Hall v. SC Public Safety

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL
VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

John A. Hall,       
Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Public Safety,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Lancaster County

Paul E. Short, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-357

Submitted May 12, 2004 – Filed June
4, 2004

AFFIRMED

Francis L. Bell, Jr., of Lancaster, for Appellant.

Patrick M. Teague, of Blythewood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  John A. Hall appeals a circuit
court ruling upholding the South Carolina Department of Public Safety’s order
suspending his driver’s license for driving under the influence.  We affirm.

In November 2000, Hall was detained at a license
checkpoint conducted by the South Carolina Highway Patrol after a patrolman
detected the smell of alcohol in his car.  After Hall failed a field sobriety
test, he was placed under arrest and taken to the Lancaster Detention Center. 
Once there, Hall took a breathalyzer test which indicated an alcohol concentration
of 0.18 percent.  Because Hall registered an alcohol concentration in excess
of 0.15 percent, his driver’s license was immediately suspended.  Hall
subsequently challenged the suspension in an administrative hearing but the
hearing officer sustained the suspension.  On its appellate review, the circuit
court likewise found no error and affirmed the suspension.  

Hall asserts the following errors: 1) the circuit court
should have remanded the case for further determination by the Hearing Officer
on the issue of the reliability and admissibility of the breathalyzer results;
2) the Hearing Officer erred by failing to dismiss the charges because the Department
did not introduce into evidence the videotapes of Hall at the site where he
was initially arrested or at the breathalyzer site; and 3) the Department erred
by failing to enter individual findings for each of the factual considerations
South Carolina Code section 56-5-2951 lists as being within the scope of an
administrative hearing for a person whose license was suspended for DUI.

We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2003) (limiting appellate
modification of agency decisions to those causing prejudice to substantial rights);
S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2951(A) (Supp. 2003) (“The Department of Motor Vehicles
must suspend the driver's license … [of] a person who drives a motor vehicle
and … has an alcohol concentration of fifteen one-hundredths of one percent
or more.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2951(F) (Supp. 2003) (stating that the scope
of the administrative hearings on license suspension “must be limited to” several
specific topics); S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2953(A) (Supp. 2003) (allowing any party
to the action to admit incident site or breath test site videotapes); Cooper
v. Moore, 351 S.C. 207, 212, 569 S.E.2d 330, 332 (2002) (holding that when
the terms of a statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according
to their literal meaning); State v. Huntley, 349 S.C. 1, 6, 562 S.E.2d
472, 474 (2002) (holding breathalyzer results were admissible absent a showing
by the defendant of prejudice resulting from the use of the wrong concentration,
because “[e]vidence the simulator test was not run in conformity with Act 434
goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of Huntley’s breathalyzer results.”);
Rowe v. Hyatt, 321 S.C. 366, 369, 468 S.E.2d 649, 650 (1996) (holding
that words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting
to forced construction which limits or expands the statute’s operation); Worsley
Cos. v. South Carolina Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 351 S.C. 97,
103, 567 S.E.2d 907, 910 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding issue presented on appeal
was not preserved for review where appellant failed to raise the argument at
the trial level).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., STILWELL, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

[1]  We affirm this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.