Scott DUI trial starts with bang
Judge rejects 'hired guns' argument
The Post and Courier
State Sen. Randy Scott (left) and Dorchester County Sheriff Ray Nash talk Wednesday during a recess in Scott's DUI trial in Summerville.
Scott trial
DAY ONE: Judge denies motion to disqualify the prosecutors from Spartanburg and seated a jury.
NEXT: This morning, the defense will try to get the case dismissed for alleged procedural violations by the arresting officers. If that strategy fails, the trial is expected to last through Friday.
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.
Video
Breath Test
State Sen. Randy Scott prepares for a breath test April 19 after being pulled over by a Dorchester County sheriff's deputy.
SUMMERVILLE — State Sen. Randy Scott's politically charged driving under the influence trial got off to a dramatic start Wednesday as his attorneys called the out-of-town prosecutors "hired guns" and asked the judge to disqualify them.
Columbia Magistrate Phillip Newsome denied the motion, saying it would have delayed the trial for months and probably would not have made a difference.
Scott asked for a jury trial after an April 19 arrest that he has said was set up to hurt his chances for re-election. Scott faces former state Sen. Mike Rose in the June 10 primary, the results of which will decide the election because there is no Democratic candidate. Scott asked for a trial before the election.
Dorchester County Sheriff Ray Nash asked 1st Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe to handle the case, even though arresting officers normally argue DUI cases. Pascoe said he recused himself to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest and asked 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy of Spartanburg to handle the case instead, because Gowdy specializes in prosecuting DUI cases. Deputy Solicitor Barry Barnette is leading the prosecution.
Jury selection and motions got under way Wednesday. Scott's lawyers questioned why Spartanburg lawyers are prosecuting the case.
"What you have are hired guns," attorney Desa Ballard of West Columbia told the judge. "They shopped around for the best attorney."
Ballard argued that only the governor or attorney general can authorize a solicitor from another district, and no written approval for that was produced until Wednesday morning. Newsome ruled that he saw no evidence that other paperwork was required and he would allow the prosecutors.
A jury was selected late Wednesday afternoon and is set to be sworn in this morning. The six jurors and two alternates include six women and two men. Six are white and two are black.
The questions the attorneys gave the judge to weed out the jury pool reflected the political overtones of the case. Potential jurors were asked if any had ever contributed to or campaigned for or put up signs for Nash, Scott or Rose.
Nash said before the trial that his deputies handled the arrest as they would any other. Reese Joye, Scott's lead attorney, challenged that statement during arguments on motions after the jury was dismissed for the day. Newsome said the fact that deputies made 16 phone calls before pulling Scott shows a coordinated effort unlike any other DUI case. Nash is trying to get back at Scott because Scott's work while he was on County Council led to the audit of the Sheriff's Office, Joye said, adding that Nash is not running for re-election as a result.
"It's 100 percent political," Joye said. "If this were a simple DUI case, we wouldn't even be here."
Today, Joye is expected to try to convince the judge to throw out the case on alleged procedural violations. If the case goes to the jury, it could continue through Friday.
"Gentlemen, this is not your typical DUI case," Newsome said. "I'm willing to stay here however long this case takes."
Scott sat in the front by his defense team during the proceedings, leaning over to talk to his wife, confer with his lawyers or look around at relatives and friends in the courtroom. Nash sat on the other side of the room at the prosecution table.
Reach Dave Munday at dmunday@postandcourier.com or 745-5862.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
BillytheKid (anonymous) says...
I think I know what happened here, I have heard that you should never introduce a pig to a swine, ya see what happened.
May 29, 2008 at 1:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
Joye said. "If this were a simple DUI case, we wouldn't even be here."
???WHAT?? A SIMPLE DUI CASE. SEE WHATS WRONG WITH THIS? THROW THE BOOK AT HIM AND I JUST WISH THERE WAS A 3RD PERSON RUNNING IN THAT ELECTION PRIMARY. ROSE DOESN'T DESERVE IT EITHER.
May 29, 2008 at 6:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
16 Phone calls by Deputies before the order to stop the car.Didn't Nash say He wasn't called?
May 29, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Yes Chrispia he did say that! And it was 19 calls!!!
May 29, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CaptPete (anonymous) says...
I believe the roadside test is going not be a factor due to the art leg. Another factor that concerns me is being told no on getting the lawyer after his rights were read. The public thinks most LEO are crooked and this favors Mr. Scott. Nash can save face by reducing the case to careless driving otherwise he is going to be spanked hard by Mr. Joye.
May 29, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Slick50 (anonymous) says...
Like many of you, I will be waiting for the verdict. Posters have commented on how difficult it is to get a DUI conviction in South Carolina, so this case is a coin toss.
Laws are written by lawyers in languages vague enough to leave loopholes...thus providing for their livelihood. I can't say if Mr. Scott is guilty or innocent of the charges, but his political career will probably take a serious hit, regardless of the outcome.
I believe the LEO showed some common sense by using the phone instead of broadcasting this particular situation over the radio. How it escalated afterward is not for me to speculate on.
May 29, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
devilsadvocate77 (anonymous) says...
Due to where I live, I have the ability to vote for Scott or Rose. I was willing to look at the issues and put the DUI aside to determine my vote. After reading and seeing the circus act performed by Scott's lawyer yesterday, I think I know exactly who I am voting for. There is nothing wrong with an attorney trying to get the best for their client but I think they are treating the court as if they are a bunch of idiots. Scott is just a grumpy old codger who thinks a political office gives him a free ride.
May 29, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Sure slick, that is why they used the phone 19 times, to protect Senator Scott.
May 29, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Wait for All The Facts to Come out.Does 19 phone calls make it Political or is Nash Going to Spin This?
Now remember Sgt Bottens report states that He received a Phone Call to stop the car after observing it for several minutes in the bi-lo parking lot and then letting The car proceed into the community to film it because the video recorders of the other cars were not working(or now the spin is they were too grainy)...Who Made The Political Phone Call to Stop this Car?
May 29, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
Outcome of this case is really irrelevant. The relevancy of this issue lies squarely on the recorded words of Sen Scott. The fact that he was abusive of the officers is not in question. The fact that he was demanding special treatment from crony magistrates is not in question. The fact that he threatened officers of the law with retribution when his friend LC Knight is elected is not in question. Forget all the other smokescreens thrown up by the Nash/Rose haters, these are the indisputable facts. All those other accusations pale in comparison the the recorded words of Sen Scott. He revealed a whole lot about himself that night.
