Posted by Smart_Enough_2_Know_Better on April 22, 2008 at 12:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Belligerent drunk or ignorant jackass- either way he is getting what he deserves. If a cop pulls you over (in this case for erratic driving, which they have on video) you shouldn’t argue with him- NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. Aren’t drunk but the cop thinks you are? Shut your mouth and get a good lawyer. Sure it sucks, but guess what- yelling at the cop isn’t going to help you in ANY way.

Yes Randy, even YOU aren’t above the law. You screwed up, drunk or not. Now shut up and take your licks like a man.

Posted by Lenny on April 22, 2008 at 1:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

the problem for the senator is that he also failed the alphabet test and the counting backwards test twice... listen to how many times he goes through the forties. If you are worried about someone attacking you politically I'd suggest not driving drunk... Here's your sign

Posted by Thomas1776 on April 22, 2008 at 2:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I watched the video closely. The idiot was drunk. He was also belligerent and made it clear that if L.C. Knight is elected, the deputy would be out of a job.

In the beginning of the first video, Scott is caught flicking a cigarette which is littering.

All in all, this Senator is a complete jerk, acts like a hillbilly redneck with no real brains, and thinks he is above the law. Typical mentality of many in we have in Columbia.

I say throw the book at him!

Posted by Thomas1776 on April 22, 2008 at 2:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW. Scott and Senator Glenn McConnell are real close friends.

Will McConnell stick his neck to far out this time?

Posted by Reader on April 22, 2008 at 2:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The police need to invest $20 and buy each officer a better quality microphone. I can hear the officer, but the senator is barely audible.

Posted by bfrank2 on April 22, 2008 at 3:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I still haven't seen the video of the 'pursuit' so I can't comment on it. The sound at the traffic stop is very poor so I can't hear the mistake in the recitation of the alphabet. I find the double recitation of the numbers to possibly be contributed to nervousness. Again the sound is bad but it sounds as if he makes the mistake at the transition 40's to 30's. It is unnatural to count this way and he is doing so quickly. I have friends who are amputees and he moves just as they do in the middle of the day stone sober. His speech is clear and concise at the police department. His demeanor reminds me of an older man is is very aggravated. Not pleasant or noble but understandable. I can't say I would be pleased by being told I could have an attorney and then told not now. He also requests what he feels would be an impartial officer administer the test and is told OK but only after they do it. He then takes the test and is told that he has refused it. Huh? I can't hear much of the traffic stop but I can hear him blowing on that machine quite well. I would tend to believe that the machine is faulty. I wish that they would have allowed a Highway Patrolman to administer the test so that there would have been no doubt as to its reliability. I didn't witness any threatening moves and his position on the Sheriff's race is well known. I don't want to believe that the deputies are crooked but I can believe that in striving not to be prejudicial for someone, they may go too far in the other direction. I am sure that more information will be forthcoming in the near future. I know I will be attacked by some on here for this but I am going to withhold condemning him until I see more information.

Posted by lillycollette on April 22, 2008 at 3:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote: “Joye said it would be wrong to interpret Scott's need to lean on the vehicle caused by alcohol. He said the video "reveal normal walking and standing patterns for an amputee, including leaning against the vehicle for support."

Strictly out of curiosity -- did Scott have a known med. history of poor balance on his prosthetic leg and had his physician recommended a cane or crutches?

Posted by Harpo on April 22, 2008 at 3:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't believe a state senator, even one from South
Carolina, doesn't know the alphabet or how to count
backward. While it's been attested that he drank only
two cups of wine at the church, it appears that he drank
more at home before setting out on his mission to promote
himself before the voters.

Yes, senator, you don't know what you'll look like until
your picture is taken. Now we all know what you really
look like. I believe you drove among the rest of us while
drunk, senator; I'm convinced by your behavior on the
videotape. I have no sympathy for you and you will never
get my vote.

You owe us some money and that drivers license for a while.

Posted by Ron_Godzilla on April 22, 2008 at 4:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

McConnell said, "I am waiting on all the facts to come out. What do the videotapes show? ... To hear his conduct is belligerent would be out of character from what I know. Very soft-spoken, easy-going is how I know him."

SHAME ON YOU GLENN MCCONNELL! SHAME ON YOU!! You actually defend the actions of this dumbass redneck piece of crap. Just another example of the good ole boy redneck politics making SC the laughing stock of the country.

Governor Sanford why have you not removed Mr Scott from his public duties? You were quick to do so with Mr Ravenel.

I think MCConnell should just go full time playing toy soldier and let QUALIFIED individuals run SC government. If I were a law enforcement official I would seriously begin to doubt the effectiveness of Mr McConnell.

Posted by moonpie on April 22, 2008 at 5:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Please Ron_God... all you have now is allegations from both sides. Let more of the facts get out. The Ravenal case is an entire different matter. There was a months long investigation into his criminal behavior. I agree Mr Scott should have some dignity and step down but we all know power is what the all crave and he can't give that up.

Posted by moonpie on April 22, 2008 at 5:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

After watching part of the video I say he'll get off. My God we really don't think Dorchester County is non political do we? They certainly have motive. Can't account for $360000. If we, the public, are so caught up in a drunk senators story maybe we won't stick to long on the missing money story??

Posted by Mayor on April 22, 2008 at 6 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am embarassed, but you can see my video. Please go to YouTube.com and enter "Best DUI ever".

Posted by Slick50 on April 22, 2008 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Joye obviously intends to try this case in the media.

I thought it quite coincidental that two of the "sponsored links" yesterday included DUI attorneys.

Posted by whalernut on April 22, 2008 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DRUNK AS A SKUNK!

DUI stands for driving under the influence.
What if this fool ran off the road and killed someones kid or family member. He has no right to put the public that elected him at risk or harms way. Resign senator you are a danger to yourself and anyone in your path.

Posted by wallytowngrl on April 22, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am sober never drink and am here now trying to say my abc's backwards. not saying he is innocent by no means, but some people cold sober cant do it and if he blew a zero on the breathilizer then what. and the way he was driving I see people every day of the week drive like that WHY??? they are on a cell phone I feel he may have been drinking but. I also wonder was he also on a RX? lot to concider here . guess we wait for a trial.

Posted by Harpo on April 22, 2008 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mayor,

Why not just give the URL and save folks a few keystrokes?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gh5a_uemynU

Mr. Joye is pretty good at what he does, but his statement
in this forum sounded a little rushed yesterday. He was
doing some PR damage control for Senator Scott and it was
interesting how he spun the facts, I thought.

I believe Scott's ranting and cursing threats at the
police department will cost him, though. Might cost Mr.
Knight some, too, when it's all done and said.

Posted by AJ on April 22, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe this state and country should look at legislation in other countries re DUI laws and powers see link for example
http://www.madd.ca/english/research/newz...

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sgt Randy Botten and Deputy Freshman Did Their Jobs Professionally on the Video.The Video shows erratic Driving,Mr Scott Missing the Number 44 when counting down.Him stumblig(which could be because of His leg).He does However speak coherently when tell them this is political and that he is not drunk.(which to me means he had some drinks).....I wish the P&C would get the facts straight before they write and article. Yesterday's paper wasn't even close.
However,I do think that This case will not be proven in court because of the what ifs..and I still believe this was political..(Ray Nash stating no one is above the law?)

Posted by tripsa on April 22, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All I have to say is field test looks pretty obvious that he is on something or intoxicated, and the officer was proffesional at his job.

the breath test is garbage, despite Scott's attitude, the testing officer looks like a rookie.

I wouldnt even consider the breath test if I sat on his jury.

I agree with Harpao though, Scott's ranting and cursing threats at the police department will cost him.

Posted by tripsa on April 22, 2008 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Still, McConnell said, "I am waiting on all the facts to come out. What do the videotapes show? ... To hear his conduct is belligerent would be out of character from what I know. Very soft-spoken, easy-going is how I know him."

Well, alcohol brings out the real you, so, if she is saying that, and he was acting like he was on video - he must have been intoxicated, out of control as it were.

Posted by abitskeptical on April 22, 2008 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas & God_...I don't see where McConnell is defending Scott. He merely stated that that Scott's behavior, as described, was out of character from from he has seen. He didn't say it didn't occur. He said he is waiting for all the facts to come out.

Admittedly, I am not sure about what he means in the statement about the probability of no sanctions if it all is true & Scott is convicted & I would like a follow up on that.

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Deputy Smith was behind the vehicle and was advised by telephone to stop the vehicle. ????

The Officers did their job Professionally.However that does not mean that someone at the Church couldn't have called Ray Nash to let him know that Mr scott had been Drinking this evening. And then a car was sent to follow him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by abitskeptical on April 22, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually tripsa, alcohol does not bring out "the real you".

If that were the case, then why are we so concerned with the effect it has on people?

As we all know, in certain amounts it causes mental impairment. I don't know about you, but the real me is not mentally impaired(although there is one poster here who would probably disagree with my statement about that!).

Posted by Early on April 22, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think he is innocent, try saying your ABC's and numbers backwards at his age, under intense scrutiny. He wanted a blood alcohol test done, he wanted a lawyer which he as well as any one on the street deserves. He does have a prosthetics which I;m sure most if not all of you don't have so how would you know about his balance? I did not see any erratic driving, I saw Nash on TV last night narrating and said "see him cross over to the other side!!" he was in a residential neighborhood with obstacles in the street.
You guys are just a lynch mob!

Posted by equaltime on April 22, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ChrisPIA...A car sent to follow him with no video.... how convienient.

Also convienient for NASH and his Inner Circle... PRESENT COMPANY INCLUDED... that the Arrest happens on the EVE of the report of missing $360,000 dollars from Nash's "PRIVATE" stash.

Who thinks Arnold Pastor is the only one who benefitted from the almost half a million dollar windfall... you can convert a lot of heathens for that kind of cash... or buy property and Boats. ect.

I bet i know a couple more who would like to keep the public scrutiny off of the missing money... anybody want to bet where they were Saturday night??? Not at a Church Auction!!!!

Posted by equaltime on April 22, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ray Nash will reap what he sows... maybe when his involvment into the missing money is revealed.. he could get a nice room with a view at Lieber Correctional Facility.. with some of his Buddies... he can teach CHRISTIAN VALUES AND ETHICS from within and cost the taxpayer 10 cents and hour.

Posted by Slick50 on April 22, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Scott should have kept his mouth shut and been courteous, just as we all learned to do when approached by law enforcement. He may be innocent of DUI, but guilty of lacking tact.

Posted by theronce on April 22, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've never heard of anyone passing the field sobriety tests. An officer once told me that some of them can be weighed towards failure by how the instructions are given (I do not know if that is true, just what he said.) I know several elderly men who would go off on the poor cop if they were stopped for what they saw as no reason or a poor reason.

Posted by charlene68 on April 22, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.....

Posted by benmarks on April 22, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"You have the right to have an attorney present during the test..."

"I want my attorney."

"You can't have your attorney now, the test has already begun..."

Wow. I feel drunk just watching the officer administer the DataMaster test.

Posted by skeeter on April 22, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know the man and the videos really don't tell me much. But...after the deputy read him his rights Mr Scott appears to invoke one of those rights (wanting a lawyer) and is denied. Period! Arresting Officer was professional but the deputy administering the BAC test was a total moron.

Posted by benmarks on April 22, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did anyone catch that his highest level of education is a GED??? And he's a senator?

Posted by ColdBeer on April 22, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't say, from the facts put out so far, if he was drunk or not. If this goes to trial, he'll be found innocent. The breath tests and his disabilities are enough to cast doubt. Doubt = Innocence (or at least it's supposed too).

He'll suffer politically because of his demeanor. He may have been justified in being pissed off, but when you're running for political office, you should know better than to act that way.

Posted by MichaelsAdvocate on April 22, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For Mr. Scott to threaten an officer with losing his job, that he has been trained to do, and is doing...

is despicable.

Posted by raregar67 on April 22, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

chalk this one up to the BAC being judge and jury while measured by a flawed human being, and possibly machine. When a defendant asks for an attorney isn't it on hold until one arrives? Juries make a much better agent for determining guilt of DUI or any crime than a machine. Finally, my bet is this officer is not state certified to use the BAC machine. That's one reason polygraph machine results are not allowed in a court of law.

Posted by SummervilleResident on April 22, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Even the attorney he hired seems confused..
Previously he said Mr. Scott was out checking on his signs. Now apparently he's out visiting supporters- who, by the way, had no idea who he was and had been in bed for 2 hours. I doubt he was visiting supporters after 11pm at night. I haven't seen the video of the erratic driving. Is this posted somewhere?

Posted by DYMO400 on April 22, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

FYI--Our lovely state legislators have tied the police officer's hands. In a DUI the cop has to read the suspect his rights during field sobriety, after his arrest, and prior to the datamaster (breath test)...However the cop does not have to allow the suspect access to his attorney until after the breath test is complete, its state law folks...go read up before you jump all over this officer...rookie or not.

Mr. Joye is very familiar with the law...he helped write it, no wonder he is going to exploit the loopholes. Way to go!

Posted by charlestonboater on April 22, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just watched the video of the breath test. Shame on you Dorchester County Police Department! Senator Scott asked repeatedly for his attorney to be present which the officer had just informed him was his right. This request was refused numerous times. His rights were clearly violated. It was obvious Mr. Scott was not drunk. Breathing a zero 3 times proves that! If this test is unreliable (as the officer performing the test suggest) then how can this same test be used as part of the proof of intoxication? The citizens of Dorchester County beware you could be next. I'd be interested to know how many traffic stops have taken place recently with a "LC Knight for Sheriff" sticker. This is nothing more than dirty politics. Hasn't Nash learned his lesson yet!

