THE IMPACT OF THE COVID PANDEMIC ON DUI ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION IN SOUTH CAROLINA
A Special Report of the
MADD South Carolina Court Monitoring Project
June 2022
Introduction
The COVID pandemic affected just about every aspect of American life, and DUI enforcement and prosecution in South Carolina was no exception. Though societal restrictions have largely gone away as of this writing, the impact remains. At MADD South Carolina, we felt that impact was significant enough and had long-term impact enough to write this special report specifically on how we feel we can best encapsulate that impact. In the summer months of 2021, we held five “stakeholder roundtable” discussions t hat included knowledgeable individuals from all seven counties where we conduct court monitoring. Invitees included judges and magistrates, prosecutors, law enforcement, and key community partners. MADD staff presented key data to the attendees and then facilitated very valuable discussions about their impressions and additional information needed to understand how COVID has impacted both enforcement and prosecution of DUIs in South Carolina.
MADD South Carolina Court Monitoring Program Overview
MADD monitors the outcomes of first offense misdemeanor DUI cases in seven large South Carolina counties. The starting dates in those counties ranged from 2016 to 2019. The counties where we currently monitor are Berkeley, Charleston, Greenville, Horry, Lexington, Richland, and Spartanburg. The program’s goals are to compile relevant statistics regarding the dispositions of DUI cases in the courtrooms, to raise awareness of the level of public concern regarding the dispositions of DUI cases, and to report information on the dispositions of DUI cases in order to make improvements to the DUI enforcement, prosecution and/or adjudication systems. In our past three reports associated with this work, we focused primarily on the DUI conviction rates in those counties. This report is different as we are focusing primarily on observations related to COVID’s impact generally and not tying in specific case outcome data.
Alarming South Carolina DUI Statistics
According to data released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in early 2022, alcohol-related deaths spiked 14% from 2019 to 2020 in the nation while vehicle miles traveled decreased by 11%. South Carolina also had a 14% increase in alcohol-related deaths, rising from 276 fatalities in 2019 to 315 in 2020 despite a 7% decrease in miles driven. This once again put us as 10 th highest in drunk driving fatalities and 4 th highest on a population rate basis. Sadly in 2021, South Carolina had more overall traffic fatalities than any year in our history.
2
THE IMPACT OF COVID
Below, we share findings from our conversations with local stakeholders, with some of our own observations included based on our court monitoring work.
Law Enforcement Shortages
During the peak of COVID, many law enforcement agencies across South Carolina reported an average of a 20% reduction in staff. This heavily affected DUI enforcement, especially in smaller municipalities. In several instances, officers would have to cover other areas and had no time for proactive DUI enforcement. This would include the inability to hold traffic safety checkpoints, and the inability to participate in multi-jurisdictional joint efforts that have high visibility. With increasing turnover rates, the amount of experienced law enforcement officers is decreasing. This causes a heavy impact, especially on DUIs, because these cases are some of the most difficult to enforce correctly and prosecute. We are frequently told about how even strong DUI officers began by making many mistakes. With newer officers writing more DUIs, they may not have the extensive training and experience that could lead to more prosecutable cases. Our stakeholders also talked about how these shortages expanded into the correctional facilities. This causes an additional problem as to how offenders are being booked, held, and sentenced once law enforcement is able to make a case and arrest.
Prevalence of Impaired Driving
At the time of our 2021 stakeholder roundtables, we did not have the newest data points included above. However, at that time the officers did perceive an increased in impaired driving during the pandemic, which we now can confirm. Again, this was in spite of a drastic decrease in driving for many months of the year as things were shut down. They also spoke of a perceived uptick in daytime DUI arrests. Among the reasons they speculated why this could be the case included a high rate of unemployment leading to more free time, stimulus checks being spent on alcohol and drugs, and a nationwide mental health crisis caused by lockdowns and COVID quarantines. Some combination of factors has equaled a recipe for disaster on our roadways.
Jury Trials: “The best tool has been taken from us”
One of the main DUI prosecution issues caused by the COVID pandemic is the massive backlog of pending cases. Courts were closed in South Carolina for multiple periods throughout 2020 and 2021 due to COVID restrictions and lockdowns. Some courts in South Carolina did not resume normal traffic court until early in 2022. This has led to a backlog of thousands of cases and a jury trial roster nightmare.
