Supreme Court of South Carolina· 8/5/2015
State v. Gordon
Citations
- 414 S.C. 94
- 777 S.E.2d 376
- 2015 S.C. LEXIS 261
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding subsection 56- 5-2953(A)(1)(a)(ii) requires that the motorist's head be visible during the recording of an HGN field sobriety test
- holding section 56-5-2953(A) requires that the DUI suspect's head be visible in the incident site video during the administration of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test
- ruling the requirements of section 56-5-2953(A) were satisfied because, during the administration of the HGN test, the driver's head and the arresting officer's arm were visible and the officer's instructions were audible
- finding the video recording complied with section 56-5- 2953(A) when the officer's administration of the HGN test was visible on the video recording and focusing on the fact that the video recording included the driver's face, the officer's instructions, and the officer's flashlight and arm
- \[A]n appellate court is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.\
- \The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.\ (quoting Sloan v. Hardee, 371 S.C. 495, 498, 640 S.E.2d 457, 459 (2007))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Beatty, Toal, Hearn, Lee, Pleicones
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. WaltersCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2016-09-28· cited 1×
- State v. Kenneth TaylorSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2022-02-23
- State v. Phillip Wayne LoweryCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2022-04-06
- State v. Tammy Dianne BrownCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2022-05-04
- In re Jairus J. V.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2019-01-04
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. BaccusSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-01-09· cited 298×
- Sloan v. HardeeSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2007-01-08· cited 72×
- Town of Mt. Pleasant v. RobertsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2011-07-11· cited 68×
- City of Rock Hill v. SuchenskiSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2007-06-18· cited 56×
- Murphy v. StateCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2011-04-06· cited 10×
- State v. GordonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2014-04-23· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.