Posted by allwoman on April 22, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bad move not getting the man's lawyer.

Posted by notafan on April 22, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Last night the Joye said Scott had nothing to drink but in the video he says he had two.

Scott also says that he went home for a little while after the auction before he went to check on his political signs. Were the thity witnesses at the church with Scott during this time?

What's really sad is that Scott's attorney will go out of his way to discredit two police officiers who were just doing their job.

I wonder what all these conspiracy nuts would be saying if Scott had actually caused a traffic accident with injuries. I am sure that would be a Nash Rose conspiracy as well.

One thing to note Randy Scott's elitist attitude is far to prevelant in Dorchester County politics. Good ol boy system alive and well. I just hope everyone takes this into account come election time.

Posted by raregar67 on April 22, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a dichotomy...If you defend Sen. Scott (no relation to Dot Scott) you get bitten on the fanny by MADD and considered soft on DUI. If you attack Sen. Scott (no kin to the heir of Scott tissue) you must throw legal common sense overboard. What is not to understand about "I want an attorney now?"

Posted by notafan on April 22, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chris Pia I am curious since you were once a police officier how would you have handled the traffice stop given the video that has been releassed?

Posted by knowsfood on April 22, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Put him in jail and throw away the key! SC politicians are a joke.

Posted by ColdBeer on April 22, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know how the law reads, but I thinks it's silly that the police would have to wait for an attorney to show up before administering tests. A smart attorney would just take forever to get there, allowing the suspect to sober up.

It's even sillier to tell someone they have the right to have their attorney present during testing and then deny them the right you just told them they had.

Posted by wpc3iop on April 22, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was under the impression that if you blow zero you can't be charged...a recent case that I know about where the person blew .05 was thrown out by the judge because the law says you CANNOT charge a person at that level! Unsteady on his feet, he is an amputee...Can't say the alphabet backwards, not many people can do that SOBER (try it)... Not allowed a lawyer, that won't fly...Belligerent, I would have been too! I smell a rat here, especially since the officer called in to get direction from a senior officer before stopping a SC Senate tag...Reese Joye must be licking his chops, this trial will be a waste of taxpayer dollars!

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Notafan... If I suspected a drunk driver I would have stopped him immediately for the safety of the community.I wouldn't have run the plate before stopping him either.Or waited for a phone call to stop him. I would not have been concerned of a video or whom was driving...Safety of the community first. I Must say though I didn't have many Drunk driving arrests because of the nature of Police work I was in.I worked in addressing violent crime,illegal firearms,robbery arrests most of my career.

Posted by dmwallac on April 22, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you people serious??? Ranting??? I can't believe all the comments on here about how Scott was ranting during the Datamaster test. Do you just parrot that because that's what the headline on the story says? Get a brain of your own - and eyes and ears - and use them.

This is a guy who, while running for office, is arrested by a sherriff's dept supporting his opponent. He is read his rights and told he can have an attorney, then told he cannot. I say, whether drunk or not (and he may be), he is pretty calm given the circumstances.

Why does the officer tell him he can have an attorney, and then tell him not until the test is done. From his point of view he is being asked to do things and sign things and not allowed counsel. If the law says you cannot have your attorney until after the test then 1) why would an officer create a controntational situation by offering one and then refusing? and 2) why doesn't the officer simply answer the question by telling him the law states you must complete the test first?

There is plenty of pathetic to go around here on both sides.

Posted by charlestonnative1963 on April 22, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Typical politician. "I am above the law, I am a rich good ole boy with an accent I can do as I please" He needs to resign ASAP and dont even bother paying a lawyer. If a jury finds this man innocent the system is gone and we need to go back to England and just start all over. This is pathetic...

Posted by summerville_guy on April 22, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would the Post and Courier list the names of the officers in the original story about the senator being beligerent last night, but pull the names in this story? Seems fishy to me...

Posted by charlestonnative1963 on April 22, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh for Gods sake: McConnel needs to go home and look at HIS SUBMARINE....for which I am tired of my tax dollar paying for his pet project. IF he wants a 200 year old sub. he should buy it! I don't want to pay for it. I can't beleive he is taking up for a drunk on wheeels. Mark SAnford should seek to have Scott removed.

Posted by raregar67 on April 22, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chas1963...DUI is a very serious charge. It is a home wrecker, career killer, character assailant, and very very costly. If he is not guilty, shouldn't u wait until a verdict b-4 shooting off your fat mouth?

Posted by Smart_Enough_2_Know_Better on April 22, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think he is innocent, try saying your ABC's and numbers backwards at his age, under intense scrutiny." I agree with you, Early, we are a lynch mob. Clearly any sort of mental challenge for a man like this is unfair and something he shouldn't have to face. So I guess the job of South Carolina State Senator would be a perfect place for him to hide.

Posted by JohnS on April 22, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The cop at most should have written a careless driving ticket. Mr. Scott was checking on his signs in the neighborhood which required him to put his headlights toward the yards. This explains his right to left movement.

The SC drivers handbook does not require you to know your ABC's or to be able to count. You don't even have to know any english to drive in SC.

If the datamaster shows no signs of being drunk then he must be set free.

Posted by notafan on April 22, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John S - you need to call the Joye law firm, they may have a position for you. I guess the datamaster is a full proof test and can be manipulated to result in negative readings.

John S- what about Scott's assertion that the officiers would lose their jobs over this? I assume that is okay if you happen to support the defendant.

And thank you for the new excuse I can use when I get pulled over for swerving I can just say I was checking my polititcal signs.

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why was this car allowed to drive so long if they suspected drunk driving? How much time did it take for all these camera cars to show up? How long did it take the Phone call from Sheriff Nash to Stop this car(Chain of Command-so please don't argue this one)? How come so many Sheriffs Cars don't have working video systems?

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Deputy Smith was behind the vehicle and was advised by telephone to stop the vehicle. The vehicle then made a left turn onto Froman Drive, again struggling to maintain correct lane of travel. Deputy Smith and R/O initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle as it pulled into the driveway at 114 Froman Drive. R/O made contact with the driver and asked for drivers license, registration and proof of insurance. R/O observed the drivers behavior while waiting on the items that had been asked for. The subject was very sluggish in his movements and was not clearly audible when talking. The driver handed R/O a South Carolina DL, and a South Carolina state senate card. The driver identified as the subject listed above stated that he could not locate the insurance or registration card.

Notafan this is from the officers report.. Can you tell me whom made the order to stop him.

Posted by highclass on April 22, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This comes on the eve of the release of the audit of DCSO. Hmmmm...Notafan- Do you still support Nash? Are you willing to go down with his ship? That's is what is happening and they are trying to do anything to halt the wave. By the way this wave is Green. Sorry I couldn't help myself.