3
Prosecutors emphasized that jury trials or the threat of a jury trial is their best tool when it comes to prosecuting DUI cases. With all of the COVID-related court closures , the prosecutor’s tool of a jury trial was largely taken away for large stretches of time, especially in a county like Richland County where they suspended regular court proceedings the longest. Taking away the option of jury trials has caused a major backlog in cases in most counties. One upstate county reported that they had more than 2,100 pending jury trial cases. While delay tactics were already a common tool of the defense, this has taken that situation to an all-new level. Defense attorneys can request a jury trial in their case knowing that prosecutor will have to offer a plea deal or the case will drag on for perhaps years while waiting to get on the trial docket. Our stakeholders said that it became very easy for the defense to use the word “COVID” in almost any way and continuances, maybe multiple ones, were easily granted, dragging the case even further along. In our previous court monitoring reports, we included convincing data that shows the longer the case goes on, the less likely it is to get a guilty disposition. Before the earlier stages of the pandemic, when infection rates were rising but courts were still operating, some prosecutors said their community had a hard time getting jurors to show up. Either the jurors were being diagnosed with COVID, were in quarantine due to a close contact, or were simply afraid of being in close proximity to other people. Some of this still existed once courts reopened. Only some courtrooms in the state were big enough to accommodate a full jury with the social distancing requirements even if there was a desire to begin trials again.
Backlogs: “Feeling the Pressure”
We heard multiple accounts that some judges were uncomfortable with the massive backlog of cases and were pressuring prosecutors to move cases as quickly as possible. When cases need to move fast, plea deals are very likely. Sometimes cases are just dismissed completely to keep the pipeline moving. After speaking with multiple officers and prosecutors, they reported that there was a perceived uptick in judicial dismissals during bench trials or motion hearings. Most of the officers and prosecutors we spoke with indicated that despite the backlog and the pressures that came with that, they were not changing their typical practices of what cases they would plea down and which they would refuse to do so. However, there were other comments made that indicated something had to be done with the impossible situation of no trials and growing backlogs, implying that there were plea arrangements being made that might have not been offered in previous times. The conviction rate data MADD collects through court monitoring may eventually be able to speak to this in time. However, looking at case disposition numbers for just 2021 would be misleading. Two of our counties had an incredibly high conviction rate for the cases that were adjudicated. However, this was because that of the cases that were finalized, only the strongest cases and those where the person pled guilty moved. Any case where someone would not plead
4
guilty is pending future action, creating the false impression that almost all cases are ending as convictions.
Continuing to Move Cases
While COVID created all sorts of challenges, attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement were sometimes able to find creative ways to move cases despite court closures. During the closures, some prosecutors spent a lot of time watching videos, evaluating them, and determining what, if anything, would be picked apart by the defense. This moved a lot of cases because prosecution was able to weed out weak cases that would best be handled via some sort of plea versus a trial. Very strong cases could be communicated to the defense as such in hopes of getting a guilty plea. Another method used were status conferences. During these conferences the prosecution and defense would meet, sometimes virtually and sometimes in person, to discuss cases and what would be the best plan of action to adjudicate certain pending cases. Having these conferences cut down on the number of continuances needing to be granted and was especially helpful on prosecution friendly cases. A third method that was used to move cases was to have defendants submit guilty pleas via affidavit. Courts even waived the requirement to have the affidavits notarized, which increased convenience and ensured COVID health and safety precautions were being maintained. Several counties also accepted a high amount of Driving with an Unlawful Alcohol Concentration (DUAC) pleas. This benefited the prosecution because the charge carries equivalent consequences to a DUI, while also sometimes being perceived as a benefit by the offender because they can say they did not get a DUI. Note: MADD South Carolina counts a DUAC as “guilty” just like a DUI in our court monitoring reports because the penalties are equivalent. Another way some prosecutors moved cases, though this is not completely specific to the COVID era, was to offer a reckless driving plea but with additional sanctions that mirror some of what the person would have received if they had been convicted of DUI, most notably completion of ADSAP (Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program). ADSAP also includes an assessment of possible substance misuse treatment needs. Sometimes a MADD Victim Impact Panel (VIP) was also offered. While MADD recognizes these sanctions added onto a reckless driving plea are better than a “normal” reckless driving conviction and DUI convictions can often be difficult to get, we still urge caution around this approach as it is important to try to get DUI convictions whenever the facts of the case warrant that and any tendency to easily plea cases down without even heavier sanctions, like including participation in the ignition interlock program, is worrisome.
