Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

A quorum being present, the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:

Beloved, hear the Gospel of St. Mark, Chapter 9, verse 35:

"He (Jesus) sat down and called them around Him and said,

'Anyone wanting to be the greatest must be the least -- the

servant of all'."
Let us pray.

Our Father, as we continue our mundane duties, plant, we pray Thee, the seeds of eternal truth in our mind's soil to bring forth good deeds in our daily life.

Help us to know that our power is faint, and, in the long run, futile, until we have learned to serve.

When we unfurl our flags of personal ambition, give us the grace to pray that they may be blown by the breath of Heaven.
Amen.

The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.

Senator MOORE introduced Dr. Ned Nicholson of Edgefield, S.C., Doctor of the Day.

At 11:35 A.M., Senator RAVENEL requested a leave of absence from 12:00 Noon today until 11:00 A. M., Thursday, March 2, 2000.

On motion of Senator ANDERSON, at 2:30 P.M., Senator WASHINGTON was granted a leave of absence until 7:00 P.M.

H. 3430 (Word version) -- Reps. Rodgers, Knotts, Clyburn, Gourdine, McGee, McKay, Woodrum, Lloyd, Ott, Townsend and Gilham: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2585, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXEMPTION OF DISABLED VETERANS FROM PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL PARKING METER FEES, SO AS TO INCLUDE PURPLE HEART RECIPIENTS IN THE EXEMPTION.

Senator MATTHEWS asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Committee on Transportation.

There was no objection.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.

Senator MATTHEWS asked unanimous consent to give the Bill a second reading with notice of general amendments.

There was no objection.

The Bill was recalled and read the second time with notice of general amendments.

H. 4598 (Word version) -- Rep. D. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF HIGHWAY 221 LYING BETWEEN HIGHWAY 176 AND INTERSTATE 85 IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY AS THE "DAVID PEARSON BOULEVARD".

Senator LAND asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Concurrent Resolution from the Committee on Transportation.

There was no objection.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Concurrent Resolution. The question being the adoption of the Concurrent Resolution.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House of Representatives.

The following were introduced:

S. 1202 (Word version) -- Senator Rankin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-24-40 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM DEED RECORDING FEES, SO AS TO EXEMPT FROM SUCH FEES TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING TRANSFERS FROM AGENTS TO PRINCIPALS WHEN THE REALTY WAS PURCHASED WITH THE FUNDS OF THE PRINCIPAL.
l:\s-res\lar\006deed.jh.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1203 (Word version) -- Senators Richardson, Mescher, Branton, Fair, Martin, Ryberg, Peeler, Wilson, Ravenel, McConnell, Courson and Bauer: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-1170, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEDUCTIONS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX, SO AS TO PROVIDE A DEDUCTION OF ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF TAXABLE INCOME FOR TAXPAYERS AT LEAST SEVENTY YEARS OF AGE AND TO PROVIDE THE PHASE-IN OF AN INCOME TAX DEDUCTION BEYOND THE 1999 TAXABLE YEAR, AND TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT THIS DEDUCTION.
l:\s-res\shr\003inco.whb.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1204 (Word version) -- Senator Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-1-10, AS AMENDED, 9-1-470, AS AMENDED, 9-1-1140, AS AMENDED, 9-1-1510, AS AMENDED, 9-1-1515, AS AMENDED, 9-1-1540, 9-1-1550, AS AMENDED, 9-1-1650, AS AMENDED, 9-1-1660, AND 9-1-1910, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, MEMBERSHIP BY EMPLOYERS, PURCHASE OF SERVICE CREDIT, SERVICE RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY AND EARLY RETIREMENT, DISABILITY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES, WITHDRAWAL OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MEMBER AND PROVISIONS FOR BENEFICIARIES WHEN A MEMBER DIES IN SERVICE, AND THE MINIMUM BENEFIT FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO REVISE AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS, CORRECT CROSS-REFERENCES, CLARIFY THAT A PREREQUISITE FOR ANY BENEFIT IS AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF EARNED SERVICE, TO REVISE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND PAYMENT AMOUNTS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH SERVICE CREDIT FOR SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THE VARIOUS STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS AND DELETE THE LUMP SUM PURCHASE TO OFFSET A REDUCTION FOR EARLY RETIREMENT AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-11-10, AS AMENDED, 9-11-40, AS AMENDED, 9-11-50, AS AMENDED, 9-11-60, AS AMENDED, 9-11-70, AS AMENDED, 9-11-80, AS AMENDED, 9-11-130, 9-11-210, AS AMENDED, 9-11-220, AND 9-11-310, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, MEMBERSHIP OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, CREDITED SERVICE, SERVICE RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY AND RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES, DISABILITY RETIREMENT, PROVISIONS FOR BENEFICIARIES WHEN A MEMBER DIES IN SERVICE, EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO REVISE AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS, CORRECT CROSS REFERENCES, CLARIFY THAT A PREREQUISITE FOR ANY BENEFIT IS AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF EARNED SERVICE, TO REVISE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND PAYMENT AMOUNTS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH SERVICE CREDIT FOR SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THE VARIOUS STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, AND CONFORM THE COST OF LIVING DEFINITION UNDER THIS SYSTEM TO THE DEFINITIONS USED IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 9-1-80, 9-1-440, 9-1-500, 9-1-850, 9-1-860, 9-1-1040, 9-1-1150, 9-1-1530, 9-1-1535, 9-1-1700, 9-1-1710, 9-1-1720, 9-1-1730, 9-1-1850, 9-1-1860, 9-11-55, 9-11-325, AND 9-11-330 ALL RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM OR THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND ALL MADE OBSOLETE BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.
l:\council\bills\bbm\9301htc00.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1205 (Word version) -- Senators Land, Reese, Glover, O'Dell, Drummond, Passailaigue, Saleeby, Anderson, Short, Ford, McGill, Matthews, Hutto, Rankin, Ravenel, Washington and Bryan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-110, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ENTITIES INCORPORATED INTO AND ADMINISTERED AS PART OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, SO AS TO ADD THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIVISION; TO AMEND SECTION 25-1-420, RELATING TO THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF ADJUTANT GENERAL, SO AS TO TRANSFER THIS DIVISION FROM THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE; TO AMEND SECTION 49-23-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATEWIDE DROUGHT RESPONSE COMMITTEE, SO AS TO MAKE A CONFORMING CHANGE; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSITION OF EMPLOYEES AND PROPERTY ON JULY 1, 2000.
l:\council\bills\skb\18224som00.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1206 (Word version) -- Senators Wilson and Reese: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 23-3-60 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A TWENTY-FIVE DOLLAR FEE FOR CRIMINAL RECORD SEARCHES CONDUCTED BY THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND TO PROVIDE A TEN DOLLAR FEE WHEN CONDUCTED FOR A FOR-PROFIT NURSING HOME, HOME HEALTH AGENCY, OR AN ADULT OR CHILD DAYCARE CENTER AND AN EIGHT DOLLAR FEE WHEN CONDUCTED FOR A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION OR A BONA FIDE MENTOR.
l:\council\bills\dka\3745mm00.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1207 (Word version) -- Senator Bryan: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CREATE A SOCIAL ANXIETY DISORDER STUDY COMMITTEE, PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP AND DUTIES, TO REQUIRE THE COMMITTEE TO REPORT ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BEFORE THE CONVENING OF ITS 2001 REGULAR SESSION, AND TO ABOLISH THE COMMITTEE AFTER IT MAKES ITS REPORT.
l:\council\bills\pt\1907dw00.doc

