Opinion ID: 4562197
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Officer's Request for a Blood Sample

Text: Sanders next contends the court of appeals erred in holding there was substantial evidence in the record to support the officer's request for a blood sample, as the evidence of his alleged inability to submit to a breath test was inadmissible hearsay. At the suspension hearing, the officer testified that he requested a blood test after arriving at the emergency room and being advised by licensed medical personnel (Nurse Albright) that Sanders was not able to take a breath test. Sanders's counsel made a general hearsay objection, arguing Nurse Albright should be present so he could question her as to her qualifications and the reason why she found Sanders was unable to take a breath test: [A]nybody can have hospital garb on . . . [the] defense needs to be able to cross-examine that particular person on his or her credentials. Secondly, this [SLED Report] doesn't say he wasn't able to leave the hospital. It says for some reason deemed acceptable by the licensed medical personnel. We have a right to ask that licensed medical personnel what that reason was. And we can't ask that 3 The DMV notes that whether an individual holds a medical license is publicly verifiable information that is readily available on the website of the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, and it states this Court could take judicial notice of Nurse Albright's licensing status under Rule 201, SCRE. Our review of the government website indicates Nurse Albright has been licensed as an RN since 1999 and her current South Carolina license is valid through April 2022. See S.C. Dep't of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, https://llr.sc.gov/. This information is obviously compelling, but we need not rely on it in reaching our decision as there is substantial evidence in the record as to Nurse Albright's status. person that reason without that person being here and we're not sure, again, she may well be a registered nurse, but we don't know that for sure and we don't have a right to cross-examine her credentials . . . . As explained in the preceding section, hospital employees do not have to attend a proceeding for their qualification as licensed medical personnel to be established. Frey, 362 S.C. at 514, 608 S.E.2d at 876. Further, we categorically reject the assertion that Nurse Albright's presence was required at this summary proceeding so Sanders could challenge the underlying reason why licensed medical personnel found he could not take a breath test. The reason for the licensed medical personnel's determination is clearly outside the statutorily limited scope of the hearing procedure set forth by the General Assembly. See S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5- 2951(F)(1)-(3) (stating the scope of the suspension hearing is limited to whether the person (1) was lawfully arrested or detained, (2) was given a written copy of and verbally informed of the rights enumerated in section 56-5-2950, and (3) refused to submit to a test pursuant to section 56-5-2950). Here, the officer relied on the exception that licensed medical personnel found the motorist could not submit to a breath test. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2950(A). The General Assembly has not required officers to question the judgment of licensed medical personnel or obtain a second opinion as part of the implied consent procedure. Nor has it authorized courts to engage in a post hoc analysis of the validity of the determination that the motorist could not take a breath test. The reason needs only to be one that is considered acceptable by the licensed medical personnel, per S.C. Code Ann. section 56-5-2950(A) (emphasis added). See Reitter, 595 N.W.2d at 652 (The law requires no more than what the implied consent statute sets forth.). The soundness of this procedure is readily apparent. Sanders asserts that, if given the opportunity, he would have cross-examined Nurse Albright as to whether his medical treatment could have been expedited to secure his discharge sooner (theoretically to permit breath testing).4 Asking Nurse Albright to opine on this question is of dubious value, particularly where Sanders never specifically testified that he would have submitted to a breath test if one had been requested. Sanders's 4 As a practical matter, when a motorist is transported to the hospital due to injuries severe enough to warrant emergency treatment, it will be highly unlikely that the person will be discharged in time to meet the statutory window for taking a breath test (within two hours of arrest). testimony centered on the nature of his injuries, and he maintained he did not recall being asked to take a blood test, nor anything else about his time in the hospital. Cf. Taylor v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 368 S.C. 33, 627 S.E.2d 751 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the driver showed no prejudice from the fact that he did not receive a copy of the implied consent form from the officer, where the driver did not argue that he did not receive his implied consent rights at all or that he would have provided a blood test if he had received the implied consent rights in writing), aff'd, 382 S.C. 567, 677 S.E.2d 588 (2009). The essential question here is—Did the officer comply with the implied consent statute in requesting a blood sample from Sanders? The limited scope of the administrative hearing is to test