5
Lighter Penalties
Another outcome discussed from the COVID 19 pandemic was lighter or looser penalties with both guilty pleas and pleas to lesser charges. MADD’s in -court and online monitoring of cases would support this perception. We are seeing (1) an increase of “time served” cases and less jail time and (2) lower fines and flexible payment plans. Judges seemed very hesitant to issue jail time as a penalty because even if the offender was put in jail, they would be released soon after due to overcrowding and COVID exposure risk. With more people out of work, we are also seeing judges and prosecutors lower the fines and offering more than the usual 30 days to pay. Judges seemed particularly lenient on pro se defendants. Some jurisdictions are even refusing to accept guilty pleas from a pro se defendant until they consult with an attorney. One municipal court is showing an hour-long video on pro se rights before their monthly DUI court begins.
Technology In the Courtroom
Another result of court closures, health, and safety concerns during COVID was that technology in the courtroom became a big topic. After extended court closures, Chief Justice Beatty signed an executive order on August 27, 2021 granting the use of remote communication technology and enhanced remote communication technology in the courtroom. This technology would include the use of conference calls, Zoom, WebEx, Microsoft Team or any other form of technology that allows audio or both audio and video to be shared. This was a significant initiative, as the backlog of court cases had only been growing since the start of COVID. During this time, prosecutors were under heavy pressure to move cases, but their hands were tied due to ongoing COVD rules, regulations, and restrictions. Allowing the use of technology in the courtroom relieved a lot of this pressure and allowed for a way to move some cases. However, the order did allow for judges to use their own discretion, so while many judges took advantage of the opportunity to still hold court and move cases, some judges did not. MADD is hopeful that even post-COVID technology will still be allowed to be used. Compared to pre-COVID practices, the use of technology can still assist in moving cases more quickly. For instance, if a key witness or expert or victim, especially one who does not live or work in the community, is needed to testify, it seems remotely participating is immensely less costly and more convenient with little downside.
6
A NEW FOCUS ON IMPLIED CONSENT HEARINGS
In light of the increased challenges of obtaining convictions from the impact of the pandemic, some agencies began taking a closer look at the implied consent component of a DUI arrest. Implied consent laws refer to the fact that when someone obtains a driver’s license, they agree to provide a breath sample to law enforcement if suspected of impaired driving. However, people do have the option of refusing in the moment, but that comes with a penalty — an automatic six- month license suspension. In South Carolina, we allow those who have had their license suspended for refusing, or for blowing over a .15 BAC, to keep driving if they contest the suspension and apply for a Temporary Alcohol Restricted License (TARL). It is a $200 fee to challenge the license suspension, and a $100 fee to get the TARL. Eventually, ranging from a few weeks to a few months, they will have a hearing before an administrative hearing officer, who are employees of the Administrative Law Court, to determine if the officer had proper justification for the traffic stop, followed all proper procedures, and the license suspension was correctly issued. The implied consent hearing is a separate process from the criminal case to determine whether the person broke the law by driving impaired. In an implied consent hearing, the standard of proof is “preponderance of evidence” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There are fewer relevant aspects of the arrest that the officer should need to speak to compared to the criminal case. Also, while in South Carolina the video recording of the arrest is crucial to a conviction, it is not relevant in an implied consent hearing. In fact, the criminal case could be dropped, but someone could still have their license suspended for refusing. Implied consent hearings are common as SLED data tells us that 41% of the people who were asked to give a breath sample upon arrest for DUI in 2020 refused. If the arresting officer does not attend the hearing to articulate the necessary information about what led to the refusal and suspension, then the suspension is overturned, and the person never actually loses driving privileges for six months. Some suspensions are overturned even if the officer, perhaps with a prosecutor, appears and makes their case, but most suspensions are overturned because the officer does not attend. This is not uncommon. There have been long been complaints by law enforcement officers that implied consent hearings are held at inconvenient times (typically in the morning and many officers who write DUIs work nights), have to be attended outside of paid work hours, and are sometimes used by the defense to obtain information that is outside the scope of what an administrative hearing needs to cover (“fishing expedition”), giving them a possible edge on the criminal ca se. Therefore, some officers do not attend all implied consent hearings, and some have stopped attending altogether.