The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

S. 1208 (Word version) -- Senators O'Dell, Smith, Land, Bryan, Patterson, Matthews, Waldrep, Anderson, Mescher, McConnell, Leventis, Peeler, Thomas, Drummond, Reese, Giese, Short, Branton, Hutto, Wilson, McGill, Elliott, Passailaigue, Ravenel, Martin, Richardson, Saleeby, Washington, Alexander, Moore, Setzler, Glover, Hayes and Bauer: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO HEALTH BY ADDING CHAPTER 130, ENACTING THE SOUTH CAROLINA SENIORS' PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM ACT, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF INSURANCE SERVICES OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN PURCHASING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TO RESIDENTS OF THIS STATE WHO HAVE ATTAINED AGE SIXTY-FIVE YEARS WHO ARE INELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID OR ANY OTHER PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS AND WHOSE ANNUAL INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED TWO HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL, TO DEFINE "PRESCRIPTION DRUG" FOR PURPOSES OF THE PROGRAM, AND TO REQUIRE SEMIANNUAL REPORTS TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM.
l:\council\bills\bbm\9307htc00.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

S. 1209 (Word version) -- Senators Passailaigue, Alexander, Anderson, Bauer, Branton, Bryan, Courson, Courtney, Drummond, Elliott, Fair, Ford, Giese, Glover, Gregory, Grooms, Hayes, Holland, Hutto, Jackson, Land, Leatherman, Leventis, Martin, Matthews, McConnell, McGill, Mescher, Moore, O'Dell, Patterson, Peeler, Rankin, Ravenel, Reese, Richardson, Russell, Ryberg, Saleeby, Setzler, Short, Smith, Thomas, Waldrep, Washington and Wilson: A SENATE RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SINCERE APPRECIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE TO ARNOLD SAMUEL GOODSTEIN FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF DEDICATED AND DEVOTED SERVICE TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT.
l:\s-res\elp\003good.jh.doc

Senator PASSAILAIGUE spoke on the Resolution.

The Senate Resolution was unanimously adopted.

H. 3555 (Word version) -- Reps. Allison and Rodgers: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-95 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL AND A FELONY TO INFLICT OR TO KNOWINGLY ALLOW A PERSON TO INFLICT GREAT BODILY HARM UPON A CHILD AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

H. 3863 (Word version) -- Reps. Campsen, Altman, Barrett, Beck, Davenport, Delleney, Easterday, Gilham, Hamilton, Haskins, Klauber, Leach, Loftis, Mason, Rice, Robinson, Sharpe, Simrill, R. Smith, Taylor, Vaughn, Hawkins and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 16, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO OFFENSES AGAINST A PERSON, BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-90, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FOR PURPOSES OF ALL OFFENSES ARISING OUT OF THE UNLAWFUL KILLING OR BATTERY OF ANY PERSON, THE TERM "PERSON" INCLUDES AN UNBORN CHILD AT EVERY STAGE OF GESTATION IN UTERO FROM CONCEPTION UNTIL LIVE BIRTH, AND TO PROVIDE FOR EXCLUSIONS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.

H. 3992 (Word version) -- Reps. Hamilton, Cato, Easterday, Leach, Loftis, McMahand, Rice, Tripp, Vaughn and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE PORTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 253 FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH REID SCHOOL ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 290 IN GREENVILLE COUNTY IN HONOR OF REVEREND JAMES H. THOMPSON, AND TO PLACE APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ON THE HIGHWAY REFLECTING THIS DESIGNATION.

The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on Transportation.

H. 4582 (Word version) -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RELATING TO TERRITORY AND CERTIFICATES OF SEWERAGE UTILITIES AND WATER UTILITIES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 2432, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

H. 4598 (Word version) -- Rep. D. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF HIGHWAY 221 LYING BETWEEN HIGHWAY 176 AND INTERSTATE 85 IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY AS THE "DAVID PEARSON BOULEVARD".

The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on Transportation.

H. 4680 (Word version) -- Rep. Hawkins: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT SCHOOL DAYS MISSED ON JANUARY 24, 25, AND 26, 2000, BY THE STUDENTS AND TEACHERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND DURING SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 WHEN THE SCHOOL WAS CLOSED DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.

H. 4689 (Word version) -- Rep. Phillips: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 2000, AS THE TIME FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE TO MEET IN JOINT SESSION IN THE HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, COASTAL CAROLINA UNIVERSITY, THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON, FRANCIS MARION UNIVERSITY, LANDER UNIVERSITY, THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, THE WIL LOU GRAY OPPORTUNITY SCHOOL, WINTHROP UNIVERSITY, AND THE BOARD OF VISITORS OF THE CITADEL, TO SUCCEED THOSE MEMBERS WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE IN 2000 OR WHOSE POSITIONS OTHERWISE MUST BE FILLED, AND TO ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE REGARDING NOMINATIONS AND NOMINATING AND SECONDING SPEECHES FOR THE CANDIDATES FOR THESE OFFICES DURING THE JOINT SESSION.

The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on Invitations.