If I were him I would admit I was DUI so as to have some semblance of an excuse for his reprehensible behavior. If he was not DUI then his actions are even more reprehensible as they show that this is how he acts when sober!
Send a clear message to this guy and all other politicians of his ilk on June 10th. Throw the bum out of office!
May 29, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
mosinfan.. He was Sober and Set-Up which would make someone very angry. He said some things that were not right .It shows what a Character based man Ray Nash is and always was.
TheBottomLine is this was a set-up,He was not Drunk and The Facts will come out....Three weeks ago you were saying He was drunk now the facts are Irrelevant.Why?
May 29, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
diggerman (anonymous) says...
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
That's what's simple here.
diggerman
May 29, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fodder (anonymous) says...
You have to love how most people think Scott is a "grumpy old codger" and a "bum"...I can only imagine how they would feel if they were (in their mind) wrongly arrested, denied their rights as an American citizen and imprisoned for DUI after blowing a 0.0.
You mean to tell us you wouldn't be irate? You would calmly sit back and say "yes sir - I'll sign whatever you want officer".
Please. Scott had every right to be upset and angry, even IF he was intoxicated. You can't tell someone they have the right to an attorney and then revoke that right. Shame on Nash - where's the character training when you need it?
May 29, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
ChrisPia, I still say he was drunk...I think any rationale person (without an agenda) would come to the conclusion after seeing the video that this guy was drunk as a skunk. My point is that even if the trial aquits him it doesnt change the facts of his behavior. Your accusations about a set up are driven by your own agenda. You have no proof whatsoever that this guy was set up.
May 29, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
A person can be convicted of DUI with a BAC of below .08....that is not "evidence of drunk driving by inself, and alone"......if they fail all of the field soberity tests, and video and audio recordings show them drunk can be convicted regardless of what the BAC is.
I agree with MOISINFAN, the DUI is really not the real issue anymore, It is how he acted after being arrested...Not the way a state senator is supposed to act.
Diggerman states "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".....that is so very true, but it seems all the Scott supportors say that unless it is about Nash, regarding the money that SOMEONE ELSE admitted taking. Mr. Nash is considered guilty of that even though he has not even been charged.
Scott will probably get out of the DUI, but the way he acted will still be there.
May 29, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
You are seeing the nash character that has been there all along... the illegal arrests, the theft of almost half a million dollars of public money.. the only thing "Character" about him is what he can sell to others to make even more money.
The truth is coming out and he is SCARED....
May 29, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
raregar: I concur. you are right on targe with your assessment.
May 29, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
Listen guys, I like all the parties envolved, but when it boils down to it, the mans Miranda rights were violated.
In the second video you clearly see/hear him ask for a lawyer, the policeman states that he can call a lawyer when he is finished with the test.
This is wrong, Once you ask for a lawyer all questioning/testing must stop.
In Miranda, the policeman states that Scott has a right to have his attorney present during questioning, then tells him he can't even call him because he has already started the test.
Can you say BULLS%&T?
Andy Savage can even figure that one out.(Surprised Channel 5 isn't doing legal commentary with him on this)
People, we may not agree 100% all of the time, but the minute we as a people give up one single right granted by the U.S. Constitution we become no better than any other 3rd world country falling away from democracy.
http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda...
May 29, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equaltime (anonymous) says...
The officer conducting the breath test appears to be incompetent at his job. He should be fired, reassigned or retrained.
May 29, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
P.S., Thats "Post Script" Sports fans.
I would be angry to if some idiot cop was trampling all over my constitutional rights.
May 29, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Ol blivetinthesky and Pia are back at it again. They want to convict Nash but give Randy Scoth the benefit of the doubt. If you think they even look a little smart you should go back and read all their posts on this issue. Poor Pia is still obsessing over losing his job. Was it insubordination, Chris?
And ol blivet in the sky may just be one of Randy's relatives or she could have been the woman in the car with Scott the night he was arrested while his wife was home in bed??
As for a conviction with less than .08 yes it can and does happen though not frequently. The jury trial should work in Scotch's favor.
as to the right to an attorney - he got one - your issue is timing and that is a non issue. You cannot be questioned without an attorney present except for the basics of name address, etc. You can be required to perform all the standard DI testing before you see an attorney because state law mandates a time frame in which they must be performed - that's been tried and upheld as well. As your local HP, PD or Sheriff Deputy, they're all pretty well trained and honest.
An about now ol blivetin the sky is sticking out his tongue saying nanny nanny boo boo and comin ack with an insult to those that disagree with him.
May 29, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkeelin (anonymous) says...
Can someone tell me if Sherriff Nash has been charged with anything?
Chris you and others who post here talk about him being scared and how guilty he is and he's going to jail and all of that, but I don't remember him being charged with anything.
Did I miss the paper where he was charged with a crime?
May 29, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Check this out from an interesting site: http://www.sc-drunkdrivinglawyer.com/...
You can read some other interesting facts at his site too. Of course they're only good if you're his client.
The Videotape Law
South Carolina is the only state in the nation with mandatory videotaping by the arresting officer of the arrest and breath test.
A videotape is the most accurate, honest, representation of what it sees and hears; "videos do not lie."
The law requires that the tape begin no later than the activation of the officer's blue lights and conclude after the arrest of the person for DUI and must include the person being advised of his/her Miranda Warnings, if required by state or Federal law, before any field sobriety tests are given. The failure to read the rights on tape can result in suppression of the videotape.
The videotaping at the breath site must be completed within three (3) hours or the breath test will be subjected to suppression. The breath site video must also include the reading of Miranda and the entire breath test procedure; i.e., the reading of the implied consent warning, checking the mouth, waiting 20 minutes, informing the defendant of the videotape recording, and letting the defendant know he or she can refuse the test.
If there is no way to videotape the proceedings, the officer must fill out a sworn affidavit certifying that it was physically impossible to videotape this waiting period. The arresting officer may administer the breath test if he is certified and the 20 minute observation period is videotaped.
If videotaping by law enforcement is not conducted pursuant to statute when it could have been (i.e., if law enforcement does not do it and could have done it), then the case can be dismissed. However, if the proper affidavits are filed explaining with sufficient reason, then failure to videotape is excused.
If the Constitution is the issue, you certainly didn't support the Patriot Act, right?
May 29, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
Missing_Home, Miranda does not apply once the officer startst he test he is not required (per the SLED guidelines)to stop the test just because the suspect asks for a lawyer. This has been upheld by the courts. You could clearly see the impact of what would happen if a suspect wanted to keep interupting a sensitive test.