A New Approach to Implied Consent Hearings: Goose Creek Police Department
When criminal courts first shut down for an extended time for COVID-19, administrative hearings also were paused for a time, but administrative hearings began again after a few weeks, much sooner than criminal courts reopened. For the Goose Creek Police Department (GCPD),
7
this reality caused them to take a closer look at their emphasis on how they approached implied consent hearings, especially as it became apparent that those arrested for DUI were going to have a long time before they faced any consequences with the court closings and inevitable backlog that would be waiting when they reopened. Previously, the agency’s officers did not have positive experiences with the implied consent hearings. They often lost when the accused had a defense attorney present, and they felt that the hearings went outside the scope that they should be limited to, which was sometimes was used against them in the criminal case. After discussion and planning, GCPD and their prosecutor for DUIs decided that they would begin attending all implied consent hearings and doing all the necessary preparation to make a solid case to uphold the suspension. There were a few major reasons for the change. One was that it was viewed simply as the right thing to do. Refusals should lead to license suspensions as outlined in the law, and it sends a message to the community that impaired driving offenses will be taken seriously, specifically countering the narrative that “don’t blow” is a smart tactic for those arrested that will come with no consequences. Additionally, focusing on implied consent hearings made it much more likely that someone who refused would face some sort of penalty, a license suspension, in the short-term due to the criminal case delay. Also important, it created leverage to negotiate DUI guilty pleas, meaning that some defendants would agree to plead guilty to the criminal DUI charge if the agency would not attend the implied consent hearing, sparing the individual the license suspension on the refusal. Given the difficulty of getting a DUI conviction in our state, this is an understandable approach. In some cases where the criminal case had some challenges that made getting a conviction questionable, the focus on implied consent hearings resulted in a plea with the defense where the accused received a reckless driving on the criminal side but withdrew their request to have the license suspension upheld. Even in this situation, the final outcome may have been preferable to the previous likelihood of the reckless driving plea and no license suspension. (Note: MADD’s preference would ultimately be that license suspensions are replaced with a period of driving permissions being granted but with an Ignition Interlock Device for the best results for public safety.) Another key benefit to focusing on implied consent hearings is the experience it provides law enforcement officers in courtroom testimony, especially as it may improve future testimony in criminal cases. In some areas of our state, it is very common for officers to have to prosecute their own DUI arrests. Even when they do not prosecute the case, their testimony on the traffic stop and arrest is a key part of the success of the criminal case. Even many of today’s most effective and passionate officers that make DUI arrests will say that they got “beat up” by defense attorneys in their first few cases when they had little experience in courtroom testimony. However, these early challenges often were motivating for those officers to get better in their testimony and have greater success in the future. At the same time, these same challenges certainly deter many officers from making DUI arrests to avoid similar unpleasant experiences. Implied consent hearings require somewhat similar testimony skills but have a more limited scope of what is being testified to and is generally considered to be “lower stakes” as the criminal case is not directly at risk in an implied consent hearing. If a renewed focus on implied
8
consent hearings had just the impact of improving offi cers’ DUI testimony skills alone, it would be well worth considering.
Reasons to Consider Focusing on Implied Consent Hearings
• Sends a “tough on DUI” message to the community and counters the perception that refusing to blow means no consequences for someone arrested • Ensures that a timely penalty will be experienced by someone refusing, even if the criminal case will take a long time to be resolved • Increases leverage to work out pleas, typically with a guilty for the DUI but not pressing for the license suspension • More pleas mean less work down the line on the criminal case, a smaller case backlog, fewer jury trial spots needed, and a faster resolution, which is important because cases get less likely to end as convictions the longer they drag on • Provides valuable courtroom experience to officers It is important to note that there were discussions and preparation that went into this policy change. It took buy-in from the chief down to the officers who would have to show up for the hearings — sometimes multiple officers for one arrest if different officers were involved in various phases like the traffic stop, the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST), and collecting the breath sample via the Datamaster instrument. Also, for an arrest stemming from a public safety checkpoint, the ranking officer at the checkpoint may be needed to testify to certain aspects of the justification for the checkpoint. Key to the change was having discussions with the administrative hearing officer on how things could be made more convenient for the arresting agency while still respecting the practices of the court. For example, there was some accommodation to grouping together an officer’s cases so they may need to appear in court on fewer dates and understanding there may need to be continuances under certain conditions while the court also clarified some things that they would not grant continuances for. This accommodation is not completely uncommon for the hearing officers as they already often try to be mindful of defense attorney’s schedules when they have multiple cases before the court. Additional training and support by the GCPD prosecutor was needed to make sure that officers were well prepared and each case was handled thoroughly. Some of the training/coaching areas were: reminding officers that the standard on administrative cases is only preponderance of evidence (50.1%) rather than “beyond reasonable doubt,” clarifying what are the limited areas of testimony that should be relevant and how to handle things if the defense tries to go outside that scope, to write quality arrest reports and be mindful of what they say because inconsistencies can be used against them in the criminal case, and also identifying those cases that perhaps should not be pursued if there were flaws in the arrest or implied consent procedures.