Posted by outrage on April 22, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

raregar67 - I know you will call me a liar again, but check the asterisks!
SECTION 56-5-2950. Implied consent to testing for alcohol or drugs; procedures; inference of DUI.

(a) A person who drives a motor vehicle in this State is considered to have given consent to chemical tests of his breath, blood, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol or drugs or the combination of alcohol and drugs if arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. A breath test must be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer who has arrested a person for driving a motor vehicle in this State while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. At the direction of the arresting officer, the person first must be offered a breath test to determine the person's alcohol concentration. If the person is physically unable to provide an acceptable breath sample because he has an injured mouth, is unconscious or dead, or for any other reason considered acceptable by the licensed medical personnel, the arresting officer may request a blood sample to be taken. If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is under the influence of drugs other than alcohol, the officer may order that a urine sample be taken for testing. If the alcohol concentration is eight one-hundredths of one percent or above, the officer may not require additional tests of the person as provided in this chapter.

***The breath test must be administered by a person trained and certified by the Department of Public Safety, pursuant to SLED policies.

The arresting officer may administer the tests if the person's conduct during the twenty-minute pre-test waiting period is videotaped pursuant to Section 56-5-2953(A)(2)(d). Before the breath test is administered, an eight one- hundredths of one percent simulator test must be performed and the result must reflect a reading between 0.076 percent and 0.084 percent. Blood and urine samples must be obtained by physicians licensed by the State Board of Medical Examiners, registered nurses licensed by the State Board of Nursing, and other medical personnel trained to obtain the samples in a licensed medical facility. Blood and urine samples must be obtained and handled in accordance with procedures approved by SLED.

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dorchester County Sheriff's Office report
Monday, April 21, 2008

Narrative from the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office report written and approved by Sgt. Randy Botten, who charged Sen. Randy Scott on Saturday night with drinking under the influence:

On 04-19-2008 R/O was informed by Deputy (Chris) Freshman of a possible DUI suspect. Deputy Freshman stated that the vehicle was being driven in a very erratic manner, drifting from lane to lane. Deputy Freshman stated that he ran the tag was a state senator, and that the vehicle abruptly pulled into the Bi-Lo parking lot on Boone Hill road. R/O arrived at the Bi-Lo and met with Deputy Freshman and (Deputy Alexiss) Underwood. R/O observed the vehicle sitting in the parking lot. R/O watched the vehicle for several minutes. The vehicle stayed in the parking lot with no lights on and with an occupant in the drivers seat.

R/O advised Lt. (George) Hill that the vehicle was registered to a state senator and requested a unit with a camera system be en route, due to R/O vehicle not being equipped with one. Deputy Freshman and Underwood watched with R/O. R/O determined that the vehicle may not leave and was going to make contact with the vehicle and ensure the occupant was safe. R/O advised Deputy (Adam) Smith to come to the Bi-Lo and meet to make contact with the vehicle. Deputy Freshman and Underwood were dispatched to another call and left the area. When the deputies car left the suspect vehicle started driving across the parking lot of the Bi-Lo. The vehicle crossed the entire parking lot from in front of Bi-Lo to the ditch at Orangeburg Road, some three hundred yards, nearly driving into the ditch.

***So Basically Notafan They Let Him allegedly Drive drunk again so they can videotape him? Under The Orders of Ray Nash? ****

Posted by allwoman on April 22, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If the person is physically unable to provide an acceptable breath sample because he has an injured mouth, is unconscious or DEAD"

Well, I think being dead is wonderful grounds to excuse giving a breath sample; partially because the subject is no longer BREATHING!

Posted by riddiksgirl on April 22, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ZYX easy enough to remember? WV...for west virginia, one of the worst states in America UT, the other really bad state, SRQPONMLK its our que, pee on martin luthor king (not really, I would never) JIHG dance a jig, FED...look out for the feds, and end with CBA. And NEVER follow the pen with your head...just your eyes!

Posted by TarNFeatherEm on April 22, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He was NEVER asked to say his alphabet backwards! He was only asked to count backwards and say his alphabet from A to Z. He failed both of those. If you think he can't do that because of his age should we really have him as a senator?

I guess you can ask Dorchester County Council (the people in control of the purse strings) why all Sheriffs Office Vehicles are not outfitted with cameras.

Posted by sbishop on April 22, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like Driggers is drunk. He can't even read the consent form. Scott could very well be guilty, but if the video of the datamaster test is used for evidence, he'll be Scott (pardon the pun) free.

Posted by allwoman on April 22, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The narrative does suggest that they allowed a suspected drunk driver drive drunk again just so that they could video him. And all because he was a senator. That is dangerous in itself. Why not protect us by keeping him in the parking lot and conducting the stop right then and there. Not very smart. He could have hurt or even killed someone after leaving Bi-Lo and it could have been prevented if those officers had done their sworn duty to "protect and serve" right away.

Posted by charlestonboater on April 22, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stating that Senator Scott "only has a GED" only goes to show how strong a man he really is. He was forced to drop out of high school after a hunting accident took his leg. He was out for 8 months due to the first operation to remove his leg and then another year to fully recover. The fact that he returned for his GED receives my admiration.

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TarNFeather.....It's probably the same reason why the jail cell had no locks and lighting , theft,mismanagement, and money being used to benefit the Sheriff and his management teams personal business(Police Dynamics,S&R technology etc) ...An 8,000 plus purchase order that doesn't detail anything on it was approved....Not to Mention that the purchases orders were done after the audit was announced...150,000 a year for overtime to teach Ray Nash's Character first program could have been used for this or maybe the jail funds

Posted by mosinfan on April 22, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This guy is a SC State Senator, they are the ones that write the laws WE ALL have to live by. We need to hold these folks accountable. Time for Senator Scott to become Mr. Scott again.

His conduct is reprehesnsible!

Posted by outrage on April 22, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by raregar67 (anonymous) on April 22, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
" What is not to understand about "I want an attorney now?"

BAC DATAMASTER REFUSALS(SLED Policy 8.12.26)

1. A refusal to submit to a breath test can occur in any of the following ways:

a. Subject expresses refusal to take the test after being advised of Implied Consent Rights.
b. The subject acts unruly and/or violent while the test is being administered. This includes the entire process from the time the subject comes in contact with operator till the test is complete.
**C. The subject delays the administration of the test. The test operator is not required to wait until an attorney or other individual shows up on the subject's behalf.***

Posted by notafan on April 22, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the officier used good judgement in requesting a supervising officier given the person behind the wheel. Can you imagine what would be going on now if he did not and none of this was on tape?

In Chris Pia's world all of the Sheriff officiers have been given orders to look for vehicles driven by Nash's political opponents and instructed to pull them over and fabricate charges in order to disgrace this person.