H. 4707 (Word version) -- Rep. Huggins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND HONOR CAROLINE PARLER OF IRMO, GRADUATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, WHO HAS BEEN AWARDED THE PRESTIGIOUS RHODES SCHOLARSHIP AND WHO WILL ATTEND OXFORD COLLEGE IN ENGLAND FOR POST GRADUATE STUDY BEGINNING IN OCTOBER, 2000, AS ONE OF ONLY THIRTY-TWO AMERICAN STUDENTS SELECTED NATIONALLY AS A 2000 RHODES SCHOLAR.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:

An invitation from the THE ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS to attend a breakfast in Room 221 Blatt Bldg. on Thursday, March 2, 2000, from 8:00 until 10:00 A.M.

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:

An invitation from the SC AARP STATE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE to attend a breakfast at the Clarion Town House on Wednesday, March 8, 2000, from 8:00 until 10:00 A.M.

Senator COURSON from the Committee on Invitations submitted a favorable report on:

An invitation from the ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC LIBRARY ADMINISTRATORS to attend a luncheon at the Clarion Town House on Wednesday, March 8, 2000, upon adjournment and lasting until 2:00 P.M.

Columbia, S.C., February 29, 2000

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the Senate to:
S. 494 (Word version) -- Senator Saleeby: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-950, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SALE OF HYPODERMIC NEEDLES AND SYRINGES, SO AS TO EXEMPT CERTIFIED DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT PROVIDERS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 7 WHEN A HYPODERMIC NEEDLE OR SYRINGE IS SOLD TO INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETICS.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

S. 1149 (Word version) -- Senators Matthews, Patterson, Anderson, Glover and Washington: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION INVITING THE UNITED STATES SURGEON GENERAL AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH, THE CHIEF HEALTH OFFICIAL FOR THE COUNTRY, THE HONORABLE DAVID SATCHER, M.D., PH.D., TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 12:00 NOON ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000.

The House returned the Concurrent Resolution with amendments.

On motion of Senator MATTHEWS, the Senate concurred in the House amendments and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.

The following Bill was read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 1062 (Word version) -- Senators Ravenel, Leatherman, Passailaigue, Leventis, Branton, Hutto, Bryan, McConnell, Saleeby, McGill, Moore, Giese, Elliott, Patterson, Washington, Mescher and Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-20-365 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO REGIONAL CENTER OPERATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS MAY BE CLOSED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY LAW IN AN ENACTMENT THAT SPECIFIES BY NAME THE REGIONAL CENTER TO BE CLOSED.

H. 4660 (Word version) -- Ways and Means Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SURPLUS FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 GENERAL FUND REVENUES.

On motion of Senator MOORE, with unanimous consent, the Joint Resolution was carried over.

The PRESIDENT appointed Senators THOMAS, WILSON, MATTHEWS, RUSSELL and ANDERSON to escort the Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr. and his party to the rostrum of the House of Representatives for the Joint Assembly.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE INTERRUPTED DEBATE.

S. 544 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes, J. Verne Smith, Alexander, Moore, Drummond, Setzler, Branton, Courson, Fair, Giese, Gregory, Grooms, Jackson, Thomas, Martin, McGill, Mescher, O'Dell, Peeler, Russell, Ryberg, Waldrep, Wilson and Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2930, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR ANOTHER SUBSTANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF TEN ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OR MORE, AND BY AMENDING SECTION 56-5-2950, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A DRIVER'S IMPLIED CONSENT TO BE TESTED FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO HAS AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF TEN ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OR MORE IS CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED TO HAVE AN ILLEGAL ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of Amendment No. 27 (544R012.JCL) proposed by Senators LAND, PASSAILAIGUE and McCONNELL and previously printed in the Journal of Thursday, February 24, 2000.

Senator McCONNELL spoke on the amendment.

At 11:32 A.M., with Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor, Senator PEELER asked unanimous consent to make a motion to invite the House of Representatives to attend the Senate Chamber for the purpose of ratifying Acts following the Joint Assembly.

There was no objection and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

On motion of Senator MOORE, with unanimous consent, debate was interrupted by the Joint Assembly, with Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor.

At 11:33 A.M., with Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor, on motion of Senator MOORE, with unanimous consent, the Senate receded from business until 11:55 A.M.

At 11:55 A.M., the Senate resumed.

At 11:55 A.M., on motion of Senator MOORE, the Senate receded from business for the purpose of attending the Joint Assembly.

At 12:00 Noon, the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House.

The PRESIDENT of the Senate, called the Joint Assembly to order and announced that it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses:

H. 4510 (Word version) -- Reps. Wilkins and Harrison: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE HONORABLE ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR. TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION ON THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY AT 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2000.

The Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and members of his party, were escorted to the rostrum by Senators THOMAS, WILSON, MATTHEWS, RUSSELL and ANDERSON and Representatives Scott, Lucas, Campsen, Maddox and Robinson.

The PRESIDENT introduced the Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Finney addressed the Joint Assembly as follows:

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, other members of this 113th General Assembly, other state officials, members of the Judiciary, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen:

In retrospect, it may have been a bit premature to announce my retirement fifteen months in advance of my departure. Since that time, I have been called upon to give several "final" reports on the State of the South Carolina Judiciary. I believe it is safe to say that today you will hear the last of the "final" reports.

After one such message in late January, headlines in newspapers from Charleston to Greenville reported my assessment of the Judicial System as being "the more things change, the more they remain the same." Not wanting to appear ungrateful, I have eagerly looked forward to this opportunity to finally address you concerning what has changed and to elaborate on those conditions which remain the same. So I thank you for the invitation.

From my vantage point, the Judiciary has experienced significant changes for the better since midway through FY 1994-95.

Let us look first at what has occurred in the realm of state appropriations for the Judiciary. At the time I was sworn in as Chief Justice in 1994, the courts were overextended, understaffed and overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the caseload, and the Judicial Branch was severely underfunded.

For example, the Judicial Branch share of the $2.25 billion state budget for FY 1984-85 was .82%. By FY 1994-95, a decade later, the state budget had increased to almost $4 billion. But over the same ten-year period, our share of the state budget pie had decreased to .72 %. Moreover, the FY 1994-95 allocation for judicial travel was actually 25% less than it was for FY 1986-87. During this period, a sizeable portion of our appropriations for continuing expenses was in non-recurring funds.

