State v. Plumley, SC: Court of Appeals (2022)

CDL holder tested positive on a verified drug test and was administratively disqualified by the Department under RCW 46.25.125. At de novo superior‑court review, the court excluded the positive test result—despite the holder’s prior stipulation and the statute deeming that result prima facie evidence—finding it irrelevant without underlying lab data. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a verified positive drug result, with proper medical‑review verification and employer testing program, is admissible prima facie evidence under the UCDL Act, and that superior court erred in exclusion. Case remanded.

Chisolm v. South Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 402 S.C. 593 (2013)

After driver’s license was suspended due to licensee’s refusal to submit to an alcohol breath test, licensee appealed. The Administrative Law Court affirmed. Licensee appealed. The Court of Appeals held that evidence was insufficient to support finding that licensee refused to take an alcohol breath test. Reversed.

South Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles v. McCarson, 391 S.C. 136 (2011)

After licensee was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and his license was suspended, licensee challenged his license suspension. The Hearing Officer for the Division of Motor Vehicles Hearings rescinded the license suspension. The Department of Motor Vehicles appealed. The Administrative Law Court reversed. Licensee appealed. The Supreme Court held that police sergeant’s observations of licensee’s erratic driving were not admissible through police officer’s incident report and testimony to establish probable cause for licensee’s DUI arrest. Reversed.

Carroll v. South Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, 388 S.C. 39 (2010)

IMPLIED CONSENT Licensee sought review of Department of Motor Vehicles’ suspension of his driver’s license for registering an alcohol concentration of .15% or greater. The Administrative Law Court affirmed. Licensee appealed. The Court of Appeals held that licensee was not prejudiced by not receiving implied consent rights in writing prior to administration of blood alcohol test. Affirmed.

Johnson v. Horry County Solid Waste Authority, 698 S.E.2d 835 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010)

South Carolina Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) manual does not carry the force of law, and thus trial court can not refer to the manual and its guidelines when instructing jury on county truck driver’s duty of care in wrongful death action against county.

Lapp v. South Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 387 S.C. 500 (2010)

Motorist appealed from decision of the Department of Motor Vehicles suspending her driver’s license for refusing to submit to a breath test. The Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings sustained the suspension, and the Administrative Law Court affirmed. Motorist appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] officer had probable cause to arrest motorist for driving under the influence (DUI); and [2] officer’s arrest of motorist for DUI did not violate statute, providing that no police officer in investigating traffic accident shall necessarily deem the fact that accident has occurred as giving rise to presumption that a violation of a law has occurred. Affirmed.

McGee v. South Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 389 S.C. 540 (2010)

Department of Motor Vehicles appealed a decision of the Administrative Law Court reversing the suspension of driver’s license of owner of uninsured truck that had been involved in accident. The Court of Appeals held that suspension of driver’s license of owner, who had not paid uninsured motor vehicle fee, was required. Reversed.

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles v. Blackwell, 389 S.C. 293 (2010)

Department of Motor Vehicles sought review of decision of the Division of Motor Vehicles Hearings (DMVH) rescinding five-year suspension of motorist’s driver’s license upon finding that driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration (DUAC) was not a qualifying offense for purposes of classifying motorist as an habitual traffic offender. The Administrative Law Court reversed decision of DMVH and reinstated motorist’s suspension. Motorist appealed and Supreme Court certified the case. The Supreme Court held that offense of DUAC was a major violation under the habitual traffic offender statute. Affirmed.