Chris why don't you have the phone records pulled and see if nash got a phone call and gave the go ahead to pull over the good senator?

Posted by DYMO400 on April 22, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dmwallac:

"If the law says you cannot have your attorney until after the test then 1) why would an officer create a controntational situation by offering one and then refusing? and 2) why doesn't the officer simply answer the question by telling him the law states you must complete the test first?"

BECAUSE THE LAW MAKES US READ THE SUSPECTS THEIR RIGHTS PRIOR TO THE TEST, EVENTHOUGH WE DO NOT ALLOW THE ATTORNEY TO BE THERE....THANK YOUR LEGISLATORS

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Notafan.. Please don't put words in my mouth. I asked a question based on Sgt Bottens Report. It's states deputy Smith was behind the vehicle and was advised by telephone tostop the vehicle.Who gave that order? After observing the Vehicle,running the Plate and finding who was the registered owner,Following the car to the Bi-lo parking lot,Watching the car for several minutes......etc
Why wait for a phone call to stop the vehicle?
Why not stop it in the bi-lo parking lot or when it was weaving?
Why bring a video car to a scene where the car was stopped?
Why not stop the car there for the safety of the public if you believed he was drunk?
Then a phone call comes to tell you to stop the car.
Any reasonable person would conclude that Mr Nash was called on this and gave the order to stop.

Posted by Lenny on April 22, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry got to point something out... He had to count backwards but say his alphabet normally, no sobreity test asks for you to say alphabet backwards that is an urban legend the fact is that someone who is impaired can't say the alphabet forward... like the senator

Posted by sunshine on April 22, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would remind everyone that just because one of Dorchester County's "finest" makes a charge it doesn't mean that the Defendant is guilty. One needs only look back a few months to the charges made against T.C. Limehouse and the statements made against him in the police report. As I recall, when the matter reached the Solicitor's Office (at Sheriff Nash's request) all charges were dropped because the Solicitor stated that Limehouse had done nothing wrong. I cannot help but wonder at the timing of this especially when it seems to be taking media attention away from the misappropriation of hundreds of thousands of dollars under Sheriff Nash's watch.

Posted by really234 on April 22, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you ALWAYS have rights to your attorney. The officer IS required to stop immediately. The law considers the REFUSAL which is also YOUR right. But in exercising that RIGHT, you relinquish your right to drive for 6 months. PERIOD.

Like it or not, Senator Scott's constitutional rights were violated. One of the BIG ONES. This is so important that our Founding Fathers included it in a SEPARATE Bill of RIGHTS. This RIGHT can not be taken away at any point NO MATTER WHAT OR WHO you are. No State Law can infringe on that RIGHT.

Posted by BillMan on April 22, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was way on the cops side until seeing the video in the datamaster room! Scott appeared to be "drunk" at the traffic stop but seemed fine in the room! That is a bad video for the Dorchester Sheriff's Office, you got the idea that the deputy administering the test did'nt quite fit in wearing a badge, very unprofessional and did'nt seem to know how to answer Scott's questions! On the other hand Scott was wrong in threatening the officer's job, don't believe that was appropriate!

Posted by BillMan on April 22, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mayor,
That best DUI video on YouTube is hilarious!

Posted by outrage on April 22, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

really234 - You have the right to an Attorney prior to questioning, he wasn't being questioned. He had the right to refuse all testing, but would have given up his privilege to drive because of the Implied Consent law.

There was no violation of his Constitutional Rights.

Posted by ColdBeer on April 22, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm.. the right to have an attorny present during testing and questioning is in the Constitution and it's even "one of the BIG ones"??

I always sucked in those classes :)

Posted by mosinfan on April 22, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No ChrisPia, only in your conspiratorial world would a "reasonalble person" believe that the Sheriff had to give the order to stop the vehicle.

I will give you credit for an earlier post where you made the comment that the officers did their jobs professionally and by the book.

Posted by mosinfan on April 22, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now, here's the question...

In the past on most of these threads concerning the DC Sheriffs Dept. and Sheriff Nash in particular...a lot of the posters are quick to point the finger at Sheriff Nash.

How about equal opportunity now...say like since Mr. Scott decided to throw his weight around and specifically made the statement that "when LC Knight is elected" no one would dare stop him or something along those lines (read the transcript of events).

This kind of statement begs the question of what kinds of promises has Mr. Knight made to people like Mr. Scott about what he is going to do if he were to get elected.

Hey ChrisPia, how about investigating this kind of stuff?? Sounds like the "good ole boy" system is already kicking in to me.

Posted by Thomas1776 on April 22, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you are legally drunk, how long does it take to sober up where you are NOT legally drunk.

The videos clearly show the deputies acting very respectful and professional in every aspect. You don't delay alcohol testing because you don't have an attorney present. If that were the case, then nobody would take the test till they found an attorney in the yellow pages. In the meantime, they sober up - duh!

GED Senator Scott acting like a complete jerk. What kind of representative is this idiot anyway?

Get rid of this redneck bubba good old boy.

Posted by mosinfan on April 22, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

really234, can you tell all of us specifically which right you are speaking of in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights consist of the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and you will not find a right to a lawyer in any of those 10 enumerated rights.

I am not disputing that we have the right to an attorney, that right comes from other laws that have been passed but it does NOT come from an enumerated Constitutional right.

Get your facts straight.

Posted by Thomas1776 on April 22, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

really234.

Cite the case law in support of your assertions that Scott's constitutional rights were violated, please.

Posted by really234 on April 22, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Outrage:
If he wasn't allowed an attorney at that point, why did the drunk sounding officer who couldn't successfully READ to Senator Scott say "you have a right to an attorney"????

As for the ranting, I am thinking he was far more tame than Ray Nash, or anyone else, would have been given the circumstances....

Posted by ginj on April 22, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not defending Sen Scott, but Deputy Driggers clearly violated his Miranda Rights.

First) While reading his rights he clearly stated Sen Scott could have an attorney present during all questioning. However, he refused to allow him to call an attorney because by reading him his rights meant the Datamaster Test had begun unknown to the Sen. Hence, Sen Scott's frustration and repeated request for an attorney.

Second) Since the breath test could be used in court against the Sen., the Deputy was in fact asking the Sen to testify against himself and still not allowing him to consult an attorney.

I'd have been totally frustrated and belligerent under those circumstances.

I'm not an attorney, JMHO

Posted by Thomas1776 on April 22, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Should we toss some gasoline on this fire now?

All public employees, public officeholders, and public members are expected to adhere to and follow the Rules of Conduct as outlined in the Ethics Reform Act. Anyone who is found guilty of violating these rules is subject to prosecution by the State Ethics Commission and the Attorney General's Office.

Posted by really234 on April 22, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Ginj, that is what i meant by Bill of Rights--self incrimmination. I believe that is the 5th?