From FY 1994-95 to FY 1999-00, the dollar amount appropriated for the Judicial Branch has increased by roughly 70.6%. Reflecting the rise in cost for goods and services, the amount of the state budget has increased to almost $5 billion. Ironically, the current budget share for the Judicial Branch of state government is eighty-two one-hundredths (.82) of 1% - the same level as fifteen years ago - a substantial amount of which is still in non-recurring funds.

Therefore, the Judicial Branch budget request for FY 2000-01 reflects a need for increased appropriations and for allocations for annual expenses in recurring funds. Funding is channeled into four interrelated components, each of which is vital to the functions of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution. These components are human resources, programs, information technology and operations.

With regard to human resources, during the five-year period inclusive of the current fiscal year, we have obtained legislative authorization for 95 new FTE positions - an 18.5 % increase. Of this number, 15 were for judges and 8 for court reporters. Despite the additional personnel, our court dockets remain too congested. However, reports on case filings and dispositions indicate that without these new positions, our court system would now be on the brink of a crisis.

In 1996, the three new judges for the Court of Appeals created a third panel and facilitated restructuring of the appellate caseload. Reorganization has been completed, and certain docketing functions and classes of cases have been transferred from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court currently considers petitions for writs of certiorari, certified questions of law, actions and extraordinary writs, and the five classes of cases reserved by statute for Supreme Court review.

Another area which has been and continues to be of concern is the extremely high turnover rate at all levels of the workforce. We found that our entry-level salaries were not competitive. Furthermore, experienced employees could command higher compensation with other government employers or in the private sector.

The salary structure became an issue where salaries paid to staff members performing similar functions differed appreciably from person to person within the Judicial Branch and, generally, was less than compensation for their counterparts in other branches of state government.

Since 1995, the effort to attract and retain experienced employees has involved ongoing reviews, upgrading job descriptions, reorganizing division structures, providing pay incentives where possible, and increasing the opportunity for upward mobility within the branch. The budget request currently under consideration contains proposals for salary increases and employee continuing education and training.

We believe these items are crucial to the resolution of the hiring, motivation, and retention dilemma which still plagues the branch despite noticeable success in addressing these personnel issues.

Obviously, an experienced, highly motivated work force is a prerequisite to the successful operation of our courts. During calendar year 1994, every state court at all levels of the system experienced record activity and corresponding case backlogs. In my first State of the Judiciary Message in 1995, I referenced the projection that this trend was expected to become more pronounced with the implementation of new legislation which enhanced penalties, provided for additional court hearings, and generated more appellate court proceedings. These projections have materialized.

In addition to attacking the existing backlog of cases, the Judiciary was confronted with an influx of new cases in quadruplet; first, traditional civil and criminal matters; second, mushrooming dockets generated by rapid population growth; third, spiraling family court and general sessions cases reflecting troubled families and the alarming number of potential general sessions offenses committed by juveniles; and fourth, a new class of cases which have their genesis in recent technology, economic expansion and environmental law.

The new judges and court reporters have been augmented by various docket management strategies to facilitate the disposition of cases. Some of these innovations have been accomplished by redirecting resources in association with other components of the South Carolina Justice System such as the bar and solicitors. Others require state appropriations.

With legislative funding, pilot Alternative Dispute Resolutions programs have been implemented in six counties in different judicial circuits. You have under consideration our request for appropriations to expand the ADR pilot to include four additional judicial circuits. Early reports indicate that ADR may be a potent and cost-effective measure for reducing trial dockets.

Drug Treatment Courts is another program which, in addition to its value in terms of human rehabilitation and crime reduction, offers a promising alternative for the disposition of drug-related offenses, which now occupy a disproportionate portion of our trial court dockets. Apparently there is a consensus among the three branches of state government that we shall have a uniform statewide system of Drug Treatment Courts. But the devil is in the details.

I ask your indulgence to offer the following cautionary note to the program planners, budget writers and those individuals charged with the responsibility of implementing and operating this vital program. To achieve maximum effectiveness and to reap the several benefits inherent in this undertaking, the enabling legislation should comport, to the letter, with the program's denomination as a court.

This means that Drug Treatment Courts would be autonomous and that they would function on the order of a court with the exception that there would be a guarantee of the opportunity for treatment and rehabilitation. Furthermore, the job descriptions for persons who serve the court as professionals and staff should provide for a rate of compensation and require a level of training which anticipate minimum compliance which is competent and in accord with the spirit of the of Drug Treatment Court concept.

If this program fulfills its potential, I believe Drug Treatment Courts could rival ADR for effectiveness in immediately relieving congested dockets and speeding up the disposition of cases. We have been unable to address the docket backlogs and simultaneously keep up with the proliferation of new cases. For example, in comparing the number of cases filed during FY 1996-97 with the number for FY 1997-98, general sessions case filings rose by over 112,000 (112,333), and common pleas filings by over 50,000 (50,208) cases. Your recent enactment of the Magistrate Court Reform Act, which expands the jurisdiction of magistrates, is expected to have the long-term effect of reducing the circuit court dockets.

Additional personnel, reorganization of the appellate process and focusing on docket control have increased the number of dispositions and the speed at which cases move through the courts. Nevertheless, the Judiciary has no control over the number or nature of cases thrust upon the courts. Once cases are filed, they proceed on a course prescribed by the Constitution where the judge, the prosecution and the defense each have interrelated but absolutely distinct functions, which may or may not serve the goal of expediency.

The Judiciary is acutely aware of the need for accountability in the discharge of its duties, and we have addressed this issue in the following manner.

In 1997, the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct became effective under amended rules which provide for more disclosure and greater efficiency in judicial and attorney disciplinary enforcement. Facilities in the Calhoun Building have been upgraded to provide accommodations for the two commissions.

More intensive orientation and judicial continuing legal education have been implemented for family and circuit court judges. Magistrates are required to participate in orientation.

We have continued the integration of information technology into branch operations and converted from a calendar year to a fiscal year method of accounting. These measures facilitate compliance with state and federal reporting requirements and also brings the Judicial Branch into alignment with the Executive and Legislative Branches of state government.

In my first State of the Judiciary message in 1995, I appealed for courageous, insightful and bipartisan leadership from this body in allocating funds and crafting legislation to enable the Judicial Branch to fulfill both the spirit and the letter of its constitutional mandates.