Also, all of this talk about the BAC being .000. Go back and read the statements of the officers. The Senator was playing the system, he would not cooperate and blow into the system like he needed to. The test was never completed thats why the system recorded .000. Watch the video, couple that with his behavior and decide if this is a sober individual. If the jury takes ALL of the evidence into consideration (not just what his slick lawyers want to use) its a no brainer.
May 29, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedlocal (anonymous) says...
Ditto localboy. ROTFL. I was telling my brother the nanny nanny boo boo mentality just yesterday.
May 29, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DChinnis (anonymous) says...
Concerned
I know your brother - I don't think this is him - he's pretty smart - I think he'll look at the actions of the accused and judge him on that.
May 29, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
To Local boy: no, i didn't and still do not support all of the Patriot act.
To mosinfan: I do not disagree with everything you are saying, maybe it is the SLED regulations that are wrong.
What courts have upheld this? Supreme?
Agencies can make any regulation they want, doesn't mean it is right or legal. It is up to us to at least question, after all it is our government.
May 29, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedlocal (anonymous) says...
you misunderstood...eyeinthesky has the nanny nanny boo boo mentality. My brother, localboy and I have like opinions.
May 29, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coccougs (anonymous) says...
mosinfan -
You are legally correct and missing_home, with all his bravado, is legally incorrect. In the 26 states that have ruled on the issue, Appellate Courts have almost unanimously held that one's 6th amendment right to counsel does not attach until after the breathalyzer test is complete (for the obvious reasons you point out - one could just request a lawyer and that lawyer could take 12 hours or days getting to the jail and the suspect would sober up). Once a suspect requests a lawyer, all questioning must cease, but the test can continue. This is pretty settled Constitutional law, despite "missing_home"'s baseless legal challenges.
May 29, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
To Coccougs, I guess I stand corrected. I still don't agree with the doublestandard though. We have a right to a lawyer, "Accept during the testing phase of a DUI".
I would like to see a supreme court ruling on this, maybe someday it will go before them.
May 29, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coccougs (anonymous) says...
missing_home -
It is a fairly well settled Constitutional issue that has been ruled upon by about 26 State Supreme Courts (not SC yet) and a couple of Federal Courts of Appeals. In other words, its not just a SLED regulation (you are right - a SLED policy does not carry any legal wieght, though they are usually drafted by lawyers whose goal is to make sure everything in the policy is by the book). I should also note that the Penn. Supreme Court ruled with you on this issue, but as far as I can tell all the other States and the Feds have gone the other way. (I could attach case citations if you'd like, but I think I'd just be wasting a bunch of space).
May 29, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Maybe we're all the same person? I think I'd like to be coccougs too - they look pretty smart! I like the devilsadvocate77 name too so I want to be then as well.
May 29, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coccougs (anonymous) says...
missing_home -
Good point - a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would be helpful on this issue.
May 29, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
I know of several cases where people have blown a zero on the BAC, but officers could tell that something was wrong with the person.
Why did they not do a blood test? This would have determined without any doubt as to whether Sen. Scott was intoxicated. If he wanted to prove his innocence then and there, he should have requested one.
This whole situation is very squirrely.
May 29, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ldd1 (anonymous) says...
A drunk is bad but a Nasty foul mouth drunk,with a little politicle clout is really bad.I know that Scott has not been found guilty of a DUI but his disrespect of his wife,LEO,and threats that were made to them have.The citizens of Dorchester County deserve better.
May 29, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bosoxfan107 (anonymous) says...
RTC... he did ask for a blood test and they told him no!
May 29, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
granny2 (anonymous) says...
I don't know any of these people in this case and don't care who wins the election because none of them are going to do anything for me. After listing to the tapes, I think the officer that gave the test is the one that needs to be tested to see if he was drunk. I could understand Scott better than I could him. Does anyone know if he even had the machine turned on, maybe this was why it kept reading 0.
May 29, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
Coccougs, nah don't post i will take a loo later.
What is .08 anyway? For a 120 pound female would that be 1 or 2 beers in an hour on an empty stomach?
Just asking, I really don't know about it.
I have always heard that what you eat and how quick you drink as well as your mental state at the time a person drinks can all help determine the effects of alchohol on a person.
Does it effect blood alchohol level?
I seen some people that can seriously put away some booze, but to talk to them or watch them walk you would never know they had been drinking. On the otherside I have seen people totally wasted off of 3 beers.
Weird????
May 29, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
From following this story from the outset, It appears that the posters here are pretty much divided....I would not be surprised if the jury is also.......
A hung jury would not be a surprise.......but, please no, this needs to end and go away.
May 29, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
Idd1, very well said.
May 29, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/ge...
May 29, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Implied Consent
South Carolina operates under the Implied Consent Law, which states that when you apply for a license, you consent to being administered a chemical test if you are stopped by a police officer who suspects you of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
A blood test may be required without the issuance of a search warrant. If you are driving, the legal limit for blood-alcohol content (BAC) is .08% in South Carolina (.02% for drivers under the age of 21); ); however, your ability to drive might be impaired even with a lower BAC.
May 29, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
How many beers is .08%?
May 29, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
I have posted this before.He admitted to drinking.Does this mean he was wasted?No of course not.But if you consume alcohol your BAC is not .000 He was trying to beat the machine by not blowing right.As far as the blood test goes- since when are cops phlebotomists?Drunk or not,this guy is a total douchebag.To the cops,his wife and the public in which he's supposed to serve.
May 29, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
Why was he denied a blood test? If the county didn't want to pay for it, Sen Scott could have.
I was also curious if anyone knows if Scott has any lung problems such as COPD. People with this condition have trouble getting air out of their lungs. This would have greatly influenced his breathalyzer test, if he suffers from COPD.
May 29, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
"How many beers is .08%?.......depends on the persons size and body weight......some people think that if the just drink beer they will be ok....a 1oz shot of whiskey, a 12oz beer, and 8oz glass of wine all contain the same amount of alcohol....the "delivery method" and amount of liquid is the only difference.
.08% is the "magic number", but as soon as any alcohol enters the system it has an effect......that is why they put warnings on cough medicine and other drugs that contain alcohol......
May 29, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
coolfreaknbeans, the cops don't draw the blood. They take the suspect to the nearest hospital, where a certified phlebotomist or other trained medical personnel obtain the sample. They also have to be careful to use iodine and not alcohol swabs, as that can throw off test results.