the conduct of the officer (not medical personnel) by requiring the officer to have probable cause for the arrest, to advise the motorist of his implied consent rights, and to request tests in compliance with the procedure outlined in the implied consent statute (which the motorist refused). S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2951(F)(1)-(3). Whether the licensed medical personnel was infallible in her determination is not within the limited scope of this administrative proceeding.5 The critical fact is that the determination, whether correct or not, was communicated to the officer and, thus, justified the next step in his investigation— the request for a blood sample.6 We agree with the court of appeals that the evidence offered to explain or support the officer's investigation does not constitute hearsay.7 5 Considering the remedial purpose of the implied consent statute and the statutory scope of the suspension hearing, we find the General Assembly did not intend the suspension hearing to be a forum for competing medical experts. 6 Cf. Andros v. Oregon ex rel. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 485 P.2d 635 (Or. Ct. App. 1971) (holding whether there were reasonable grounds for the officer's request to take a chemical test did not depend on whether the driver was in fact under the influence of intoxicating liquor; rather it was dependent on whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that to be so). 7 See, e.g., State v. Brown, 317 S.C. 55, 63, 451 S.E.2d 888, 894 (1994) (holding an out of court statement is not hearsay if it is offered for the limited purpose of explaining why a government investigation was undertaken); State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 420, 405 S.E.2d 377, 383 (1991) (holding the officer's testimony from an out of court declarant was offered to explain the officer's actions regarding the defendant and was not inadmissible hearsay), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1103 (1992); Officers are required to administer the implied consent statute in accordance with procedures developed by SLED and to issue reports any time tests are requested. See generally S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2950(I) (A person required to submit to tests by the arresting law enforcement officer must be provided with a written report including the time of arrest, the time of the tests, and the results of the tests before any trial or other proceeding in which the results of the tests are used as evidence.); see also id. § 56-5-2950(A) (stating [t]he breath test must be administered by a person trained and certified by the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy, pursuant to SLED policies. . . . Blood and urine samples must be obtained and handled in accordance with procedures approved by SLED.). Nurse Albright signed the SLED Report, as did Sanders, so he was contemporaneously informed of Nurse Albright's determination (that he could not submit a breath sample) and he was given a copy of the SLED Report, all in compliance with the officer's reporting duties. While we conclude the information communicated to the officer was not hearsay for purposes of this implied consent hearing, we note that, if Sanders believed the officer's testimony that Nurse Albright had made a determination of any kind was also false, he always had the recourse of rebutting it by calling her as a witness himself. Lastly, we observe that, at the hearing, Sanders's counsel urged the OMVH to overturn the suspension on the alternative ground that Sanders had a significant head injury, had a concussion, and did not remember anything until he woke in jail the next morning with blood all over the back of his head. Sanders testified that he could not remember anything from the time of the accident until he woke up in jail, and he described himself as very disoriented, fuzzy, foggy, and having no clue as to his surroundings after his accident. It is unclear how counsel intended this assertion to provide a legal basis for overturning the suspension, and Sanders does not rely on it here. We note, however, that the implied consent statute provides that if a motorist has an injury to the mouth, is unconscious, or dead, a breath test need not be requested, and this determination need not be made by licensed medical State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 559, 575 S.E.2d 77, 81 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding testimony about a bystander's statement to the police was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but rather to explain the officer's reason for going to the defendant's home); State v. Kirby, 325 S.C. 390, 396, 481 S.E.2d 150, 153 (Ct. App. 1996) (concluding testimony by a police officer about a dispatcher's call reporting drugs and firearms in a car was not hearsay where offered to explain the reason for the initiation of police surveillance of the vehicle in question). personnel. See S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2950(A) (exceptions); State v. Kimbrell, 326 S.C. 344, 348, 481 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ct. App. 1997) (observing while these grounds need not be based on the judgment of licensed medical personnel, the evidence must reveal a reasonable basis to support them). Even if Sanders were rendered unconscious, however, the result would not have been the excusal of all testing; rather, under the statute, it would have justified the officer's request for a blood test.