Outrage?? the 5th??

Posted by equaltime on April 22, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

outrage

That is what she said... it WOULD be a REFUSAL and he would forfeit his Driving Privileges due to Implied Consent.. but he still had the RIGHT to STOP the test (AT ANY TIME) and see his Attorney... which he asked for and was DENIED.. His Rights WERE Violated.... Sorry....

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mosinfan... I did not say by the book. I said they were professional.That was based on the video of the field sobriety test. That is the only one I have seen and heard on the news.

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's the bottom line to the Nash supporters and Unfortunatley the deputies.
When The hierarchy of the Dorchester County sheriffs Department is perceived to be liars and Corrupt due to past mishaps,People eventually Do not believe you.
Sheriff Nash is No Longer Credible in the eyes of the public. He Should resign.

Posted by ColdBeer on April 22, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

really234, I'm not an expert on the laws and Miranda rights, so I won't say how those should or should not be handled. This situation though, doesn't have anything to do with the Bill of Rights.

If procedures were not followed properly, the whole case will be thrown out. As I said earlier, even if this does go to trail, a jury would find Scott not guilty. There's just too much doubt. The DA would never send this to trial as it'd be a huge waste of money. Well hell, I could be wrong there too. Wasting money is never a problem around here.

An ethics investigation is in order though. Scott should not have, under any circumstances, threated the job of a police officer that was trying to do things correctly.

Posted by really234 on April 22, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As my very first comment on this stated: DUKE LACROSSE? anyone remember that??? lives ruined...lives of non political citizens just like you and me.....over what? Politics.

Posted by notafan on April 22, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What about the cigarette butt that Scott threw out of the window? I guess that was a set up as well.

Chris Pia- according to your posts nothing should have happened to Scott and I guess Scott's threats to the officiers was totally warranted. We all know you have a grudge against Nash fired you for withholding information but at some point reality must set in. I wonder if your boy LC Knight will have a statement concerning this arrest? Scott's comments surely suggest that Knight would probably grant "favors" to fellow "good ol boys". Is this the type of person we want as sheriff?

So Nash and Rose are together and Scott and Knight are together. I hope Dorchester County voter's remember this on election day?

KNIGHTS new slogan vote for me and I will get you out of a DUI. I can see the bumper stickers now.

Posted by stand828 on April 22, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The moment he asked for a lawyer, the test should have ended. Since it wasn't, however, it may work in Scott's favor. I would argue that the test results should not be admitted at trial, but since he actually took the test, his license to drive shouldn't be suspended for 90 days as it normally would be for someone who refused to take it. I'm sure Reese Joye will do a fine job with this case.

Baptists drink grape juice...what kind of church auction serves alcohol?

Posted by Mayor on April 22, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is Deputy Driggers not the dumbest piece of crap ever? What a moron? When will they train these morons that they have to uphold the law more vigorously professional, or they will lose the case? How many officers in Dorchester County have college degrees? I'll bet very, very few. If you can't graduate from college, you certainly shouldn't be allowed to administer a Datamaster Breath Test. Most Reese Joye lawyers are experts at this equipment. Dumbsh-t Driggers certainly isn't. Senator Scott is an idiot, if he never said a word, and blew .000, he'd more or less be exonerated. Now he is just road kill for Mike Rose, king of multi-level marketing. Summerville deserves what they get. Are they in SC?

Posted by Harpo on April 22, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's the deal on having an attorney present during the
test: If your attorney is right there without delay, then
he or she can witness it. As time goes by, one's BAC slowly
decreases and, if the test can be delayed long enough, it
will be within legal limits when a delayed test is
administered.

Anyone can see a strategy here: you're caught driving drunk
and you invoke your right to have an attorney present during
the DataMaster test. Your attorney takes his or her sweet
time and arrives two hours later to witness it. By that time,
your BAC has returned to the legal limit and you cheat
justice. You go free to drive drunk again.

You may as well not have the test at all if that scenario
is allowed. So the deal is,

If your attorney has already been informed of your arrest
and can be there when the test begins, your attorney is
welcome to witness it. If your attorney can't be there at
the time of the test, it goes forward without delay so as
to detect the present state of intoxication.

Randy Scott's right to have an attorney present
during testing was not violated; he failed to comply with
the law.

Posted by Thomas1776 on April 22, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The following is a minimal Miranda warning, as outlined in the Miranda v Arizona case.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say canand will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

**Note: "Right ... during QUESTIONING."

The traditional symptoms of intoxication taught at the police academies are:

• Flushed face
• Red, watery, glassy and/or bloodshot eyes
• Odor of alcohol on breath
• Slurred speech
• Fumbling with wallet trying to get license
• Failure to comprehend the officer's questions
• Staggering when exiting vehicle
• Swaying/instability on feet
• Leaning on car for support
• Combative, argumentative, jovial or other "inappropriate" attitude
• Soiled, rumpled, disorderly clothing
• Stumbling while walking
• Disorientation as to time and place
• Inability to follow directions

From my understanding, administering a breath-alcohol test to an arrestee after he has made a request for, but not received, the advice of counsel does NOT violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel when a formal adversary proceeding has not yet been initiated, because the right has not attached. Dorchester County deputies were performing there investigation and seeking to substantiate evidence in the making of this case. The deputy made it clear the test had already begun. Stopping the test and allowing Scott to contract an attorney would have hindered that investigation while any blood alcohol level in Scott's system would have had time to reduce.

It appears to me that the deputies clearly followed all procedures. It always appears to me that Scott and his attorney are trying to take things out of context, perhaps even with outright lies, and put the spin on others with one goal in mind. To get Scott off the hook.

Posted by Name_Withheld on April 22, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Future Headlines:

Jury Finds Scott Not Guilty

Former Dorchester County Sheriff Nash Indicted in Jail Funds Embezzlement and for Improper Payments to "Religious Character Training Companies"

Posted by dmwallac on April 22, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DYMO400,

If you are referring to SLED Policy on refusing BAC tests (8.12.26), it simply states that it is considered a refusal if, among other things:

c. The subject delays the administration of the test. The test operator is not required to wait until an attorney or other individual SHOWS UP on the subject's behalf.

This in no way denies the accused the right to CONTACT an attorney before taking the BAC test, it simply means (for obvious reasons of time essence) that the operator is not required to WAIT for the attorney to ARRIVE. If you are talking about something else, then give me a link and I will stand corrected.

This officer created a situation by reading the rights and then telling the accused that he could not call his attorney because the test had started. How had it started? He had already pushed the button on the video recorder! WOW! The accused was further asked to SIGN something before being allowed to have any contact with an attorney.

Posted by mosinfan on April 22, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

really234, go back and read Outrage's post about about 12:30. The law specifically states that once the test has started, Law Enforcement does not have to stop the test to call a lawyer.

