his wife which resonates the loudest, "I was in bed like I was supposed to be".
My blah, blah, blah statement was simply putting into context all the extra wind wasted on the politics of the situation.
My personal view is that Scott is "Toast". "Pull him off the grill, that boy is done".
May 8, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
Coldbeer-lmao!So true,so true.He was an arrogant and obnoxious.He made an ass of himself.Period.And if you truly only had two drinks,hours prior,wouldnt you fully cooperate and properly blow to make the machine register.Maybe I'm just stubborn.If I truly thought I was being "set up" or railroaded I wouldve "killed em with kindness",fully cooperated and behaved in a respectful manner.I think he was so arrogant he thought he could bully his way out of it.
May 8, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dustym59 (anonymous) says...
I dont know if ya'll watch the Breathalyzer tape ,but the cop cant even read the damn law I sure as hell don't want want wonder boy runnin the machine, I would like to think there has got to be some readin involved.
AND HOW MANY TIMES DO YA HAVE TO SAY I WANT MY LAWYER,ya'll laugh ,ya laughin at yourself,a senator cant get one and now your in a bad spot and you say to the cop,I want my...OH,that was so funny when i read it in the paper...about him!
May 8, 2008 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Thomass1776 wrote... Yeah .. why was he really out at that hour just riding around? Does he have a mistress??? Anyone check his CELL PHONE RECORDS???
No he doesn't... but it will be interesting when we get Ray Nash's Cell Phone records from that night!!! And when the communications between the Responding officer and the Mysterious man on the phone that ordered the arrest are released.... you know Mr. Embezzlement himself!!!! I bet he fights release of that FOIA information!!!!
And Mr. Beer.. if he were running against any other Person than mike rose... I might tend to agree as well.... Mike Rose was run out of the Senate... enough people are still here that know that... He lost to BIll BRANTON... not many people can claim that!!!!
May 8, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
walleyedwoman1215 (anonymous) says...
Re: Ever hear of a Write-In candidate WINNING????... Me either!
Two words: Strom Thurmond.
May 8, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
OK... WEWoman... When did that happen??? 1954... and a DEAL was made for that to happen... What about the election of 1876 with Rutherford B Hayes... There will be no deals here...
Lets keep it to the last 50 years!
May 8, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
walleyedwoman1215 (anonymous) says...
eye, you know your history!! Point taken... have a good night!
May 8, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Actually .. I was not expecting to be called out on it... you are way smarter than most of these guys!!! Please tell me you are not a Rose-ite!!!!!
May 8, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
walleyedwoman1215 (anonymous) says...
Ummm, no. If I want to deal with an egomanical blowhard who skates around the law, I'll wake my husband up. :-) JUST KIDDING, HONEY! * go back to sleep *
May 8, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
WEW1215... now that is funny!... I can rest now! Thanks!
May 8, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkc6 (anonymous) says...
Really234 - you hit the nail right on the head. Don't like this town or state? LEAVE All they know how to do is say "good ole boy" which shows they have no education and can only spell 4-letter words or smaller. Have a good night.
May 8, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Hey ,Nobody mentioned the cops that stopped Randy Scotts car were cousins. Is that true?
May 8, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkc6 (anonymous) says...
In due time.
May 8, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Chris there is alot about the Sherriff's office... as you know... that will be coming out!!!
May 8, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
all hail... the Mayor proclaimed him guilty!!!! even though he blew .000... and we have covered the fact that it does not fail to .000 when there is a low flow error....
May 8, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Harpo.. the Machine does NOT FAIL to .000. Why can you not understand that???
He blew enough to make it register.. if not, it would get an ERROR CODE for Low Flow....
Repeat after me... The machine will NOT FAIL to .000 when there is not enough Air Flow. The Designers of the Machine are smart enough to know that people will try to FOOL the machine and safegards were programed in to account for that!!!
Good Job Harpo!
May 9, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
eyeinthesky you do not know what your talking about.Have you ever PERSONALLY used a Police Issued device?I stated earlier in a post I HAVE.YOU CAN MAKE IT BLOW .000 by NOT BLOWING PROPERLY!That is a fact!He wasn't blowing properly.And the machine will time out-just like the officer said!Safeguards?What a joke!If it read an "error code" when people didnt blow properly,people could use the defense that the "error code" shows the machine was screwed up.
May 9, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
But you were Drunk at the Time.. you have ZERO credibility! but so you know, I am sober and familiar with the device....
you are not thinking,... the error code is for LOW FLOW!!!! Which means the machine is not getting the reqired info to give a Reading!!! It does not read ERROR CODE... it give one... it will not give .000
if it did... how could you in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, say it was because of low flow or a real .000????
quit looking through ROSE colored glasses hoping for something that is not there!
May 9, 2008 at 1:39 p.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.