May 29, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
"Why was he denied a blood test".....state law...SC REQUIRES the use of a breath test and not a blood test.....
May 29, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Actually, since you all have been waiting for me, here is the skinny!
You can request an Attorney at any time!!! Period...
Even after the test starts, BUT, the Officer should inform the person that if he stops the test, he will be in violation of the Implied Consentt Law and will AUTOMATICALLY lose his SCDL for a period of 6 months whether he is found GUILTY or not. That is the repercussion of the implied consent law.
Sorry NO LAW on our STATE books Trumps the US Constitution. He should have been given Access to his Attorney!
No name calling no BS... You asked for Facts and THAT IS A FACT!!!!
May 29, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedlocal (anonymous) says...
He should have been home with his wife...then none of this would be an issue.
May 29, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
I believe things happen for a reason, and the reason for this is to show some of the shady practices of the Sherriff's Department! 19 phone calls!!!!!
May 29, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
Eyeinthesky, that sounds more like it.
So should the officer have stopped the test?
or do SLED guidlines say otherwise?
May 29, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
eyeinthesky, your "skinny" is a little weak on fact. Nowhere in the United States Constitution will you find anything about the right to a laywer. That right is given by the laws passed by legislatures and court rulings.
Just to set the record straight...that right is not a Constitutional Right.
May 29, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
.08%
So noone really knows.
take an average 150 lb. person on an empty stomach.
How many beers in 1 hour = a ba of .08%
May 29, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedlocal (anonymous) says...
http://www.sc-drunkdrivinglawyer.com/...
Has a link to calculate your blood alcohol
May 29, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Mosinfan.. Read the 6th Ammendment... Miranda was based on that Ammendment.. HAve a quick read and come back!
As stated in Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, the rights granted by 6th and 14th Amendments "mean at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment." 430 U.S. at 398. Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversary proceeding have begun against a defendant, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him. 430 U.S. at 401, citing Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201.
The Breathalyzer is an Interrogation as it lends to Self-Incrimination (5th Ammendment.... Implied Consent does not TRUMP IT!))....
Mosin... you are WRONG!!!
May 29, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
Missing_Home, go back and reread Localboys treatises above on the law. Once the test starts it must continue, no stopping for lawyering up. You can ask for the lawyer but the test continues. No telling how long it takes for the laywer to show up. The test must go on...
May 29, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
eyeinsthesky, as you say...Miranda is BASED on the 6th Amendment. I simply pointed out to you that your claim that the right is a Constitutional Right is simply innacurate. It is a right but not a Constitutional right. You can say it till the cows come home...it will not change the fact that the word lawyer is not found in the 6th Amendment.
May 29, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
Thanks concerned local, got to go to lunch, but will be back later
May 29, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
mosin.. localboy is wrong.. you NEVER have to SELF-INCRIMINATE!!! 5th AMMENDMENT!!
The Penalty for Exercising that Constitutional Right is the Penalty for Implied Consent... Not much need for that when the Constitution was written!!!!
Stopping the Test Results in the AUTOMATIC Suspension of Driving Privledges for 6 Months!
May 29, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charles_Town (anonymous) says...
I do believe his right to call a lawyer was violated, and I do know it would make me mad as all get out, if that right was denied to me. But as others have posted his manners alone during the phone calls would be enough to keep me from voting him back into office.
May 29, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
SIXTH AMENDMENT - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." U.S. Const. amend. VI.
COUNSEL=LAWYER!
May 29, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
RTC- FDA requires that the area be swabbed.Alcohol swabbing does not effect a blood test.Thats more of a myth.
May 29, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coccougs (anonymous) says...
eyeinthesky -
While you certainly have a right to your own opinion on what the law SHOULD be and I respect that, you are just plain wrong on what the law is. See posts above. With the exception of Penn., courts have unanimously held that one does not have a right to have a lawyer present during a breathalyzer test. Ironically, you cite in your own post the legal reasoning behind this. The 6th amendment right to counsel only attaches "at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him." Courts have held that this does include interogation, but have not extended this protection to a breath test (ruling that a breath test is not interogation because the implied consent law gives the suspect the absolute right to refuse the test).
While you may disagree and think that this right should attach earlier, the law as it stands in most jurisdictions (the issue is still open in S.C.!) is fairly settled.
A better issue - if Mr. Scott did, in fact, request a blood test (I don't if he did or not), then law enforcement is required under the statute to provide "affirmative assistance" in obtaining that test. This usually means taking the suspect to the nearest hospital. If they do not do this, then the results from the breathalyzer are inadmissible at trial. I imagine the defense will obviously not pursue this issue because, in this case, they really want the results of the breathalyzer to be admitted!
May 29, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
coolfreak: He said he had two small cups of wine at a church auction he was attending. that was hours and hours before. Heck, they followed him around for over an hour, then had to do the road test, then get him to the jail then do the test....how long will two glasses of wine, on a man his size, after drinking tea and eating stay with you?? had to be 4 hours after he had the wine when he was tested....
Missing_Home: I agree, judging from the fierce nature of some of the comments, these holier than thous would have been more than raging on these cops had they been in the same situation. He used harsh words- so what. He vented TO his wife- He is human.
Perhaps Rose has some well known facts hidden away that he doesn't want revisited that may very well be worse than venting to your wife while unjustly incarcerated...Just a guess....Glass houses and all....
As for Nash...I am sure his day in court is coming. I will await judgement on that one....
May 29, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coccougs (anonymous) says...
I didn't want to do this - but for eyeinthesky's illumination:
See Copelin v. State, 659 P.2d 1206 (Alaska 1983); Campbell v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 106 Ariz. 542, 479 P.2d 685 (1971); Wells v. State, 285 Ark. 9, 684 S.W.2d 248 (1985); People v. Gaddi, 145 Ill. App. 3d 227, 98 Ill. Dec. 574, 494 N.E.2d 696 (1st Dist. 1986); State v. Vietor, 261 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 1978); State v. Bristor, 236 Kan. 313, 691 P.2d 1 (1984); State v. Jones, 457 A.2d 1116 (Me. 1983); Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702, 481 A.2d 192 (1984); Nyflot v. Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety, 369 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. 1985); Spradling v. Deimeke, 528 S.W.2d 759 (Mo. 1975); State v. Armfield, 214 Mont. 229, 693 P.2d 1226 (1984); State v. Greene, 128 N.H. 317, 512 A.2d 429 (1986); Seders v. Powell, 298 N.C. 453, 259 S.E.2d 544 (1979); McNulty v. Curry, 42 Ohio St. 2d 341, 71 Ohio Op. 2d 317, 328 N.E.2d 798 (1975); Dobbins v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 75 Ohio St. 3d 533, 1996 -Ohio- 454, 664 N.E.2d 908 (1996); State v. Newton, 291 Or. 788, 636 P.2d 393 (1981); Com. v. West, 370 Pa. Super. 365, 536 A.2d 447 (1988); De Mangin v. State, 700 S.W.2d 329 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1985), judgment aff'd, 787 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Forte v. State, 707 S.W.2d 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Law v. City of Danville, 212 Va. 702, 187 S.E.2d 197 (1972). But see State v. Holland, 147 Ariz. 453, 711 P.2d 592 (1985) (en banc)
May 29, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedlocal (anonymous) says...
Scott has the very best DUI lawyer in this district. I am certain that Mr. Joye knows the pertinent laws along with all the loopholes associated with each of them. I will certainly NOT be surprised if Scott doesn't walk out of this trial unscathed.
What will surprise me will be if the citizens of District 38 re-elect this guy in June.
May 29, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coccougs (anonymous) says...
From our nieghbors to the north (w/ citations to other states): Seders v. Powell, 298 N.C. 453
"Plaintiff next contends that he was denied his constitutional right to confer with counsel prior to deciding whether to submit to the breathalyzer. We join the majority of our sister states in holding that the operator of a motor vehicle in North Carolina has no constitutional right to confer with counsel prior to a decision to submit to the breathalyzer test. See, e. g., State v. Sanchez, 110 Ariz. 214, 516 P.2d 1226 (1973); Calvert v. Colorado Dept. of Revenue, 184 Colo. 214, 519 P.2d 341 (1974); Swenumson v. Iowa Dept. of Public Safety, 210 N.W.2d 660 (Iowa 1973); State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 191 N.W.2d 188 (1971); Lewis v. Nebraska State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 191 Neb. 704, 217 N.W.2d 177 (1974); Harlan v. State, 113 N.H. 194, 308 A.2d 856 (1973); Agnew v. Hjelle, 216 N.W.2d 291 (N.D.1974); Phares v. Dept. of Public Safety, 507 P.2d 1225 (Okl.1973); Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285, 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969); Davis v. Pope, 128 Ga.App. 791, 197 S.E.2d 861 (1973); Commonwealth v. Cannon, 4 Pa.Cmwlth. 119, 286 A.2d 24 (1972).
*462 [8] We base our holding on two grounds. First, it is well established in this State that proceedings involving the suspension or revocation of a license to operate a motor vehicle are civil, not criminal in nature. Joyner v. Garrett, supra; Honeycutt v. Scheidt, 254 N.C. 607, 119 S.E.2d 777 (1961); Harrell v. Scheidt, 243 N.C. 735, 92 S.E.2d 182 (1956). Thus in Joyner, supra, this Court held that a year long suspension of the plaintiff's driver's license imposed by the court on a plea of guilty to an arrest for driving under the influence did not preclude the Department of Motor Vehicles from suspending the same plaintiff's driver's license when he refused to take a breathalyzer test at the time of his arrest. Speaking for the Court, Justice Sharp, later Chief Justice, reasoned that:
"the same motor vehicle operation may give rise to two separate and distinct proceedings. One is A civil and administrative licensing procedure instituted by the Director of Motor Vehicles to determine whether a person's privilege to drive is revoked. The other is a criminal action instituted in the appropriate court to determine whether a crime has been committed. Each action proceeds independently of the other and the outcome of one is of no consequence to the other."
May 29, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coccougs (anonymous) says...
Joyner v. Garrett, supra 279 N.C. at 238, 182 S.E.2d at 562, Quoting Ziemba v. Johns, 183 Neb. 644, 646, 163 N.W.2d 780, 781. (Emphasis added.) See also Creech v. Alexander, supra; Vuncannon v. Garrett, 17 N.C.App. 440, 194 S.E.2d 364 (1973). Elsewhere we have reasoned that revocation proceedings are civil because they are not intended to punish the offending driver but to protect other members of the driving public. Honeycutt v. Scheidt, supra 254 N.C. at 610, 119 S.E.2d at 780. Thus, any constitutional claim plaintiff asserts to counsel is entirely inappropriate in this civil proceeding.
Second, anyone who accepts the privilege of driving upon our highways has already consented to the use of the breathalyzer test and has no constitutional right to consult a lawyer to void that consent. See, e. g., Harlan v. State, supra; Deaner v. Commonwealth, supra. G.S. 20-16.2(a) provides:
Any person who drives or operates a motor vehicle upon any highway or any public vehicular area shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of G.S. 20-139.1, *463 to a chemical test or tests of his breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if arrested for any offense**551 arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
In view of this prior consent, we see no reasons why plaintiff here has any claim to consult counsel other than that provided for in G.S. 20-16.2(a)(4).
Our decision today conforms with the United States Supreme Court's analysis in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). There, the Court held, Inter alia, that a driver arrested for drunk driving could not constitutionally object to a compulsory blood test done over his objections based on the advice of counsel. Stating that the objection had no basis in the fourth and fifth amendments, the Court held that he had no right to counsel in such a situation. Here, too, because of the civil nature of this proceeding, plaintiff has no claim to greater constitutional protections and thus no mandated constitutional right to counsel. See also State v. Sykes, 285 N.C. 202, 203 S.E.2d 849 (1974), citing Schmerber and State v. Randolph, 273 N.C. 120, 159 S.E.2d 324 (1968) (per curiam), holding that admission of results of breathalyzer tests administered to a motorist is not dependent upon whether warning as to right to counsel had been given and waived.
This assignment of error is overruled. We hold that there is no constitutional right to confer with counsel prior to making a decision as to whether to take the breathalyzer test."
May 29, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
eyeinthesky, I stand corrected on the 6th with the word "Counsel". Your assertion that something wasnt deemed necessary when the Constitution was written is a bad argument. The Framers intended for the Constitution to be interpreted as written. If it needed to say something else they gave us an Amendment process to follow in order to change it. We cannot just make it mean what we want it to mean anytime we want to reinterpret it.
May 29, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
coolfreaknbeans, I used to do these tests, but it was a long time ago, so I don't know about the swabs. I believe it was just a precautionary factor to use iodine in place of alcohol. They told us that a trace amount of alcohol could alter the test results enough to produce a positive result.
I'm not taking up for Scott, as I don't even know him.
The way he spoke to his wife on the phone was totally uncalled for. She is either a saint, or is whipped down by her husband.
May 29, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
He was not TRYING to VOID the Consent! That is why he would lose his License for 6 months. He is not trying to have the results thrown out!
By requesting an Attorney he was REFUSING the Beathalyzer..
Which any person can do!
I am not arguing your points!
May 29, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
mosin.. i meant they were not thinking of DUI AND IMPLIED CONSENT... Since there WERE no CARS!!!!
May 29, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
really234 (anonymous) says...
RTC-His wife is a wonderful lady and is whipped down by no one as far as I have heard...
Seems now that it looks like there were some hinky dealings with the arrest and subsequent testing procedures, now the Rose crew are focusing on the foul language....again...at least in these posting...
I guess since Rose cant afford advertising, his guys are getting lots for free...
Watch the stone throwing....
May 29, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GeecheeBoi84 (anonymous) says...
"It's a dirty, dirty world"...
May 29, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stephansdad (anonymous) says...
It's a bit early for the fireworks don't you think?
HEY EVERYONE!!! If you haven't noticed, there is a jury seated. They will hear the case, listen to the evidence, ponder on it and then decide. It's not about who states their position on either side, it's about what the jury believes happened based on the evidence.
The verdict will be as the jury will state. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not about what WE think happened that night, it's about what the JURY thinks happened that night.
Wait for the verdict, listen to it. You can agree or disagree with it, but in the end you will have to live with it.
May 29, 2008 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Very well said Stephansdad! Yes, we will live with it!
May 29, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
He is not... but many of you on here could be the CALLER on the Mr. Obvious show.
Come on Coldbeer... make the Connection!
May 29, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scienceguy (anonymous) says...
Miranda is based on the 5th Amendment not the 6th.
May 29, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
I'm Back, (ate Brazillian, very good)
So I read the BA calculater.
For some of us, just 3 drinks and we are legally toasted.
That sucks,
We have criminalazed social drinking?
May 29, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
It is also based on the 6th.. It covers COUNSEL and SELF INCRIMINATION.
You guys are nitpicky today... Lots of Constitutional Scholars in the Crowd. You are sitting at a computer with Internet. Google and save some time!
Amendment Six
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
'The right to a speedy and public trial...'
'The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial' was put in to ensure that the person accused of a crime will not be made to wait in jail for an abnormal period of time before their trial.
'... by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...'
What this means is the accused person's fate will be decided by a jury that is not prejudiced one way or another, and that the jury should be from the same area as the accused person.
'... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...'
This means that any person arrested should be told what crime they are accused of and why they have been accused.
'... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour...'
This is a complicated way of saying that if the accused person knows of someone who can help prove him innocent, he has the ability to force that person to testify.
'... and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.'
This means that the person accused of a crime has the right to have a lawyer present with him at all times before and during the trial.
The Miranda Rights
Nowhere has the last part become more evident than in the case of Ernesto Miranda vs the State of Arizona. In this case, the accused, Miranda, did not know he could have a lawyer with him, and was forced into giving a confession. Miranda, convicted of kidnapping, was pardoned by the Supreme Court because he was unaware of his rights.
The direct result of this case are the 'Miranda Rights', which must be read to a person upon their arrest. If they are not read, then the arrest is invalid and the person may go free.
SEE How Miranda pertains to the 5th and 6th Ammendments!
May 29, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Hey Advocate now everyone will know you're me since you used the blivet word! You are correct though too many blivets in Columbia.
May 29, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DChinnis (anonymous) says...
A new twist to SC's law that Joye opposed was the number of times required for Miranda rights to be read. In the recent past a law enforcement officer was required to read the Miranda rights three times to the accused. That little fact allowed more DUI's to be dismissed than one could imagine. The new DUI law requires only a single reading.
As to BAC's, while a student in college I arranged a Alcohol Awareness Week for the University. Three of us drank (wine, beer, or liquor) blew the Breathylyzer (state law requires the use of the Datamaster - gas chromotography - now), played a vidoe game and did a field sobriety test. At the end of the experiment I was pretty amazed how "sober" I felt when I was at .08 (.10 was the limit then and the CU Police Department wouldn't allow us to intentionally get that drunk.) did okay on the FST as well. The NHTSA campaign Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving is certainly true using the BAC standard imposed. I suspect most folks who drink socially would be surprised by how just a little buzz means "drunk" in the eyes of the law.
Scott may not have been drunk by most standards but he could have been "legally drunk".
The law is the law if you don't like them change the way you vote for the people who ass those laws!
May 29, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
That one is much to easy on many counts Chinnis, I will let it go!!!!
May 29, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DChinnis (anonymous) says...
Sorry, the Datamaster uses infrared spectroscopy. Blood test typically use gas chromatography.
May 29, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
really234- It depends on how your body metabolizes the alcohol.The guy is missing a leg :)I for one havent seen the "small cups" he drank from.Its like the standard- Ive only had 2 drinks officer.I don't know whether he was drunk or not,thats for the jury to decide.I find it a little wild to assume it was an undercover setup(as some say)to force alcohol down his throat,know where he was gonna be,then pull him over.Drunk or not-that guys an a hole.
May 29, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillMan (anonymous) says...
After careful review of this case, I do feel like something sub par was going on regarding this arrest! The sheer number of times deputies communicated before pilling Scott shoes this was no ordinary DUI stop! Factor in the Dorchester County politics and the video from the holding room etc. and I do believe Mr. Scott has a pretty decent shot at beating this one!
May 29, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
eyeinthesky, what you seem to be missing the point on is that you continue to state that miranda is a Constitutional Right. It is not! It is NOT STATED in the original text and it is not in any of the Amendments in the Constitution, it came from the Miranda case you stated. It is recognized as a right now because of that case precedent but it is not a Constitutional Right. A Constitutional Right is one that is directly stated in the plain text of the Constitution.
May 29, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
this just in... THEY THREW THE CASE OUT!!!! MORE COMING!
May 29, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
NO REASON TO ARREST...THEY FOLLOWED HIM FOR 45 minutes!!!!
OHHHHH BOYYYYYY
May 29, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Dang, and I wanted to see why rose was there!!!!
May 29, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillMan (anonymous) says...
Previous post- pulling and shows, computer acting up when I type!