In a cooperative effort worthy of commendation, the legislature has made available the resources which enabled these positive changes. I thank you for the spirit of cooperation and the opportunity to be heard at each step of the process.

But, let me hasten to say that the advances which have occurred over the past five years have only permitted the court system to remain viable. Furthermore, the success of our efforts is not to be gauged nor is our progress measured by the usual standards.

In addition to the inability to control the generation of cases, other factors and entities enter into the process of adjudication.

The Executive Branch is charged with the responsibility of prosecuting offenses. The Legislative Branch appropriates funding for court operations. The counties furnish facilities and support personnel for the courts. Only in the case of a unified effort on the part of all segments can the state court system operate in a fair, effective and efficient manner.

We count the past five years as successful in that, together, the three branches of state government have initiated the changes necessary to keep our state courts functioning in accordance with our roles as enunciated in our Constitution. Hence, I believe that we have discharged our respective responsibilities appropriately.

Personally, I trust that the record will reflect and history will verify that in the year 2000, I left the Judiciary of South Carolina in better condition than when I came into office.

As for my tenure, I would like think that I followed the advice of President Theodore Roosevelt who admonished, "Do what you can with what you have where you are." With regard to any legacy which may be attributed to me, I would like for it to be no more nor any less than the personal assessment of his own career by the late United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall who simply said, "I did the best I could with what I had."

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker and members of this Joint Assembly, thank you for your warm spirit of cooperation always and for your kind attention today.

The purpose of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the PRESIDENT declared it adjourned, whereupon the Senate returned to its Chamber and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

At 12:32 P.M., the Senate resumed.

S. 544 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes, J. Verne Smith, Alexander, Moore, Drummond, Setzler, Branton, Courson, Fair, Giese, Gregory, Grooms, Jackson, Thomas, Martin, McGill, Mescher, O'Dell, Peeler, Russell, Ryberg, Waldrep, Wilson and Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2930, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR ANOTHER SUBSTANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF TEN ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OR MORE, AND BY AMENDING SECTION 56-5-2950, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A DRIVER'S IMPLIED CONSENT TO BE TESTED FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO HAS AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF TEN ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OR MORE IS CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED TO HAVE AN ILLEGAL ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION.

The Senate resumed consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of Amendment No. 27 (544R012.JCL) proposed by Senators LAND, PASSAILAIGUE and McCONNELL and previously printed in the Journal of Thursday, February 24, 2000.

Senator McCONNELL resumed speaking on the amendment.

At 12:35 P.M., Senator BAUER made the point that a quorum was not present. It was ascertained that a quorum was not present.

Senator BRYAN moved that a Call of the Senate be made. The following Senators answered the Call:

Alexander                 Anderson                  Bauer
Branton                   Bryan                     Courson
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Giese                     Glover                    Gregory
Grooms                    Hayes                     Hutto
Leatherman                Leventis                  Martin
McConnell                 McGill                    Mescher
Moore                     O'Dell                    Passailaigue
Patterson                 Peeler                    Rankin
Reese                     Richardson                Russell
Ryberg                    Setzler                   Short
Thomas                    Wilson

A quorum being present, the Senate resumed.

Senator McCONNELL continued speaking on the amendment.

On motion of Senator DRUMMOND, with unanimous consent, debate was interrupted by recess, with Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor.

Pursuant to an invitation the Honorable Speaker and House of Representatives appeared in the Senate Chamber on March 1, 2000, at 12:35 P.M. and the following Acts and Joint Resolutions were ratified:

(R236, S. 418 (Word version)) -- Senator Bryan: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 23-47-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUBSCRIBER CHARGES FOR 911 SERVICES, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, IN ADDITION TO THE COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICE (CMRS) EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TO CALCULATE THE CMRS 911 CHARGE FOR EACH CMRS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 23-47-65, RELATING TO THE CMRS EMERGENCY TELEPHONE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO AS TO CLARIFY COMMITTEE COMPOSITION, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT MAY BE HELD AND DISTRIBUTED FROM THIRTY-NINE PERCENT TO THIRTY-NINE AND EIGHT TENTHS PERCENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED BY PROVIDERS OF 911 SERVICES, AND FROM FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT TO FIFTY-EIGHT AND TWO TENTHS PERCENT FOR FUNDS TO BE UTILIZED BY PROVIDERS TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, AND TO EXTEND THE EXISTENCE OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM AUGUST 1, 2001, TO AUGUST 1, 2004.
L:\COUNCIL\ACTS\418AC00.DOC

(R237, S. 848 (Word version)) -- Senators Glover, McGill, Land and Elliott: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT FOR THE ATTENDANCE OF MEETINGS BY THE FLORENCE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
L:\COUNCIL\ACTS\848CM00.DOC

(R238, S. 943 (Word version)) -- Senators Mescher, Passailaigue, Grooms and Branton: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 1093 OF 1966, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE GOOSE CREEK PARK AND PLAYGROUND COMMISSION IN BERKELEY COUNTY, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE COMMISSION.
L:\COUNCIL\ACTS\943HTC00.DOC

(R239, S. 1020 (Word version)) -- Senators Passailaigue, Saleeby, Hayes, Matthews, Patterson, McConnell, Ford, Reese and Courtney: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, SO AS TO INCLUDE AS A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION A FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCY WHICH LENDS OR INVESTS FUNDS, TO DEFINE "LOAN CALL" AND "LOAN CALL AGREEMENT" AND REDEFINE "LOAN LIMITS", AND TO PROVIDE FOR A WRITTEN LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A CORPORATION AND ITS MEMBERS RATHER THAN A STATUTORY LINE OF CREDIT; TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-70, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO TAXATION OF A BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE STATE TAX EXEMPTIONS ALSO FOR A SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION; TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-250, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO POWERS OF A BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MAY NOT MORTGAGE OR ASSIGN ITS ASSETS EXCEPT ON A PRO RATA BASIS TO ALL PARTIES PROVIDING CREDIT, OTHER THAN FOR SHORT-TERM LOANS AND PURCHASE MONEY LOANS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS ASSETS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE POWERS OF A BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'S SUBSIDIARY, AND TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES; TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-450, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO VOTING BY STOCKHOLDERS AND MEMBERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL VOTES OF A MEMBER BY ITS LOAN LIMIT PURSUANT TO THE LOAN CALL AGREEMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-460, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LOANS TO THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SO AS TO DELETE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR LINES OF CREDIT AND PROVIDE FOR LINES OF CREDIT PURSUANT TO MUTUAL AGREEMENT, DECREASE FROM TWENTY TO TEN PERCENT THE TOTAL AMOUNT A MEMBER MAY HAVE OUTSTANDING AT ANY ONE TIME ON LOANS TO THE CORPORATION, TO PROVIDE FOR REVOLVING LINES OF CREDIT AND LEAD LENDERS, AND TO DELETE THE AUTOMATIC INCREASE IN LINES OF CREDIT OF MERGING ENTITIES; AND BY ADDING SECTION 33-37-465 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAKING AND SECURING OF SHORT-TERM LOANS TO THE CORPORATION BY A MEMBER.
L:\COUNCIL\ACTS\1020MM00.DOC

