Opinion ID: 1409318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: independent blood test

Text: In State v. Lewis , 266 S.C. 45, 221 S.E. (2d) 524 (1976), we held that the Implied Consent Statute [6] requires law enforcement officers to lend assistance in obtaining additional blood tests only to a person who has taken the breathalyzer test, 266 S.C. at 48, 221 S.E. (2d) at 526. Although we noted that persons who refuse the test are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to obtain an independent blood test, we held that affirmative assistance is not required. Here, there is no evidence that Degnan ever requested an independent test, or inquired whether one was available. Further, after refusing the breathalyzer, she was permitted to use the telephone, which afforded her the opportunity to call an attorney or physician to obtain independent testing. Assuming, as Degnan contends, that police officers effectively prevented her from obtaining an independent test by advising her that she must take the [breathalyzer] before an alternate test would be made available, we find any error harmless. Degnan asserted that denial of an independent blood test mandated suppression of her refusal to take the breathalyzer. The record reflects, however, that she admitted drinking five or six beers, was unable to complete the alphabet, was dazed, had trouble walking and had to lean on the car. In light of the overwhelming evidence of her intoxication, Degnan has shown no prejudice in admission of her refusal to submit to the breathalyzer. See, State v. Hyder , 242 S.C. 372, 131 S.E. (2d) 96 (1963). Accordingly, the judgment below is Affirmed. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL and TOAL, JJ., concur. FINNEY, A.J., dissenting in separate opinion.