City of Goose Creek v. Brady

Supreme Court of South Carolina

City of Goose Creek v. Brady

339 S.E.2d 509, 288 S.C. 20, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 255

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 21, 1986

Docket22452

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 339 S.E.2d 509 (City of Goose Creek v. Brady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Goose Creek v. Brady, 339 S.E.2d 509, 288 S.C. 20, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 255 (S.C. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

[21]*21Appellant was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) and driving left of center. The circuit court reversed the municipal court’s dismissal of the DUI charge and remanded the case for trial. We affirm the ruling of the circuit court.

When appellant was arrested, he was issued a Uniform Traffic Ticket (UTT) on each charge. The municipal court dismissed the DUI charge on the ground that failure to issue an arrest warrant deprived appellant of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Since this action was commenced by the issuance of a UTT, an arrest warrant was not required under S. C. Code § 22-3-710 (1976). See State v. Biehl, 271 S. C. 201, 246 S. E. (2d) 859 (1978). Nor was an arrest warrant or any other judicial determination of probable cause constitutionally required since appellant was not subjected to a significant period of pretrial detention. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L. Ed. (2d) 54 (1975). Therefore, an arrest warrant was unnecessary in this case.

The UTT issued to appellant informed him that he was charged with driving under the influence in violation of S. C. Code § 56-5-2930 (1976). It further informed him of the time, date and place the offense allegedly occurred. In our opinion, this was more than sufficient to adequately inform appellant of the charge against him. U. S. Constitution, Amendments V, XIV; S. C. Constitution, Article I, § 14.

Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

[21]*21Appellant was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) and driving left of center. The circuit court reversed the municipal court’s dismissal of the DUI charge and remanded the case for trial. We affirm the ruling of the circuit court.

When appellant was arrested, he was issued a Uniform Traffic Ticket (UTT) on each charge. The municipal court dismissed the DUI charge on the ground that failure to issue an arrest warrant deprived appellant of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Since this action was commenced by the issuance of a UTT, an arrest warrant was not required under S. C. Code § 22-3-710 (1976). See State v. Biehl, 271 S. C. 201, 246 S. E. (2d) 859 (1978). Nor was an arrest warrant or any other judicial determination of probable cause constitutionally required since appellant was not subjected to a significant period of pretrial detention. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L. Ed. (2d) 54 (1975). Therefore, an arrest warrant was unnecessary in this case.

The UTT issued to appellant informed him that he was charged with driving under the influence in violation of S. C. Code § 56-5-2930 (1976). It further informed him of the time, date and place the offense allegedly occurred. In our opinion, this was more than sufficient to adequately inform appellant of the charge against him. U. S. Constitution, Amendments V, XIV; S. C. Constitution, Article I, § 14.

Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.E.2d 509, 288 S.C. 20, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-goose-creek-v-brady-sc-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack