HGN test in South Carolina

2017Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 347 , 713 S.E.2d 278, 285 (2011) (noting the purpose of section 56-5-2953 is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest); State v. Gordon, 414 S.C. 94, 99 , 777 S.E.2d 376, 378-79 (2015) (holding section 56-5-2953(A) requires that the DUI suspect's head be visible in the incident site video during the administration of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test); id. at 99-100 , 777 S.E.2d at 379 (ruling the requirements of section 56-5-2953(A) were satisfied because, during the administration of the HGN test, the driver's head and the arresting off

2017Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 347 , 713 S.E.2d 278, 285 (2011) (noting the purpose of section 56-5-2953 is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest); State v. Gordon, 414 S.C. 94, 99 , 777 S.E.2d 376, 378-79 (2015) (holding section 56-5-2953(A) requires that the DUI suspect's head be visible in the incident site video during the administration of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test); id. at 99-100 , 777 S.E.2d at 379 (ruling the requirements of section 56-5-2953(A) were satisfied because, during the administration of the HGN test, the driver's head and the arresting off

2017Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 347 , 713 S.E.2d 278, 285 (2011) ("[T]he purpose of section 56-5-2953 . . . is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest . . . ."); Gordon, 414 S.C at 99-100, 777 S.E.2d at 379 (ruling an incident site video complied with section 56-5-2953(A) because "the officer's administration of the [horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN)] test is visible on the video recording," even if the alleged "poor quality" of the video would not allow a jury to determine the DUI suspect's performance on the HGN test); State v. Taylor, 411 S.C. 294, 305 , 768 S.E.2d 71, 77 (Ct. App. 2014)

2017Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 347 , 713 S.E.2d 278, 285 (2011) ("[T]he purpose of section 56-5-2953 . . . is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest . . . ."); Gordon, 414 S.C at 99-100, 777 S.E.2d at 379 (ruling an incident site video complied with section 56-5-2953(A) because "the officer's administration of the [horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN)] test is visible on the video recording," even if the alleged "poor quality" of the video would not allow a jury to determine the DUI suspect's performance on the HGN test); State v. Taylor, 411 S.C. 294, 305 , 768 S.E.2d 71, 77 (Ct. App. 2014)

2017Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 347 , 713 S.E.2d 278, 285 (2011) (noting the purpose of section 56-5-2953 is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest); State v. Gordon, 414 S.C. 94, 99 , 777 S.E.2d 376, 378-79 (2015) (holding section 56-5-2953(A) requires that the DUI suspect's head be visible in the incident site video during the administration of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test); id. at 99-100 , 777 S.E.2d at 379 (ruling the requirements of section 56-5-2953(A) were satisfied because, during the administration of the HGN test, the driver's head and the arresting off

2017Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 347 , 713 S.E.2d 278, 285 (2011) (noting the purpose of section 56-5-2953 is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest); State v. Gordon, 414 S.C. 94, 99 , 777 S.E.2d 376, 378-79 (2015) (holding section 56-5-2953(A) requires that the DUI suspect's head be visible in the incident site video during the administration of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test); id. at 99-100 , 777 S.E.2d at 379 (ruling the requirements of section 56-5-2953(A) were satisfied because, during the administration of the HGN test, the driver's head and the arresting off

1997See also State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (defendant preserved issue of HGN test, as he objected to introduction of field sobriety tests at magistrate’s trial, and state did not object to his supplemental exception which raised the issue to the circuit court).

1997See also State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311 , 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993) (defendant preserved issue of HGN test, as he objected to introduction of field sobriety tests at magistrate’s trial, and state did not object to his supplemental exception which raised the issue to the circuit court).

2015The court con- *98 eluded that “the circuit court correctly found the head must be shown during the HGN test in order for that sobriety test to be recorded, and we affirm that finding.” Gordon, 408 S.C. at 543 , 759 S.E.2d at 758 .

2015The court con- *98 eluded that “the circuit court correctly found the head must be shown during the HGN test in order for that sobriety test to be recorded, and we affirm that finding.” Gordon, 408 S.C. at 543 , 759 S.E.2d at 758 .

