Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jansengreen2 sentences2011Cf. Jansen, 305 S.C. at 322 , 408 S.E.2d at 237 (“[T]he Parker precautions are intended to insure that the results of the breathalyzer test if given are accurate and reliable as evidence at trial.”). 2011Cf. Jansen, 305 S.C. at 322 , 408 S.E.2d at 237 (“[T]he Parker precautions are intended to insure that the results of the breathalyzer test if given are accurate and reliable as evidence at trial.”). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Andersengreen2 sentences1991See State v. Andersen, 213 Neb. 695, 703 , 331 N.W. (2d) 507, 512 (1983) (“When one considers the evidence concerning Andersen’s manner of driving, his physical appearance and behavior, and the result of the Intoximeter test, no other result could have reasonably been reached but that of guilty.”); see also, Cagle, 158 A.D. (2d) 931, 551 N.Y.S. (2d) 95 (the admission of the defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda held harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and the testimony of both the defendant and his witness was esse 1991See State v. Andersen, 213 Neb. 695, 703 , 331 N.W. (2d) 507, 512 (1983) (“When one considers the evidence concerning Andersen’s manner of driving, his physical appearance and behavior, and the result of the Intoximeter test, no other result could have reasonably been reached but that of guilty.”); see also, Cagle, 158 A.D. (2d) 931, 551 N.Y.S. (2d) 95 (the admission of the defendant’s statements obtained in violation of Miranda held harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and the testimony of both the defendant and his witness was esse | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences2003State v. Parker , 271 S.C. 159 , 245 S.E.2d 904 (1978). 2003State v. Parker , 271 S.C. 159 , 245 S.E.2d 904 (1978). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1996These facts are taken from the summaries of the testimony appearing in the magistrate’s and circuit court judge’s orders. 2 The magistrate granted Osborne’s motion to strike the field sobriety test, but admitted the results of the breathalyzer test. 3 The court in Morgan found Morgan’s statement was not an inadmissible confession due to the State’s failure to give the Miranda warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ,16 L.Ed. (2d) 694 (1966) in custodial interrogations. 282 S.C. at 411-12 , 319 S.E. (2d) at 336-37 . 1996These facts are taken from the summaries of the testimony appearing in the magistrate’s and circuit court judge’s orders. 2 The magistrate granted Osborne’s motion to strike the field sobriety test, but admitted the results of the breathalyzer test. 3 The court in Morgan found Morgan’s statement was not an inadmissible confession due to the State’s failure to give the Miranda warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ,16 L.Ed. (2d) 694 (1966) in custodial interrogations. 282 S.C. at 411-12 , 319 S.E. (2d) at 336-37 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1996These facts are taken from the summaries of the testimony appearing in the magistrate’s and circuit court judge’s orders. 2 The magistrate granted Osborne’s motion to strike the field sobriety test, but admitted the results of the breathalyzer test. 3 The court in Morgan found Morgan’s statement was not an inadmissible confession due to the State’s failure to give the Miranda warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ,16 L.Ed. (2d) 694 (1966) in custodial interrogations. 282 S.C. at 411-12 , 319 S.E. (2d) at 336-37 . 1996These facts are taken from the summaries of the testimony appearing in the magistrate’s and circuit court judge’s orders. 2 The magistrate granted Osborne’s motion to strike the field sobriety test, but admitted the results of the breathalyzer test. 3 The court in Morgan found Morgan’s statement was not an inadmissible confession due to the State’s failure to give the Miranda warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ,16 L.Ed. (2d) 694 (1966) in custodial interrogations. 282 S.C. at 411-12 , 319 S.E. (2d) at 336-37 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
South Carolina Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Horne
green
1 sentence1991In considering the purpose and applicability of precautions required in Parker , we find persuasive the reasoning of a recent decision of the Court of Appeals in a case similar to the case at bar, Ex parte: Horne in re: SCDHPT v. Horne, — S.C. —, 397 S.E. (2d) 788 (S.C. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence1984Code Ann. § 56-5-2950 which requires the test be administered, “at the direction of a law enforcement officer who has apprehended a person while driving ... under the influence____” (Emphasis added.) We have addressed this issue in State v. Martin, 275 S. C. 141, 268 S. E. (2d) 105 (1980). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Baker
green
1 sentence1978We recommend the reading of State v. Baker, 56 Wash. (2d) 846, 355 P. (2d) 806 (1960), and follow with approval the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. 2 Prior to admitting such evidence, the State may be required to prove (1) that the machine was in proper working order at the time of the test; (2) that the correct chemicals had been used; (3) that the accused was not allowed to put anything in his mouth for 20 minutes prior to the test, 3 and (4) that the test was administered by a qualified person in the proper manner. 4 The testimony of the operator that | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.