Get it straight.

Posted by dmwallac on April 22, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a (conspiracy) theory.

Someone at the church, or wherever the Sen had two glasses (maybe more) of wine, called the cops and told them he was driving drunk. The Sen, in fact, was somewhat impaired (though perhaps not over the legal limit). The caller and the Sheriff's Dept were supporters of Mr Rose. The cops saw him driving and he saw them. Then, according to police themselves, they allowed him to continue driving into and through a neighborhood so that the arrest could be caught on video for political reasons (being careful with the arrest of a state senator AND/OR damaging your opponent before an election). By the time they haul him in, there is no way he will test over the limit, but a hostile situation ensues in which the officers claim he refused a test they knew he would pass (or did pass, I heard him blowing on the video).

This is supported by the fact that Scott appears impaired in the arrest video and sober in the BAC test video at the station. The arresting officer claims Scott was unable to complete the countdown from 59-33 on the second attempt, which is incorrect. He counted down successfully to 39, was reminded to go to 33, then continued successfully. He was likely impaired, but within the "legal limit." Back at the test, he was coherent and, in all likelihood, completely sober. He was certainly able to read aloud quite a bit better than the officer administering the test...

Posted by allwoman on April 22, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All other things aside, I am stuck on the fact that these officers allowed a suspected drunk driver to get back on the road after they had watched him for several minutes. This, in itself, makes no sense to me. Would anyone care to explain this point?

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allwoman...It was Political.

Posted by really234 on April 22, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At any rate, what does it matter, he did the test- not once more than once. The test came back ZERO, not error. Is there anyone out there an expert on the data master to know if a bad test registers error or zero. That is the million dollar question. If in fact a bad test registers an ERROR message....DCSD is so done....

mosinfan, at this point, i have a hard time trusting anyone at DCSD.

Posted by dmwallac on April 22, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

allwoman,

Given the stance the law takes on dui, and the toll dui takes on its victims, and the firsthand knowledge police officers have of all of it, I agree. It seems crazy to let him continue driving after he had stopped just to cover their bases with video.

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They were waiting for a call from?

Posted by really234 on April 22, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Has the DCSD stated why a blood test wasn't completed? this could have been the nail in one of the coffins...Nash or Scott. Well, Since the Nash crew was in charge....

Posted by Mayor on April 22, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know what is absolutely ridiculous about this whole thing?

We all read about it and had thoughts about it.

I know I'm wasting time.

Posted by outrage on April 22, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The advisement of Miranda Rights is not required before an implied consent test.

The subject must provide a continuous breath sample, acceptable to the instrument, containing at least approximately one and one half liters.

The test starts when the operator pushes the red record button, because there is a twenty minute observation period.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am just trying to correct people who are incorrectly informed.

I have been called a liar for reciting procedures and law, when I am trying to help people understand things better.
Sorry!

Posted by raregar67 on April 22, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Outrage...I am forced to agree w/ you on the rule of law. Your right to an attorney shall not impede the BAC test. I sure don't agree w/ it though.

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know How it works down here But a Blood test is normally only taken If there is a fatality or possible fatality.

Posted by ChrisPia on April 22, 2008 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don'tknow how it works if the person arrested requests one,Though.

Posted by newspaper_reader on April 22, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lillycollete, "Strictly out of curiosity -- did Scott have a known med. history of poor balance on his prosthetic leg and had his physician recommended a cane or crutches?" Uh, were you listening??? On the video Sen. Scott says that he sometimes walks with a cane. Get all your facts straight before you call somebody out!

Posted by poli1471 on April 22, 2008 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mayor......In regards to your comment about the deputy not being college educated. Are YOU willing to pay the salary of an all college grad police/sheriffs department? If he had a college degree, he would more than likely find some other line of work. Sometimes you have to be grateful for the men and women who choose to do this job. It's not all that glamorous. Especially when pricks like you start your rants!

Posted by localboy on April 22, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

even more so Mayor, should the Sheriff have a college degree? If so there is only one candidate that you can vote for in the upcoming primary.

Posted by allwoman on April 22, 2008 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ChrisPia-

Political or not, I think these officers' heads should roll for that stupid act alone.

dmwallac-

They were being very selfish if they were thinking of covering their bases or asses with a video. Like I said before, what if Scott had run into another motorist or pedestrian while they were waiting for a flippin' camera! IDIOTS and CHIMPS!

Posted by Mayor on April 22, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All Charleston police have college degrees thanks to Greenberg. You cannot tolerate incompetence from law enforcement.

All Mount Pleasant police have college degrees thanks to common sense.

Posted by Harpo on April 22, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll second that one .. the car should have been stopped
immediately and then, if they wanted another witness, they
could have held him on site until the other officer's
arrival. They apparently allowed him to drive the car in
a dangerous fashion.

I believe 'senator' Scott was drunk and would have blown
an incriminating test if he'd complied with Driggers. I
believe he delayed as much as he could and then blew
too lightly on purpose to try to fool the machine. I fully
support the police in this EXCEPT when they allowed him
to continue to drive his car.

I don't care one whit whether all this was politically
motivated; all I care about is getting a drunk driver off
the road and punished. I don't drive with any alcohol in
my system and I SURE as hell wouldn't if I were running
for political office!

May as well pull those signs down because this doofus
isn't going to get reelected. Never should have been in
the first place.

Posted by equaltime on April 22, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guys.. an attorney can not hold up a test... but once he requests the Lawyer... he has forfeited his license because of Implied Consent.. but he gets his Attorney... NOTHING trumps a person's right to an Attorney once he requests it. I do not care how you care to spin it.. is is not Miranda....he is not FORCED to take a Breathalyzer.... nobody is... he asked for a Lawyer.. he was DENIED... the Deputy is Wrong and you wannabes will see.

and Really234 FYI Reese Joye is an expert on the Datamaster machine

And OUTRAGE for the last time Miranda is not required for Implied Consent... but that does not mean you can not refuse to take the test. he refused asked for a Lawyer and was DENIED... SORRY.. but that the fact!

Outrage.. do I need to type S L O W E R before you can comprehend what you are reading on Lawyer.com???

Posted by equaltime on April 22, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And The Deputies were NEGLIGENT... (but following orders...improper orders from Nash)) ... they had their Probable Cause to make the stop once he was in Bilo... Public Safety should be the Rule.. it is not with the Dorchester County Sherriff... What would have happened if he was "REALLY DRUNK"... pulled out of BILO into an oncoming car and an innocent family lost a Child just so Barney NASH can get some embarrasing Video... it is Pathetic... and an investigation into Sherriff's procedure should be started... hopefully this is only VIP treatment... and a real drunk would have been properly detained... i do blame the Responding officer.. he used poor judgement and followed improper orders. WHAT IF!!!!!