2017As to whether the circuit court erred by ruling section 56-5-2953(B) was inapplicable to this case: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (ruling an appellate court need not address remaining issues when its resolution of a prior issue is dispositive).

2017As to whether the circuit court erred by ruling section 56-5-2953(B) was inapplicable to this case: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (ruling an appellate court need not address remaining issues when its resolution of a prior issue is dispositive).

2017Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 347 , 713 S.E.2d 278, 285 (2011) ("[T]he purpose of section 56-5-2953 . . . is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest . . . ."); Gordon, 414 S.C at 99-100, 777 S.E.2d at 379 (ruling an incident site video complied with section 56-5-2953(A) because "the officer's administration of the [horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN)] test is visible on the video recording," even if the alleged "poor quality" of the video would not allow a jury to determine the DUI suspect's performance on the HGN test); State v. Taylor, 411 S.C. 294, 305 , 768 S.E.2d 71, 77 (Ct. App. 2014)

2017Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 347 , 713 S.E.2d 278, 285 (2011) ("[T]he purpose of section 56-5-2953 . . . is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest . . . ."); Gordon, 414 S.C at 99-100, 777 S.E.2d at 379 (ruling an incident site video complied with section 56-5-2953(A) because "the officer's administration of the [horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN)] test is visible on the video recording," even if the alleged "poor quality" of the video would not allow a jury to determine the DUI suspect's performance on the HGN test); State v. Taylor, 411 S.C. 294, 305 , 768 S.E.2d 71, 77 (Ct. App. 2014)

2017See State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); § 56-5-2953(A)(1)(a) ("The video recording at the incident site must . . . (ii) include any field sobriety tests administered . . . ."); State v. Taylor, 411 S.C. 294, 305 , 768 S.E.2d 71, 77 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[T]he statute does not require the video to encompass every action of the defendant, but requires video of each event listed in the statute."); State v. Gordon, 414 S.C. 94, 99-100 , 777 S.E.2d 376, 379 (2015) (holding the administration of a ho

2017See State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); § 56-5-2953(A)(1)(a) ("The video recording at the incident site must . . . (ii) include any field sobriety tests administered . . . ."); State v. Taylor, 411 S.C. 294, 305 , 768 S.E.2d 71, 77 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[T]he statute does not require the video to encompass every action of the defendant, but requires video of each event listed in the statute."); State v. Gordon, 414 S.C. 94, 99-100 , 777 S.E.2d 376, 379 (2015) (holding the administration of a ho

2017See id. at 99–100, 777 S.E.2d at 378–79 (requiring the recording of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test to show the driver's head but noting "the viewing of a video of an HGN field sobriety test has very little probative value to a jury because the eyes of the motorist are rarely, if ever, seen"); id. at 100 , 777 S.E.2d at 379 (reinstating the driver's conviction despite finding "the jury would not have been able to determine if [the driver] passed 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). or failed [the HGN test] by simply looking at this video").

2017See id. at 99–100, 777 S.E.2d at 378–79 (requiring the recording of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test to show the driver's head but noting "the viewing of a video of an HGN field sobriety test has very little probative value to a jury because the eyes of the motorist are rarely, if ever, seen"); id. at 100 , 777 S.E.2d at 379 (reinstating the driver's conviction despite finding "the jury would not have been able to determine if [the driver] passed 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). or failed [the HGN test] by simply looking at this video").

2014This court noted the statutory provision requiring video recording of field sobriety tests administered is pointless “if the actual tests cannot be seen on the recording.” Id. at 543 , 759 S.E.2d at 758 ; see also State v. Henkel, 404 S.C. 626, 632 , 746 S.E.2d 347, 351 (Ct.App.2013) (cert, granted) (finding trial court erred in not dismissing the charge when officer failed to videotape the issuing of Miranda warnings and no exception applied).

2014This court noted the statutory provision requiring video recording of field sobriety tests administered is pointless “if the actual tests cannot be seen on the recording.” Id. at 543 , 759 S.E.2d at 758 ; see also State v. Henkel, 404 S.C. 626, 632 , 746 S.E.2d 347, 351 (Ct.App.2013) (cert, granted) (finding trial court erred in not dismissing the charge when officer failed to videotape the issuing of Miranda warnings and no exception applied).