(R240, S. 1026 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell, Matthews, Courtney, Patterson, Reese, Hayes, Jackson and Passailaigue: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 38-1-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS USED IN TITLE 40 PERTAINING TO INSURANCE, SO AS TO ADD THE DEFINITIONS FOR "EXEMPT COMMERCIAL POLICIES"; TO AMEND SECTION 38-31-100, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ORDER IN WHICH CLAIMANTS MUST EXHAUST THEIR RIGHTS UNDER INSURANCE POLICIES WHEN A CLAIMANT HAS COVERAGE UNDER MORE THAN ONE POLICY, SO AS TO ESTABLISH LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT A CLAIMANT MAY COLLECT FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION IF THE CLAIM IS AGAINST AN INSOLVENT INSURER; TO AMEND SECTION 38-61-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REQUIRING AN INSURER TO HAVE ALL POLICIES, CONTRACTS, AND CERTIFICATES APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO EXEMPT COMMERCIAL POLICIES; BY ADDING SECTION 38-61-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE CERTAIN FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPT COMMERCIAL POLICIES, CONTRACTS, AND CERTIFICATES; TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER REGULATING PROPERTY, CASUALTY, INLAND MARINE, AND SURETY RATES AND RATE-MAKING ORGANIZATIONS, SO AS TO INCLUDE IN THESE PURPOSES PROVIDING FOR REASONABLE COMPETITION AMONG COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS OF INSUREDS MAKING LARGE INSURANCE PURCHASES; TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-73-340 AND 38-73-520, BOTH AS AMENDED, AND BOTH RELATING TO REQUIRING INSURERS TO FILE RATES AND RATING SCHEDULES AND PLANS, SO AS TO EXEMPT LARGE COMMERCIAL POLICIES FROM THIS REQUIREMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-910, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING A RATE INCREASE, SO AS TO EXEMPT COMMERCIAL POLICIES FROM THESE PROCEDURES.
L:\COUNCIL\ACTS\1026AC00.DOC

(R241, H. 3786 (Word version)) -- Rep. Fleming: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-11-15, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS TO RUN AS A CANDIDATE IN A GENERAL ELECTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATEMENT OF INTENTION OF CANDIDACY MUST CONTAIN A STATEMENT THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PARTICULAR OFFICE SOUGHT; TO AMEND SECTION 7-11-210, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO NOTICE OF CANDIDACY AND PLEDGE, SO AS TO INCLUDE CANDIDATES NOMINATED BY POLITICAL PARTY CONVENTION, PROVIDE THAT A CANDIDATE MUST CERTIFY THAT HE MEETS, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PARTICULAR OFFICE SOUGHT; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTIFICATION OF NAMES OF PRIMARY CANDIDATES, SO AS TO REQUIRE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION AND PROVIDE THAT POLITICAL PARTIES MUST VERIFY QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-320, RELATING TO BALLOT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT EACH COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION MUST PROVIDE A COPY OF EACH BALLOT STYLE TO BE USED FOR PRIMARY, GENERAL, AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN THE ABSENTEE PRECINCT TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER FIFTEENTH IN THE CASE OF GENERAL ELECTIONS, AND NOT LATER THAN FORTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ELECTION IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL AND PRIMARY ELECTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-330, RELATING TO THE FORM OF A GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-350, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTIFIED CANDIDATES NOMINATED BY PETITION, PRIMARY, OR CONVENTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTIFICATION MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE EFFECTED NOT LATER THAN AUGUST FIFTEENTH, RATHER THAN SEPTEMBER FIRST, REQUIRE POLITICAL PARTIES NOMINATING CANDIDATES BY PRIMARY OR CONVENTION TO VERIFY THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THOSE CANDIDATES BEFORE CERTIFICATION TO THE AUTHORITY CHARGED BY LAW WITH PREPARING THE BALLOT, REQUIRE THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION TO CONTAIN A STATEMENT THAT EACH CANDIDATE CERTIFIED MEETS, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE FOR WHICH HE HAS FILED, AND TO PROHIBIT THE CANDIDATE'S NAME FROM BEING PLACED ON THE BALLOT IF HE DOES NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE FOR WHICH HE HAS FILED; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-351, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO NOMINEES BY PETITION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY PETITION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY NOT LATER THAN JULY FIFTEENTH RATHER THAN AUGUST FIRST; TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD OF VOTER REGISTRATION OF EACH COUNTY MUST CERTIFY THE PETITION TO THE AUTHORITY NOT LATER THAN AUGUST FIFTEENTH RATHER THAN SEPTEMBER FIRST AND REQUIRE THE CANDIDATE TO CERTIFY THAT HE MEETS, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE SOUGHT, AND TO REQUIRE THE AUTHORITY TO WHOM THE CERTIFICATION IS MADE TO VERIFY THE QUALIFICATIONS OF EACH PETITION CANDIDATE BEFORE CERTIFICATION OF THAT CANDIDATE'S NAME TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-352, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DATE BY WHICH STATEMENTS OF CANDIDACY MUST BE FILED, SO AS TO CHANGE THE DATE FROM NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER FIRST TO NOT LATER THAN AUGUST FIFTEENTH, AND REQUIRE EACH CANDIDATE TO AFFIRM IN WRITING, THAT HE MEETS, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE ELECTION, THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE SOUGHT AND REQUIRE THE AUTHORITY TO WHOM THE CERTIFICATION IS MADE TO VERIFY THE QUALIFICATIONS OF EACH CANDIDATE NOMINATED BY A STATEMENT OF CANDIDACY BEFORE CERTIFICATION OF THAT CANDIDATE'S NAME TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT; AND TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-355, RELATING TO THE TIME FOR SUBMITTING A REFERENDUM QUESTION TO THE APPROPRIATE ELECTION COMMISSION FOR SUBMISSION AS A REFERENDUM TO ELECTORS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE DATE BY WHICH THE QUESTION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION FROM SEPTEMBER FIRST TO AUGUST FIFTEENTH.
L:\COUNCIL\ACTS\3786DW00.DOC

