6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2023 3 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. Yong Shik Wongreen2 sentences2023Additionally, in State v. Yong Shik Won, the Supreme Court of Hawaii found, "[I]n order to legitimize submission to a warrantless BAC test under the consent exception, consent may not be predetermined by statute, but rather it must be concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, consent was in fact freely and voluntarily given." 372 P.3d 1065, 1080 (Haw. 2015). 2023In considering Hawaii's implied consent law, the court further found, "[A] person may refuse consent to submit to a BAC test under the consent exception, and the State must honor that refusal." Id. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Loopergreen2 sentences2022Therefore, Taylor was not prejudiced by the fact that [the arresting officer] read the implied[-]consent rights out loud." Id. at 38, 627 S.E.2d at 754 . 1 See State v. Looper, 421 S.C. 384, 387 , 807 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2017) (explaining "the State may immediately appeal an interlocutory order 'granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case.'" (quoting State v. McKnight, 287 S.C. 167, 168 , 337 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1985))). 2 The officer determined Taylor could not perform a BAC test due to mouth injuries sustained in the subject automobile accide 2022Therefore, Taylor was not prejudiced by the fact that [the arresting officer] read the implied[-]consent rights out loud." Id. at 38, 627 S.E.2d at 754 . 1 See State v. Looper, 421 S.C. 384, 387 , 807 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2017) (explaining "the State may immediately appeal an interlocutory order 'granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case.'" (quoting State v. McKnight, 287 S.C. 167, 168 , 337 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1985))). 2 The officer determined Taylor could not perform a BAC test due to mouth injuries sustained in the subject automobile accide | 1 | 1 |
State v. McKnightgreen2 sentences2022Therefore, Taylor was not prejudiced by the fact that [the arresting officer] read the implied[-]consent rights out loud." Id. at 38, 627 S.E.2d at 754 . 1 See State v. Looper, 421 S.C. 384, 387 , 807 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2017) (explaining "the State may immediately appeal an interlocutory order 'granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case.'" (quoting State v. McKnight, 287 S.C. 167, 168 , 337 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1985))). 2 The officer determined Taylor could not perform a BAC test due to mouth injuries sustained in the subject automobile accide 2022Therefore, Taylor was not prejudiced by the fact that [the arresting officer] read the implied[-]consent rights out loud." Id. at 38, 627 S.E.2d at 754 . 1 See State v. Looper, 421 S.C. 384, 387 , 807 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2017) (explaining "the State may immediately appeal an interlocutory order 'granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case.'" (quoting State v. McKnight, 287 S.C. 167, 168 , 337 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1985))). 2 The officer determined Taylor could not perform a BAC test due to mouth injuries sustained in the subject automobile accide | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2022Therefore, Taylor was not prejudiced by the fact that [the arresting officer] read the implied[-]consent rights out loud." Id. at 38, 627 S.E.2d at 754 . 1 See State v. Looper, 421 S.C. 384, 387 , 807 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2017) (explaining "the State may immediately appeal an interlocutory order 'granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case.'" (quoting State v. McKnight, 287 S.C. 167, 168 , 337 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1985))). 2 The officer determined Taylor could not perform a BAC test due to mouth injuries sustained in the subject automobile accide 2022Therefore, Taylor was not prejudiced by the fact that [the arresting officer] read the implied[-]consent rights out loud." Id. at 38, 627 S.E.2d at 754 . 1 See State v. Looper, 421 S.C. 384, 387 , 807 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2017) (explaining "the State may immediately appeal an interlocutory order 'granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case.'" (quoting State v. McKnight, 287 S.C. 167, 168 , 337 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1985))). 2 The officer determined Taylor could not perform a BAC test due to mouth injuries sustained in the subject automobile accide | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Myers, D.green1 sentence2020See Williams v. State, 771 S.E.2d 373, 377 (Ga. 2015) ("[M]ere compliance with statutory implied consent requirements does not, per se, equate to actual, and therefore voluntary, consent on the part of the suspect so as to be an exception to the constitutional mandate of a warrant."); State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133, 1137 (Or. 2013), opinion adhered to as modified on reconsideration, 322 P.3d 486 (2014) ("Rather, for purposes of this opinion, we assume without deciding that it would be unconstitutional to "deem" defendant to have consented when he drove."); State v. Yong Shik Won, 372 P.3d 1065, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen1 sentence2020See Williams v. State, 771 S.E.2d 373, 377 (Ga. 2015) ("[M]ere compliance with statutory implied consent requirements does not, per se, equate to actual, and therefore voluntary, consent on the part of the suspect so as to be an exception to the constitutional mandate of a warrant."); State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133, 1137 (Or. 2013), opinion adhered to as modified on reconsideration, 322 P.3d 486 (2014) ("Rather, for purposes of this opinion, we assume without deciding that it would be unconstitutional to "deem" defendant to have consented when he drove."); State v. Yong Shik Won, 372 P.3d 1065, | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Williams v. State, 771 S.E.2d 373, 377 (Ga. 2015) ("[M]ere compliance with statutory implied consent requirements does not, per se, equate to actual, and therefore voluntary, consent on the part of the suspect so as to be an exception to the constitutional mandate of a warrant."); State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133, 1137 (Or. 2013), opinion adhered to as modified on reconsideration, 322 P.3d 486 (2014) ("Rather, for purposes of this opinion, we assume without deciding that it would be unconstitutional to "deem" defendant to have consented when he drove."); State v. Yong Shik Won, 372 P.3d 1065, | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