What a black eye for the Dorchester Sheriff's office, the deputies in those videos absent maybe the arresting officer acted like they were temporary subs who had no idea about law and procedure! I do believe enough people will believe Mr. Scott was guilty to throw the election to Rose, Scott did not help himself by threatening the deputies jobs and cussing his wife either, Rose wins this one most likely!
May 29, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Missing_Home (anonymous) says...
Some interesting food for thought;
http://www.duiblog.com/2008/05/
May 29, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
So I guess that means Joye was wrong and his client won't be found innocent and there is no proof of political motivation. Go figure!
Of course the motion to reconsider is still there, so maybe he will get a real day in court one day!
May 29, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
Eventually the truth will catch up with this guy...hopefully on June 10th.
May 29, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
State Senator Randy Scott drunk driving case dismissed
Posted: May 29, 2008 02:40 PM EDT
Updated: May 29, 2008 02:40 PM EDT
SUMMERVILLE, SC (WCSC) - The drunk driving case of State Senator Randy Scott has been dismissed.
According to the judge in the case part of the video tape showing Scott's arrest wasn't there, and the second officer involved in the case didn't file an affidavit.
As of Thursday afternoon, prosecutors in the case made a motion for the judge to reconsider.
Scott was arrested April 19, after a Dorchester County Sheriff's Deputy pulled the state senator over for swerving.
The case was delayed earlier on Thursday, so both sides could hold preliminary arguments.
May 29, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillMan (anonymous) says...
Good for the judge, whether Scott was quilty or not we will never know, but what is evident is the mishandling of this arrest by Dorchester County, Nash needs to do some housecleaning or not stand for reelection in my opinion!
May 29, 2008 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
That Part of the tape was Probably the tape when they were following the car and observed it swerving.. On The bottom of That tape was Deputy Freshmans name. The DCSO stated that His video system was down.And it wasn't.
I Hope Mr Joye releases information on this case.
May 29, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
If you think any of us would have received the same treatment as this guy...think again.
Everything you need to see on video is all over the internet and this judge doesnt see enough????
Give me a break...
May 29, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
BillMan, here is a newsflash for you...
Ray Nash is not running for re-election.
May 29, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Mosnfan..you mean justice under Nash's law?
May 29, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
ChrisPia, no I simply mean plain old justice for all...even state senators. Chris be reasonable, I know you have an axe to grind with the Sheriff...but how do you get past his slurring of speech on the tape? his inability to recite the alphabet for the deputy? his inability to count backwards? Put all that together with his asinine behavior in the DC lockup. Come on here, your not being reasonable, put your prejudices against the sheriff aside and look at all the facts. Not the conspiracy stuff you have cooked up in your mind.
May 29, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Mosifan...I have always been reasonable..I state the facts.Not Lies...I have more facts on this case and you know that.I will wait to seewhat comes out.....
May 29, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
yes nash released the tapes which really made the Judge mad... the good Christian Sherriff..
one minute of missing tape.... hmm wonder what was SAID on that... we will never know...
you nashi*tes/rosites were not going to vote Senator Scott even if this never happened!!! So we have not heard the last of this!!!
And the eternal question... what did rose Know... and when did he know it!!!
May 29, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shooter1 (anonymous) says...
Which Sen. appointed this magistrate????
May 29, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jblakeslee (anonymous) says...
The Sheriff's dept was set-up.....this entire thing was planned as a political stunt to make Ray Nash and the dept look bad....Randy Scott pretented to be drunk, got stopped, hired a good attorney, got someone on "the inside" to alter the tape, knowing what would happen in court......just to make the Sheriff and the dept look bad......
Completely political...........
(Hey, the set-up excuse seemed to work pretty good for Randy Scott, lets try it for the Sheriff's Dept)
May 29, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CaptPete (anonymous) says...
The field test is not going to be a factor. You have a man with a flashlight in his face and only one leg. How do you expect him to look.
The SC driver handbook does not require you to be able to know how to read english. Thus LEO should not ask you to recite your ABC's. Knowing how to count backwards is also not in the handbook. People believe they have to do this just because a LEO says to do it. Once you do something they will hold it against you as they try and build a case.
It seems this man was set up. Mr. Scott had every right to be mad that night.
May 29, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillMan (anonymous) says...
Since when did Nash announce he is not running for reelection, have I missed something?
May 29, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Yeah you missed the "factman" Chrispia googling the web and posting news stories as "facts"!
News and facts?!?! Anybody see the run up to the Soctt McClellan book? I think he relayed "facts" to the media.
Terry Boatwright vs LC Knight
Randy Scotch vs Mike Rose
Annette "hic" Young vs Tara Bussjager
Heyward Huton vs Jenny Horne
May 29, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Has anyone alerted the Prosecutor that Pia needs to be subpoenaed since he has facts that no one else has.
May 29, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedlocal (anonymous) says...
Ray Nash has never been running for re-election. Perhaps you have been out of town.
and Capt, are you a US citizen? I really think as a US citizen I am entitled to a Senator that knows his ABCs, can count and speaks English.
May 29, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DChinnis (anonymous) says...
"you nashi*tes/rosites were not going to vote Senator Scott even if this never happened!!!"
Well this is where eye is wrong! When I approached Randy Scott and asked for constituent service for 350+ taxpayers similar to that he provided his friend in regards to the 15 dollar jail charge. A call to the Att. Gen. to move our double taxation issue along to a resolution that the committee had far exceeded their statutory obligation for I could have easily supported Scott. At least then his promise of constituent service would have meant something to the residents of Summerhaven and Arbor Oaks. He chose to play politics and refuse my request calling a clear violation of state law a "local issue". Helping the taxpayer was simple - make a phone call - he REFUSED to help!
Now his flyers imply that my letter to the editor exposing these facts of his lack of service are "negative campaigning"? The facts are clear in this issue he refused to help. When I asked him at the Azalea Festival why he refused to help the answer was clear "You ain't run for anything have you?"
If you need more, Scott called me in May after my first call to his office asking what I wanted him to do. I "dared" to suggest that he do what he was paid to do as Senator and represent his constituents to which he gave me a lecture on how little we really paid him as Senator. I was silly enough to call again think he might help the taxpayer in August.
These are facts direct from the source and not hearsay or innuendo.
Sorry no name calling here for eyeinthesky. I won't resort to childish tactics.
May 29, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rebel_Yell (anonymous) says...
Please, all law students and baby attys, don't cite cases on here. You know nothing and it makes you look full of yourself when you do.