(R242, H. 3804 (Word version)) -- Reps. Knotts, Whatley, Seithel, Koon, McGee, Wilkins, Harrison, Allison, Altman, Askins, Bales, Barrett, Battle, Bauer, Beck, H. Brown, J. Brown, T. Brown, Campsen, Carnell, Cato, Chellis, Clyburn, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Edge, Emory, Fleming, Gilham, Gourdine, Hamilton, Haskins, Hawkins, Hinson, Inabinett, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Klauber, Law, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lourie, Lucas, Mason, McCraw, M. McLeod, Meacham-Richardson, Miller, J.H. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Phillips, Rhoad, Rice, Riser, Robinson, Rodgers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scott, Sharpe, Sheheen, Simrill, D. Smith, J. Smith, Stuart, Taylor, Tripp, Trotter, Walker, Webb, Whipper, Wilder, Woodrum and Young-Brickell: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 10-11-320, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OFFENSE OF CARRYING OR DISCHARGING A FIREARM, EXPLOSIVE, OR INCENDIARY DEVICE ON THE CAPITAL GROUNDS, SO AS TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO EXPLOSIVE OR INCENDIARY DEVICE; TO ADD SECTION 10-11-325 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSING, TRANSPORTING, OR DETONATING AN EXPLOSIVE, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE, OR INCENDIARY DEVICE ON THE CAPITOL GROUNDS OR WITHIN THE CAPITOL BUILDING, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 10-11-360, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PENALTIES FOR COMMITTING CERTAIN OFFENSES ON THE CAPITOL GROUNDS, SO AS TO CREATE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSING, TRANSPORTING, OR DETONATING AN EXPLOSIVE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-8-10, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS USED IN CIVIL DISORDER OFFENSES, SO AS TO ADD CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 16-8-20, RELATING TO THE OFFENSE OF TEACHING OR DEMONSTRATING THE USE OF FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES, SO AS TO ADD DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE; TO AMEND CHAPTER 23, TITLE 16, RELATING TO WEAPONS, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7 SO AS TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS RELATING TO BOMBS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, TO PROHIBIT THE MANUFACTURE, TRANSPORTATION, POSSESSION, OR USE OF BOMBS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 16-11-540, 16-11-550, AND 16-11-555 ALL RELATING TO OFFENSES INVOLVING AN EXPLOSIVE OR INCENDIARY.
L:\COUNCIL\ACTS\3804SOM00.DOC

(R243, H. 4442 (Word version)) -- Reps. Cato and Tripp: AN ACT TO ENACT THE "PROTECTED CELL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT" INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO AMEND TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSURANCE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 10, SO AS TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AUTHORIZE AN INSURANCE COMPANY TO CREATE AND SEGREGATE AN IDENTIFIED POOL OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE COMPANY'S ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCESSING ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF CAPITAL AND ACHIEVING BENEFITS OF INSURANCE SECURITIZATIONS; TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING PROTECTED CELL COMPANIES; TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE AND OPERATION OF PROTECTED CELLS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF PROTECTED CELL ASSETS TO CREDITORS AND OTHER CLAIMANTS.
L:\COUNCIL\ACTS\4442AC00.DOC

(R244, H. 4635 (Word version)) -- Reps. Webb, Rice, Robinson and Trotter: AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT STUDENTS IN ANY SCHOOL IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PICKENS COUNTY WHO PARTICIPATE IN INTERSCHOLASTIC SOCCER OR AS A MEMBER OF A SCHOOL SOCCER SQUAD MAY PARTICIPATE IN ORGANIZED SOCCER WHICH IS INDEPENDENT OF THE CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A SCHOOL OR STUDENT IN THOSE DISTRICTS IS NOT INELIGIBLE FOR PARTICIPATION IN INTERSCHOLASTIC SOCCER BECAUSE OF THE PARTICIPATION OF THE STUDENT OF THE SCHOOL AS A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZED SOCCER TEAM INDEPENDENT OF THE SCHOOL'S CONTROL.
L:\COUNCIL\ACTS\4635DW00.DOC

At 12:39 P.M., with Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor, on motion of Senator DRUMMOND, with unanimous consent, the Senate receded from business until 2:30 P.M.

The Senate reassembled, at 2:35 P.M., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

S. 544 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes, J. Verne Smith, Alexander, Moore, Drummond, Setzler, Branton, Courson, Fair, Giese, Gregory, Grooms, Jackson, Thomas, Martin, McGill, Mescher, O'Dell, Peeler, Russell, Ryberg, Waldrep, Wilson and Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2930, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR ANOTHER SUBSTANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF TEN ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OR MORE, AND BY AMENDING SECTION 56-5-2950, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A DRIVER'S IMPLIED CONSENT TO BE TESTED FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO HAS AN ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF TEN ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OR MORE IS CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED TO HAVE AN ILLEGAL ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION.

The Senate resumed consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of Amendment No. 27 (544R012.JCL) proposed by Senators LAND, PASSAILAIGUE and McCONNELL and previously printed in the Journal of Thursday, February 24, 2000. Amendment No. 27 was later withdrawn.

Senator McCONNELL resumed speaking on the amendment.

At 3:10 P.M., Senator RICHARDSON made the point that a quorum was not present. It was ascertained that a quorum was not present.

Senator MOORE moved that a Call of the Senate be made. The following Senators answered the Call:

Alexander                 Anderson                  Bauer
Branton                   Bryan                     Courson
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Giese                     Glover
Gregory                   Grooms                    Hayes
Hutto                     Jackson                   Land
Leatherman                Martin                    Matthews
McConnell                 McGill                    Mescher
Moore                     Passailaigue              Patterson
Peeler                    Rankin                    Reese
Richardson                Russell                   Ryberg
Saleeby                   Setzler                   Short
Smith, J. Verne           Thomas                    Waldrep
Wilson

A quorum being present, the Senate resumed.