9
The GCPD also acknowledges they had to show discretion and be fair in how they approached the hearings. If the case is not solid, they would acknowledge that and negotiate appropriately. An important final step was making sure that the agency demonstrated sincere appreciation for the officers taking part in this change in approach and continued to try to make preparation and participation as convenient as possible. Requiring participation without working to overcome some of the obstacles could even have the opposite result of disincentivizing officers in writing DUIs. Because of commitment and follow through to this new approach, the GCPD saw the desired results. Area defense attorneys now know a license suspension is a high certainty on a refusal as the agency has not lost any hearings, though the attorneys were initially asking “Why are you here?” in the early stages of the change because that had not been the norm. The agency began getting more guilty pleas on the criminal charges. Any initial skepticism from officers began to decrease as the results became apparent. Undoubtedly, more preparation by the officer and prosecutor was needed to make a strong case at the implied consent hearing but 1) that work often saved time on preparation for the criminal case later and 2) there were fewer criminal cases to prepare for because of the increased guilty pleas. Now that officers have established themselves at being proficient, the city has the leverage in negotiations with the defense. In fact, on some cases, the officer does not even have to attend the implied consent hearing because the prosecutor and defense have worked out a resolution in advance. There also have been instances when the officer has arrived to court just to find that the defense will not push for a dismissal of the suspension, but that should be viewed as a “win” rather than a waste of time.
Beginning a New Approach
After consulting with multiple individuals experienced in implied consent hearings and learning more about the positive impact of emphasizing thorough attention to those hearings, MADD South Carolina suggests that all law enforcement agencies and their prosecutors should consider reexamining how they approach implied consent hearings. Here are some of the steps we suggest: 1. Consider the positive benefits of an increased emphasis (see the section above “ Reasons to Consider Focusing on Implied Consent Hearings ”) 2. Engage leadership and all involved parties in the discussions for overall buy-in 3. Hold discussions with your hearing officer and how they may be able to be more accommodating to the demands of officers’ schedules while respecting the processes of the court. Define what are acceptable reasons for a continuance request by the prosecution. 4. Consider any means of accommodating or recognizing officers for what initially be perceived as an increased burden. This could include paying them for their time spent on these hearings, publicly appreciating officers, shifting their hours to allow for implied consent hearings, or giving other means of flexibility with their other responsibilities so it i s not just “more” that is being asked.
10
5. Identify all available tools to assist officers in their preparation and testimony. This would likely include more training with their prosecutor and utilizing tools available from the DMV (implied consent hearing checklists) or the Highway Patrol (checklist for proper documentation to demonstrate legitimacy of a checkpoint, which can be challenged in an implied consent hearing). Utilize assistance from the state’s Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor if needed. 6. Develop a written policy for the agency so everyone is on the same page. Define the parameters around how pleas will be worked out. 7. Communicate clearly about the new intention to consistently attend implied consent hearings to everyone that should be informed, which could include the hearing officer and area defense attorneys. 8. Implement the plan, adjusting strategies as needed and making training and coaching a regular occurrence. 9. Maintain strong internal communication after implementation begins, including ensuring that the officers and prosecutors are both aware of the hearing schedules and status of discussions with the defense. 10. Be prepared to appeal unfavorable implied consent rulings when there is a strong feeling it should have been handled differently. Going forward, MADD encourages the courts holding implied consent hearings to consider incorporating technology more as is happening in other types of court proceedings. Holding some hearings virtually or having some participants participating remotely could be even more accommodating to officers with their conflicting responsibilities.
MADD South Carolina’s Court Monitoring Program and the printing of this report is funded by the Office of Highway Safety and Justice Programs (OHSJP) of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety (SCDPS).