I've been hit by a DUI driver but I gotta say, I'm more afraid of cell phone users and super slow drivers than a nice little tipsy man like Mr Scott who didnt hurt anyone.
May 29, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
localboy..They are not new facts.But they have been documented facts. I wonder if the P&C will ask for All The Information Leading up to the trial in regards to this case Under FOIA and print them.
May 29, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Ray Nash has never been running for re-election. Perhaps you have been out of town.....By Concerned Local..
The Proper answer was Ray Nash was running for sheriff in 2008 and decided to step out of the race and hand the baton over to his clone Terry Boatwright.
May 29, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CaptPete (anonymous) says...
ChrisPia:
Is Terry Boatwright also a member of the tax protester group Christian Exodus?
May 29, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scn8ve (anonymous) says...
Why isn't he also charged with littering? Unless he was pulled over in his driveway, when he flipped that smoke in the video, he was littering. Classic redneck move...
May 29, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Capt Pete....I am Unsure...My opinion would be Yes based on all the connections.
May 29, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillMan (anonymous) says...
Whoa... I know he is not up for reelection in 2008 but I thought his term was up in 2010, he has'nt announced he is not running then? That's what I mean by that, anyway, if he is not running then that problem is solved!
May 29, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Scott WAS NOT acquitted - the case was dismissed. Acquittal is something else entirely so you're no prophet. Others did note that he would get out on a technicality which is par for the course for Joyes defense.
In criminal law, an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. The opposite result is a conviction.
dismissal - A procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial.
May 29, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
Had Scotch been acquitted there would not have been a motion to reconsider. Acquittal means not guilty and Double Jeopardy would prevent the reconsideration of the case.
Drunk is as drunk does. Who did appoint that magistrate?
May 29, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkc6 (anonymous) says...
For those of you who know everything, unless you were in the court room today you know NOTHING! Just because the PC or the local news says it, does not make it so. Now, those very few who were there, you and I know who you are, make sure you type the facts and the truth. This is no time to cover ones ass with fiction and lies. Its easy to figure out who is for Rose and Boatwright, so it is also easy to tell who is typing with their fingers and who is using their butt. Pesonal opinions you have the right to state but unless you know the facts, keep your mouth shut because all you are doing is proving your IQ and shoe size are the same. One thing for sure, it is impossible to make that many calls between BILO on Orangeburg Rd and Froman Dr. which is less than half a mile away. So before you start typing again try saying your ABC's and count backwards. I bet you have trouble along the way. If you question the ability of calls verses miles, just go to the BILO parking lot, turn left onto Orangburg Rd. and start dialing. Better hurry up because you are fixing to pass Froman Dr. Not only am I happy someone else knew this whole thing was a joke but I also hope Mr. Scott sues the socks off of those involved with this set-up.
May 29, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
localboy (anonymous) says...
raregar - the fact is he was not found innocent and I'll type this slow - the case was dismissed. Two different things. Dismissal means that the case can be tried. The prosecutor has filed the motions and an appeal is forthcoming. Legal loopholes keeps the truth from being heard - and mind you the truth may have vindicated Scott - we won't know before the primary though! These are common ploys in DUI cases so no one should be surprised. BUT Randy Scott WAS NOT found innocent!
Panties in a wad bkc?
May 29, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkc6 (anonymous) says...
No Localboy. I'm fine. Was you there? Why don't you just tell everyone who you are? I know why.
May 29, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkc6 (anonymous) says...
Localboy - First off I'm sorry. "was" should have been "were". As for panties in a wad which is worse? A wedgie or one plans falling apart at ones feet?
May 29, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedlocal (anonymous) says...
Hey localboy
The upside of this whole dismissal...notice I did NOT type acquittal... not typing with my butt you see...is that our dear Senator did not cost us poor little tax payers too much in court costs. Had he been a good role model, he would not have cost us anything.
BTW, they didn't have a butt typing course in college, must be a vocational school where you get that option.
May 29, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedlocal (anonymous) says...
bkc6...be real careful...Scotch has not been re-elected...no one on this board expect any less than transpired today...which is definitely NOT an indication of innocence
May 29, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
Chinnis give it a rest.. do you only have one line... I hope rose never comes to a quick stop with you following so closely! Your nose is so far up there already, I would hate to lose the rest of you.... well not actually hate. Will you go away after the election??? Don't go away mad... just go away!
and Chrispia... Botten's report said his video was down. When they had to swear, we found out that it was just grainy... but the AUDIO sure worked... until the minute that was somehow ERASED!
May 29, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkc6 (anonymous) says...
SCOTCH??? We know who had a couple glasses tonight. The name is Scott. You Rose/Nash people have had to much tonight. Time for me to leave this so-called party because I won't be your D.V.S.I.C.E. Enjoy the rest of your night.
May 29, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
eyeinthesky...Can Anyone tell me who the phone call to stop the car was? Did Nash contact Mr Rose? How come nobody is FOIA the testimony and Depositions and making them public?
May 29, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Slick50 (anonymous) says...
D I S M I S S E D
http://www.journalscene.com/news/0529...
May 29, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bkc6 (anonymous) says...
Chrispia - good point but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. They will give you an excuse, which is all they can do.
May 29, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DChinnis (anonymous) says...
Got a problem with facts eye in the sky. As long as you keep implying to everyone what a saint Scott is and how responsive he is to the citizens I'll remind them of the truth.
Are you running for office? Do you know something about the double taxation issue you'd like to tell us? Maybe you were on the committee tht failed to follow state law? Do you work for the Town? Do you, like Scott think that it's okay to tax citizens improperly - or at least do nothing about it?
May 29, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyeinthesky (anonymous) says...
no, since you intimately know mike rose, ask him when he found out about the arrest. I bet the facts will show he found out in the Middle of the Night. What do you think?
I never said Scott was a Saint, he is not. But I know nash is not one either.
May 29, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lois_Lane (anonymous) says...
The video says it all. The man was drunk. Reese Joye does it again and gets another one out of a DUI. Wonder how much this cost Scott? Disfrigginmissed. WTF?
May 29, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlestonnative1963 (anonymous) says...
He was runk, the politicians always get away with it (even T. Ravenel should have had more than 20 months)...the judge should be disbared and we should all be ashamed to live in this state. Hopefully Dorchester County will send this drunk packing on June 10th..and he has the nerve to blame everyone else
May 29, 2008 at 11:06 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.