SCLAWYERSWEEKLY.COM VOLUME 20 NUMBER 10 ■
Part of the
MAY 9, 2022 ■ $8.50
network
S.C. Supreme Court: DUI suspects must be shown on video when receiving Miranda warnings ■ BY TERI SAYLOR, CORRESPONDENT terisaylor@gmail.com
vehicle accident was then called to a gas station, informed that a vehicle involved in the crash was there. At the gas station, the trooper found several officers “surrounding” defendant Phillip Lowery, who was standing near a vehicle with front-end damage. The trooper said that what he considered preliminary questioning about the accident became a DUI investigation that led to many incriminating statements by Lowery, including admitting that he
The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings requiring video recordings to visually depict a defendant under DUI charges being advised of his Miranda rights but refused to overturn a dismissal of charges against a defendant based on violations of that requirement. In a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court’s February 23 opinion was in response to an appeal by the State of South Carolina after a magistrate court dismissed DUI charges against defendant Kenneth Taylor, whose Miranda rights procedure was not shown on video when he was arrested seven years ago. On June 11, 2015, Lance Corporal R.B. Thornton of the South Carolina Highway Patrol responded to a call for assistance during a DUI stop. Thornton administered a field sobriety test, and ultimately arrested Taylor. He placed Taylor in his patrol car, sat in the driver’s seat and began advising him of his Miranda rights without activating his in-car camera. While Thornton could be heard asking Taylor if he understood the Miranda warnings, and Taylor could be heard responding, the exchange was not shown on camera. At question was the definition of the word “show.” The case proceeded to trial before a Spartanburg County magistrate where Taylor moved to dismiss
S e e S t a t e v. P a g e 7 ►
See DUI suspects Page 7 ►
Miranda violation leads to conviction reversal ■ BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com A man who was surrounded at a gas station by police, questioned in an accusatory manner, and kept from using the telephone or the restroom was involved in a custodial interrogation that required Miranda warnings, the South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled, rejecting prosecutors’ claims that the questioning was merely part of a routine accident investigation that “developed into” an impaired driving investigation.
The unanimous ruling reversed the man’s conviction for third-offense driving under the influence (DUI). Judge Paula Thomas noted in the April 6 opinion that while other evidence existed that the defendant was intoxicated, only his statements made prior to Miranda warnings—while in custody— were evidence that he was driving the vehicle that was involved in a crash earlier.
Sneaking suspicion
A state trooper responding to a
Former public defender can sue federal judiciary ■ BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyerweekly.com While sovereign immunity will limit her claims, a former federal public defender in North Carolina can pursue claims against the judiciary for failing to take immediate and effective action regarding her sexual harassment complaints, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled on April 26. The ruling partly reverses a 2020 dismissal of the lawsuit by U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young. Because the 4th Circuit is a defendant, judges from other circuits were designated to hear the
case. The three-judge panel consisted of 10th Circuit Senior Circuit Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, 6th Circuit Senior Circuit Judge Ronald Gilman, and 8th Circuit Senior Circuit Judge Michael Melloy. In a nutshell, the court found that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution secures a federal judiciary employee’s right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace. “We have no doubt, given the Supreme Court’s equivalent treatment of equal protection claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, that they should be extended to retaliation claims brought under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,” Bris-
coe wrote.
‘Quid pro quo’ harassment
Caryn Strickland, who worked for the Federal Public Defender’s Office in the Western District of North Carolina, claims that she was harassed by her supervisor, the first assistant public defender, who “lavished” her with attention, created “shadowing” activities for her exclusively, and asked her to drink alcohol with him in work settings, looking to create a “quid pro quo” arrangement. She further claims that she was retaliated against when she See 4th Circuit Page 7 ►
INSIDE VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS
VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS
COMMENTARY
Trucking crash leads to $23M global settlement
COSTCO injuries lead to $1M settlement
Has the legal system failed us? Not so PFAS-t!
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4