Legal Opinion

State v. Henkel

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided July 10, 2013No. Appellate Case No. 2011-184986; No. 5159PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLockemy, J.

Gregg Henkel argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss his indictment for driving under the influence (DUI). Henkel contends the South Carolina Highway Patrol (SCHP) failed to comply with section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code (2006), which requires the arresting officer to provide videotaping of the defendant’s conduct at the incident site. We reverse.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Around 1:00 a.m. on January 19, 2008, Lillie Chastain called 911 and reported a motorist driving a truck erratically on I-385 in Greenville County. Chastain followed the truck until it hit a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
  2. State v. BaccusSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  3. State v. QuattlebaumSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  4. Town of Mt. Pleasant v. RobertsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
  5. City of Rock Hill v. SuchenskiSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. HenkelSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2015
  2. State v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2014
  3. State v. HenkelSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API