Posted by bm1961 on April 22, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the potential idea of a rat at the church making a call to the police about Scott being “Potentially” drunk after he leaves (fits right in with the dirty politics of Summerville). I also like the fact that in the Datamaster Breath Test, the cop does not tell Scott that he has the right to an attorney until AFTER he starts the test. When Scott then demands an attorney, the officer then tells Scott he can only have his attorney present AFTER THE TEST IS FINISHED, because he has already started the test and cant stop. Geeeze, Joy is going to have a field day with that one. The video also catches Scott offering to blow into the machine once more, but the officers ignore his request and lock him up.
I don’t doubt that Scott have a few at the church auction before he drove home, and he may have had levels of alcohol in his blood, but those levels would probably be below the legal limit if he had anything to eat and consumed the alcohol over a period of 1 to 2 hrs. Also, if 2 cups of wine will classify you as legally drunk, cops could arrest every patron of every bar in Summerville, as well as half of the patrons at restaurants that serve alcohol on any night of the week.
The video does teach you something. If you are ever pulled for suspicion of DUI in Dorchester County, ask for an attorney immediately, don’t wait until you are taken down to the station, because once there, you ain’t getting s--t.
I do know this, Summerville’s High School prom was on that night, and the police were out in full force, being highly aggressive, looking for kids who were drinking. Nothing wrong with that, if they save the life of a kid who was underage and drinking, and driving DUI ( I know they got a few) but I do know of one senior who was pulled over that night and put thru the ringer by over 6 police officers with 4 cruisers for over 30 minutes, trying to find something to book the kid for. The boy ended getting off with a warning about a bad license plate light.

Posted by idguy on April 22, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

a couple of points

1)police are taught to try and record as much of the suspected DUI's driving as possible for evidence at court. that is why they allow them to drive for a distance. it is helpful evidence. however, if you do not have it, then a defense attorney will make a big deal of it. if you do have it, he will try to pick it apart.

2)the DUI laws in this state are designed to be impossible to enforce. there is no other law in this state or nation where you are required to read miranda several times. the law is written by legislators a good deal of them being defense attorneys.

3)the DUI law states at a minimum that the datamaster test must be administered within 3 hours for dui, 2 for DUAC.

4)lastly, datamaster test come with a printed ticket readout. it records all breath test and the results. I have not seen anything in the paper or on this board about the ticket and the results on it. if the result is zero then it will say zero, if the test is invalid because there was not a strong enough breath sample then it will say invalid sample and ask if the test is to be taken again. a copy of the ticket is given to the defendant and required by law. if the attorney has this ticket and it says zero, then why has he not shown it to the media. does anybody know if he has?

Posted by outrage on April 22, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

equaltime - You obviously did not read my comments!

I did not hear him refuse to take the test, I heard him ask for an attorney. If he had said I refuse to take the test, the test would have ended, he would have been booked into the jail, and then been allowed to call his lawyer.
I don't need lawyer.com!
I am a certified BA operator!
Before you make anymore rude comments about my IQ, I have a 4 year college degree. YOU ARE MEAN! :-<

Posted by equaltime on April 22, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Outrage... he was DENIED an attorney... can we agree on that.. The Deputy said he could not have one...

Since you are an operator.. what do you do when a person asks for an attorney???? you SHOULD advise him that he ALWAYS has a right to an attorney ... but by delaying/stalling wanting his Attorney he has FORFEITED his driver's license because of Implied Consent laws...

Is that Right or Wrong...

Posted by woodrob12 on April 22, 2008 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A half drunk senator will outwit a hill billy deputy every time. If he was in the bag or not, he asked for an attorney and was refused one. Joye will win this with half his brain tied behind his back.

Posted by equaltime on April 22, 2008 at 11:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not if you believe the certified BA Operator... obviously they are trained to try to trick people in to believeing that they can not have an attorney once they begin a test. I think I see a lot of Re-Training going on.... a person under arrest told he CAN NOT see an attorney before (or even after he starts) he submits to an ASSAULT on his 5th Ammendment right to Self Incrimination... Implied Consent or NOT!!!!!!! you still can not be TOLD you can not have your attorney present!

Posted by bfrank2 on April 23, 2008 at 12:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am withholding judgment until more information comes out. I am not sold on the video that he is DUI. My lack of confidence in the DCSO's ability or motives arrives from many events, most recently the arrest of Mr. Limehouse. You will recall the condemnation of this elderly man in the postings here only to have the solicitor's office review the evidence and state that he should not have been arrested. The Sheriff's statement that he agreed with the solicitor was baffling. Why didn't he have the officer drop the case earlier? Anyway, you can see why I need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. What I would like to address here is Mr. Rose's reaction to this. He stated something to the effect that he was going to stay out of this and then commented that he wanted to investigate if the Senator tried to receive preferential treatment. These appear to be conflicting statements. In my research of the candidates, I visited Mr. Rose's website to familiarize myself with him. I was somewhat surprised to find a link to Channel 2's video of the arrest of Senator Scott. Why? The video is all over the net. I find it to be in poor taste at best. It appears as if he is taking pleasure in the pain of his opponent. After he said that he was going to stay out of it. I, personally, am not impressed. I get the feeling that the accusations of set-up may be closer to the truth than I had originally hoped.

Posted by Harpo on April 23, 2008 at 12:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm inclined to agree with that. He should have been able
to contact his lawyer before the test had begun .. but the
test should not be delayed for the arrival of the lawyer
because it's imperative to get the freshest results
possible AND that can be exploited by the lawyer easily.

The arrestee should be allowed to contact his lawyer as soon
as he arrives at the station WITHOUT delay. This is a
balancing act between individual rights and the police
being able to measure BAC as soon as possible. Also,
Driggers didn't seem to know the answers to a lot of
Scott's questions. It's like nobody had ever asked him
these questions before. He should be able to reel the
answers off and know them cold.

From what I can see in the video, the deputy did not want
'senator' Scott to have his lawyer there until much later.
He also needs remedial reading school because he
also came across as a doofus.

Posted by dlschwerin on April 23, 2008 at 12:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the start of the video ... were Mr Robert Scott flicked his cigarette bud (still lit) into the ditch area. What about charging him for littering on top of the DUI ???

In regards to the people that feel that the video is not conclusive ... listen to the fact that he said the alphabet twice and each time made the mistake (last time I checked R did not come after T). When he was counting backwards he twice missed numbers in the 40's. So EARLY --- much to your thought process ... a man that is a state senator going up for re-election ... better be able to say the alphabet (which was asked to say forward) and numbers backwards ... listen again before you make a comment.

Sorry to say ... but just the brief review of the video the officer was correct in his actions and in the field sobriety test.

Mr Robert Scott ... you should just go ahead and resign. Take your actions as a learning experience and try to help others not make the same mistake you did.

Posted by BillMan on April 23, 2008 at 1:05 a.m. (