11
APPENDICES
Provided courtesy of South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles and/or South Carolina Highway Patrol
• Checklist for officers for implied consent hearings
• Checklist for before a public safety checkpoint
• Checklist for after a public safety checkpoint
• Checklist of implied consent testimony for arrests associated with a public safety
checkpoint
12
Refusal Hearing Testimony Checklist
1. Lawfully Arrested? a. Evidence of Driving
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
b. A motor vehicle ____________________________________________________
c. In South Carolina ___________________________________________________
d. While under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both
e. To the extent their faculties to drive are materially and appreciably impaired.
Driving Observations What first caught your attention? ___________________________________________________
What about their driving indicated impairment before you ever spoke with or saw the driver? □ Weaving □ Touching dashed line, solid line, or both □ Speed of vehicle odd □ Stopping at odd times □ No headlights on at night □ Other
Enter a copy of your dashcam or bodycam video into evidence.
What was the reason for the stop? __________________________________________________
Initial Contact Observations
□ Odor of Alcohol or drugs □ Red eyes □ Confusion answering routine questions □ Unsteady on feet □ Slurred speech □ Admits drinking alcohol or using drugs □ Difficulty locating driver’s license, registration, or insurance information? □ Glassy eyes □ Other? _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
HGN
□ Lack of Smooth Pursuit
□ One eye □ Both eyes □ One eye □ Both eyes □ One eye □ Both eyes
□ Distinct and Sustained Nystagmus at Maximum deviation
□ Onset of Nystagmus prior to 45 degrees
Walk & Turn □ Failed to maintain position during instruction phase
□ Wrong number of steps □ Stepped off the line □ Raised arms to balance
□ Failed to walk heel-to-toe □ Forgot how to perform the test
□ Improper turn □ Unsteady on his/her feet □ Other? _____________________________________________________________________
One Leg Stand
□ Put foot down during the test
□ Swayed side-to-side or front-to-back
□ Raised arms to balance
□ Hops
2. Driver given a written copy of and verbally informed of their implied consent rights?
Enter a copy of the Implied Consent Rights into evidence.
3. Did the driver refuse to submit to a test pursuant to S.C. Code 56- 5-2950?
□ Verbal Refusal
□ Failed to Blow an Adequate Sample
□ Did not Attempt to Blow □ Refused Mouth Check □ Acted Unruly During Test □ Intentionally Vomited
□ Pretended to Blow
□ Refuses to Cooperate or Interferes with Test □ Driver Delays Administration of Test □ Refuses to Rinse mouth after Vomiting
□ Smoked During Observation Period □ Ingested Prohibited Substances During the Observation Period □ Refused to Answer Biographical Information Required for Test □ Intentionally Caused the DataMaster to have an Error or Failure
Enter a copy of the BA room video into evidence. Enter a copy of the MV-65 Notice of Suspension into evidence.
SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL
PRE-CHECKPOINT REPORT
A separate report should be filed for each checkpoint.
Date:
County:
Troop/Post:
Checkpoint Location:
Checkpoints shall be conducted in accordance with SCDPS Policy No. 300.03 (Roadblocks). Additionally, the supervisor must identify applicable criteria associated with the checkpoint's location and purpose(s):
Primary safety or enforcement purpose(s) for establishing checkpoint (check all that apply):
DUI
License violations
Registration violations
Insurance violations
Vehicle equipment check (excluding seat belt usage violations)
Reason(s) for choosing checkpoint location (check all that apply):
Citizen complaints in the area (attach corresponding empirical data)
Number of tickets issued in the area (attach corresponding empirical data)
Location among the
areas identified on the attached Alcohol-Related
Collision Assessment based on a review of relevant empirical data
Other:
(attach corresponding empirical data)
Reviewing Supervisor
Date
Attachment(s)
SCHP-E-008A REV. 3/2015
Policy 300.03 (Roadblocks)
SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL
POST CHECKPOINT REPORT
A separate report should be filed for each checkpoint location.
Date:
County:
Troop/Post:
Start Time:
Finish Time:
CAD#:
Checkpoint Location:
Officers Present
Associated Agencies
This is report number
for the month .
Violation
Number
Driver’s License Violations Vehicle License Violations Equipment Violations Driving Under Suspension Driving Under The Influence Illegal Alcohol Cases Illegal Drug Cases Unlawful Weapons Cases Child Restraint Cases Safety Belt Violations Other Non-Moving Violations Other Moving Violations
Total Number of Violations
0
Total Officer Hours Involved:
_________ Total Number of Arrests Made:
__
Total Number of Tickets Issued:
Total Number of Warnings Issued:
__________
Checkpoint Supervisor Signature
Date
SCHP-E-008B REV. 12/2017
Policy 300.03 (Roadblocks)
Checkpoint Hearing Testimony Checklist
This checklist should be used in conjunction with one of the other administrative hearing testimony checklists when your DUI was initiated through a checkpoint.
