Did South Carolina’s DUI breath-test video rules apply to cameras supplied by a county rather than SLED?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, Orangeburg's city attorney asked whether South Carolina's new DUI breath-site video requirements applied to cameras the county had used since 1996, before SLED supplied equipment under the statute. The Attorney General's office said the statute appeared to apply only to SLED-purchased and supplied breath-site cameras.

The letter acknowledged that the statute did not expressly say non-SLED equipment was excluded. It relied on provisions making SLED responsible for equipment and requiring SLED and the Department of Public Safety to write implementation regulations. The office considered it incongruous to apply the statute to videotaping done before those regulations took effect. This was an informal opinion about the new statute's reach, not a ruling on a particular DUI case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the AG treat county-owned breath-site cameras as covered by the new rules? A: The office said the statutory provisions appeared to apply only to SLED-purchased and supplied equipment, despite no express sentence excluding other cameras.

Why did equipment ownership matter?
A: The quoted statute assigned SLED responsibility for buying, maintaining, and supplying breath-site videotaping equipment.

Did the opinion apply the statute to recordings made before regulations? A: No. The office said applying the new requirements to recording before the implementation regulations took effect would be incongruous.

Did the letter decide whether an old recording could be admitted in a DUI case? A: No. It addressed whether the new statute's provisions governed non-SLED equipment, not a particular recording's admissibility.

Background and statutory framework

The letter discussed §56-5-2953's breath-site camera provisions and the delayed effective date for implementation regulations after the 1998 act's approval. Orangeburg County had used its own cameras before the new system. The office read the equipment and regulation clauses together to answer the city attorney's question.

Citations and references

Statute: §56-5-2953.

Official title

Questioning whether the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2953 (Supp. 1998) are applicable to non-SLED provided breath site videotaping devices.

Requester

James F. Walsh, Jr., Esquire, City Attorney, City of Orangeburg

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-2-1999-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99june2walsh.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL

June 2, 1999

James F. Walsh, Jr., Esquire
City Attorney
City of Orangeburg
Post Off ice Box 627
Orangeburg, South Carolina 29115
Dear Mr. Walsh:
In a letter to this off ice you questioned whether the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. §56-5-2953 (Supp. 1998) are applicable to non-SLED provided breath site videotaping devices. You referenced that Orangeburg County has utilized videotaping devices since 1996. Section 56-5-2953 provides for videotaping at breath sites following arrests for driving under the influence. Included in the statute are provisions detailing requirements to be followed in videotaping and provisions regulating the use of videotapes. Pursuant to subsection {D), "SLED is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, and supplying all necessary videotaping equipment for use at the breath test sites." Subsection (E) provides for utilization of specified funds to equip breath test sites with videotaping devices and supplies "{b)eginning one month from the effective date of this act .... " Pursuant to subsection (F), "The Department of Public Safety and SLED shall promulgate regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this section." Section 10 of Act No. 434 of 1990 of which §56-5-2953 is a part, states that n (t) he provisions in Section 56-5-2953 (F) take effect one year after approval by the Governor." Act No. 434 was approved June 29, 1998 so the provision requiring regulations to implement §56-5-2953 is not effective until June 29, 1999. While no provision of §56-5-2953 e:kplicitly states that only SLED provided videotaping equipment can be utilized to videotape breath sites, it appears that the provis"ions of §56-5-2953 are applicable only to SLED purchased and supplied videotaping

A;;;:;ec. (!?Zo •

i
POST Ornc11Box11549

•

CoLuM01A,

s.c. 29211·1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

PACS1M1LI!: 803-253-6283

James F. Walsh, Jr., Esquire
Page 2
June 2, 1999

equipment. As referenced above, SLED, along with the Department of Public Safety, is required to promulgate regulations to implement the act effective June 29, 1999. It would appear to be incongruous to construe §56-5-2953 to be applicable to videotaping accomplished prior to the promulgation of these regulations.

I
I

This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specified question asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I am,

va{j~~
Charles H. Richardson -----Senior Assistant Attorney General CHR:kws rI