Legal Opinion

State v. Gordon

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided August 5, 2015No. Appellate Case 2014-001337; 27554PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Beatty

The State appeals the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the circuit court’s interpretation of section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code. The Court of Appeals found that section 56-5-2953 requires officers to record the head of the motorist when administering the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test and that Cody Gordon’s head was not sufficiently visible. The State posits that a plain reading of the statute makes no mention of the motorist’s “head.” We affirm the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the statute requires that the motorist’s head be recorded in the video; however,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. BaccusSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  2. Sloan v. HardeeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  3. Town of Mt. Pleasant v. RobertsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
  4. City of Rock Hill v. SuchenskiSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  5. Murphy v. StateCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In re Jairus J. V.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2019
  2. State v. Kenneth TaylorSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2022
  3. State v. Phillip Wayne LoweryCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2022
  4. State v. Tammy Dianne BrownCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2022
  5. State v. WaltersCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API