2 sentences2023Id. at 382– 7 We also recognize the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield noted the general validity of implied consent statutes. 579 U.S. at 476–77. 2023Id. at 382– 7 We also recognize the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield noted the general validity of implied consent statutes. 579 U.S. at 476–77. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Carroll v. SC DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
neutral
2 sentences2022In Carroll v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Carroll testified he likely would have refused the BAC test, instead of submitting to it, if he had received the proper warnings. 388 S.C. 39 , 44, 693 S.E.2d 430 , 433 (Ct. App. 2010). 2022In Carroll v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Carroll testified he likely would have refused the BAC test, instead of submitting to it, if he had received the proper warnings. 388 S.C. 39 , 44, 693 S.E.2d 430 , 433 (Ct. App. 2010). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Moore
green
1 sentence2020See Williams v. State, 771 S.E.2d 373, 377 (Ga. 2015) ("[M]ere compliance with statutory implied consent requirements does not, per se, equate to actual, and therefore voluntary, consent on the part of the suspect so as to be an exception to the constitutional mandate of a warrant."); State v. Moore, 318 P.3d 1133, 1137 (Or. 2013), opinion adhered to as modified on reconsideration, 322 P.3d 486 (2014) ("Rather, for purposes of this opinion, we assume without deciding that it would be unconstitutional to "deem" defendant to have consented when he drove."); State v. Yong Shik Won, 372 P.3d 1065, | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Ladd
green
2 sentences2008Ladd, 653 N.Y.S.2d 259 , 675 N.E.2d at 1213 . *7 Section 61-4-580(2) clearly states that an actual sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person is prohibited, (emphasis added). 2008Ladd, 653 N.Y.S.2d 259 , 675 N.E.2d at 1213 . *7 Section 61-4-580(2) clearly states that an actual sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person is prohibited, (emphasis added). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Eason v. Comfort
green
1 sentence1997Cf. Eason v. Comfort, 561 So.2d 1068 (Ala.1990) (even though no evidence was presented as to BAC’s effect on plaintiff, BAC evidence was relevant as plaintiff admitted drinking but claimed he was not intoxicated); Edwards v. Ellis, 478 So.2d 282 (Miss.1985) (BAC test ordered for purposes of medical treatment, and separate and distinct from test ordered by police, was admissible in civil action, especially in conjunction with other competent evidence of intoxication); Vance Trucking Co. v. Phillips, 51 N.C.App. 85 , 275 S.E.2d 497 (1981) (breathalyzer reading was admissible in civil action as a | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Edwards v. Ellis
green
1 sentence1997Cf. Eason v. Comfort, 561 So.2d 1068 (Ala.1990) (even though no evidence was presented as to BAC’s effect on plaintiff, BAC evidence was relevant as plaintiff admitted drinking but claimed he was not intoxicated); Edwards v. Ellis, 478 So.2d 282 (Miss.1985) (BAC test ordered for purposes of medical treatment, and separate and distinct from test ordered by police, was admissible in civil action, especially in conjunction with other competent evidence of intoxication); Vance Trucking Co. v. Phillips, 51 N.C.App. 85 , 275 S.E.2d 497 (1981) (breathalyzer reading was admissible in civil action as a | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Vance Trucking Co., Inc. v. Phillips
green
2 sentences1997Cf. Eason v. Comfort, 561 So.2d 1068 (Ala.1990) (even though no evidence was presented as to BAC’s effect on plaintiff, BAC evidence was relevant as plaintiff admitted drinking but claimed he was not intoxicated); Edwards v. Ellis, 478 So.2d 282 (Miss.1985) (BAC test ordered for purposes of medical treatment, and separate and distinct from test ordered by police, was admissible in civil action, especially in conjunction with other competent evidence of intoxication); Vance Trucking Co. v. Phillips, 51 N.C.App. 85 , 275 S.E.2d 497 (1981) (breathalyzer reading was admissible in civil action as a 1997Cf. Eason v. Comfort, 561 So.2d 1068 (Ala.1990) (even though no evidence was presented as to BAC’s effect on plaintiff, BAC evidence was relevant as plaintiff admitted drinking but claimed he was not intoxicated); Edwards v. Ellis, 478 So.2d 282 (Miss.1985) (BAC test ordered for purposes of medical treatment, and separate and distinct from test ordered by police, was admissible in civil action, especially in conjunction with other competent evidence of intoxication); Vance Trucking Co. v. Phillips, 51 N.C.App. 85 , 275 S.E.2d 497 (1981) (breathalyzer reading was admissible in civil action as a | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Jamison v. the Pantry, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997Cf. Eason v. Comfort, 561 So.2d 1068 (Ala.1990) (even though no evidence was presented as to BAC’s effect on plaintiff, BAC evidence was relevant as plaintiff admitted drinking but claimed he was not intoxicated); Edwards v. Ellis, 478 So.2d 282 (Miss.1985) (BAC test ordered for purposes of medical treatment, and separate and distinct from test ordered by police, was admissible in civil action, especially in conjunction with other competent evidence of intoxication); Vance Trucking Co. v. Phillips, 51 N.C.App. 85 , 275 S.E.2d 497 (1981) (breathalyzer reading was admissible in civil action as a 1997Cf. Eason v. Comfort, 561 So.2d 1068 (Ala.1990) (even though no evidence was presented as to BAC’s effect on plaintiff, BAC evidence was relevant as plaintiff admitted drinking but claimed he was not intoxicated); Edwards v. Ellis, 478 So.2d 282 (Miss.1985) (BAC test ordered for purposes of medical treatment, and separate and distinct from test ordered by police, was admissible in civil action, especially in conjunction with other competent evidence of intoxication); Vance Trucking Co. v. Phillips, 51 N.C.App. 85 , 275 S.E.2d 497 (1981) (breathalyzer reading was admissible in civil action as a | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.