Primary case for checkpoint testimony is Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (1990).
What empirical data to you have to support the effectiveness of the checkpoint?
How long were most driver’s stopped at this checkpoint? -In other words, how long, on average, was a driver that had no issues stopped at the checkpoint?
What type of checkpoint was this?
□ Driver’s License □ Proof of Insurance
□ Proof of Vehicle Registration
□ Driving Under the Influence (Not Favored by Courts) □ General Crime Suppression (4 th Amendment Violation under Grooms case, 378 S.C. 615) □ Other: ______________________________________________________________________
Was the checkpoint posted in a place that allowed driver’s an opportunity to avoid the checkpoint if they wanted (via U-turns or turnoffs)? ______________________________________________
If yes, describe: _________________________________________________________________
Was the checkpoint and its’ location advertised in anyway beforehand? _____________________
□ TV
□ Radio
□ Social Media
□ Press Release
How many vehicles came through the checkpoint? _____________________________________
How many tickets, citations, or warnings were issued at this checkpoint? ____________________
(I recommend you break these down by general type, for example, DUS, Seatbelt Violations, Cell Phone Use Violations, etc…)
Why was the checkpoint established at this specific location? _____________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ (You need to be able to provide some evidence to support your reasoning here. For example, if your agency has had a high number of traffic related arrests very near the location of the checkpoint with the last 6 months or year that supports picking that particular location for a checkpoint. You would also want to present some information regarding why you chose that particular date and time for the checkpoint in that location. Again, if your agency has had a high number of traffic
related arrests very near the location of the checkpoint on Friday and Saturday nights between midnight and 2 a.m. vs. other days of the week and other time periods, then that data would support a Friday night checkpoint from midnight – 2:00 a.m.) How did you determine which vehicles to stop? ________________________________________ Random stops at checkpoints are disapproved by Delaware v. Prouse . So, have some sort of pattern, whether every car, every other car, or every 3 rd car. Only deviate from this pattern if you have specific reasonable suspension or probable cause to do so for a specific vehicle.
Did the checkpoint site have a safe area for stopping drivers and provide sufficient sight distance for the driver to come to a stop safely upon approaching the checkpoint? _____________________
If yes, describe: _________________________________________________________________
Did the checkpoint site have sufficient adjoining space available to pull a vehicle off the traveled portion of the roadway if further inquiry of a driver was necessary? _________________________
If yes, describe: _________________________________________________________________
How many drivers were detained for further inquiry? ____________________________________
How many drivers were detained for further inquiry related to a possible DUI charge? __________
Key: If you get an objection at any point during this testimony, that is not overruled, skip that one part of your testimony and continue with the rest of your testimony. For example, if an objection is made regarding your testimony as to how the checkpoint location was selected and that objection is sustained, skip to the very next section, how you determined which vehicles to stop. Then, at the very end of all your testimony, tell the Hearing Officer you would like to “ proffer ” the rest of your testimony. A proffer is testimony you are putting in the record so SCDMV can appeal the case based on your trying to admit certain testimony and the Hearing Officer mistakenly not allowing it to come in. Without the proffer, SCDMV will lose the appeal. Your proffer will be the testimony you would have offered if the objection had not been made. Using our earlier example of an objection to your testimony as to how the checkpoint location was selected, you would do the following: 1) Complete your checkpoint testimony as set forth on this checklist; 2) Provide your testimony from the administrative hearing checklist that pertains to your case (for example, the refusal checklist); 3) Then, you would tell the Hearing Officer you want to proffer some testimony. You would then testify regarding how the checkpoint location was selected. ***Any testimony you provide after saying you are proffering testimony, is testimony that is not be considered evidence in the hearing. This testimony is being provided solely for the benefit of an Appellate Court and will not be considered by the Hearing Officer in making his/her ruling. If an Appellate Court determines the Hearing Officer errored in not admitting that testimony, then the Appellate Court will weigh your testimony as evidence and issue a factual ruling on it in the appeal. This helps us win appeals and helps you to not have to appear for a new hearing if SCDMV wins an appeal.***
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software