Senator McCONNELL continued speaking on the amendment.

On motion of Senator PASSAILAIGUE, with unanimous consent, the following article was ordered printed in the Journal:

On March 3, 1998, more than 150 representatives of national organizations and highway safety partners convened at the White House to witness President Clinton address the Nation on setting new standards to prevent impaired driving. The President encouraged all Americans to do more to prevent the many tragic and unnecessary alcohol-related deaths and injuries that occur on our nation's roads. The President called for the promotion of a national legal limit, under which it would be illegal per se to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or higher, across the country, including on federal property.

President Clinton called on Congress to pass new impaired driving legislation that would apply the .08 BAC standard across the country. The President supported the "Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997" sponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg and Mike DeWine and Congresswoman Nita Lowey, which was passed by the Senate on March 4, 1998.

The President directed the Secretary of Transportation to work with Congress, other federal agencies, the states and other concerned safety groups to develop a plan to promote the adoption of a .08 BAC legal limit, at or above which it is unlawful per se to drive a motor vehicle. He further directed that the plan consider:

(1) Setting a .08 BAC standard on federal property, including in national parks and on Department of Defense installations, and ensuring strong enforcement and publicity of this standard;

(2) Encouraging tribal governments to adopt, enforce, and publicize a .08 BAC standard on highways in indian country that are subject to their jurisdiction; and

(3) Developing an education campaign to help the public understand the risks associated with combining alcohol consumption and driving.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), as the lead agency in developing the plan, solicited input from Congress, other federal agencies, the states, and safety groups. The plan presented here is based on their input and on a solid foundation of research and experience.

This plan supports and draws from the Partners in Progress: Impaired Driving Guide for Action which established a national goal to reduce alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities to 11,000 by the year 2005. The Guide for Action included a legislative strategy to establish a .08 BAC per se impaired driving offense. The plan also supports the multimodal transportation responsibilities of the U. S. Department of Transportation by creating the opportunity to establish a national .08 BAC standard for recreational boaters on our nation's waterways. The U. S. Coast Guard is taking the lead role in this effort.

Senator McCONNELL continued speaking on the amendment.

At 3:45 P.M., with Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor, on motion of Senator MOORE, with unanimous consent, the Senate receded from business until 4:00 P.M.

At 4:01 P.M., the Senate resumed.

At 4:02 P.M., with Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor, on motion of Senator MOORE, with unanimous consent, the Senate receded from business until 4:15 P.M.

At 4:18 P.M., the Senate resumed.

Senator McCONNELL spoke on the amendment.

At 5:00 P.M., with Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor, on motion of Senator LAND, with unanimous consent, the Senate receded from business not to exceed ten minutes.

At 5:42 P.M., the Senate resumed.

Senator McCONNELL spoke on the amendment.

With Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor, Senator MOORE asked unanimous consent to make a motion to take up Amendment No. 43, the compromise amendment, for immediate consideration.

There was no objection.

The following amendment (544PERFECTING.FC), as approved by the Clerk, reconciled the amendments adopted during the consideration of S.544:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

/ SECTION   1.   Section 56-1-286(F)(2) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 434 of 1998, is amended to read:

"(F)(2)   one year if the person, within the five years preceding the violation of this section, has been previously convicted of violating Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 or any other law of this State or another state that prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or another drug or has had a previous suspension imposed pursuant to Section 56-1-286, 56-5-2950, or 56-5-2951."

SECTION   2.   Section 56-1-286(G)(2) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 434 of 1998, is further amended to read:

"(G)(2)   six months if the person, within the five years preceding the violation of this section, has been previously convicted of violating Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 or any other law of this State or another state that prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any other drug or has had a previous suspension imposed pursuant to Section 56-1-286, 56-5-2950, or 56-5-2951."

SECTION   3.   Section 56-1-286 (H) through (U) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 434 of 1998, is further amended to read:

"(H) A person's driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege must be restored when the person's period of suspension under subsection (F) or (G) has concluded, even if the person has not yet completed the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program in which he is enrolled. After the person's driving privilege is restored, he must continue to participate in the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program in which he is enrolled. If the person withdraws from or in any way stops making satisfactory progress toward the completion of the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program, the person's license shall be suspended until he completes the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program. A person must be attending or have completed an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program pursuant to Section 56-5-2990 before his driving privilege can be restored at the conclusion of the suspension period.

(I) A test may not be administered or samples taken unless the person has been informed in writing that:

(1) he does not have to take the test or give the samples, but that his privilege to drive must be suspended or denied for at least six months if he refuses to submit to the tests and that his refusal may be used against him in court;

(2) his privilege to drive must be suspended for at least three months if he takes the test or gives the samples and has an alcohol concentration of two one-hundredths of one percent or more;

(3) he has the right to have a qualified person of his own choosing conduct additional independent tests at his expense;

(4) he has the right to request an administrative hearing within ten days of the issuance of the notice of suspension; and

(5) he must enroll in an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program within ten days of the issuance of the notice of suspension.

The primary investigating officer must notify promptly the department of the refusal of a person to submit to a test requested pursuant to this section as well as the test result of any person who submits to a test pursuant to this section and registers an alcohol concentration of two one-hundredths of one percent or more. The notification must be in a manner prescribed by the department.

(I)(J) If the test registers an alcohol concentration of two one-hundredths of one percent or more or if the person refuses to be tested, the primary investigating officer must issue a notice of suspension, and the suspension is effective beginning on the date of the alleged violation of this section. The person, within ten days of the issuance of the notice of suspension, must enroll in an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program pursuant to Section 56-5-2990. If the person does not enroll in an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program within ten days, the suspension remains in effect, a temporary alcohol restricted license must not be issued, and an administrative hearing may not be requested. If the person drives during the period of suspension without a temporary alcohol restricted license, the person must be penalized for driving while his license is suspended pursuant to Section 56-1-460.

(J)(K) Within ten days of the issuance of the notice of suspension the person may:

(1) obtain a temporary alcohol restricted license by filing with the department a form after enrolling in an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program. A thirty-dollar fee must be assessed for obtaining a temporary alcohol restricted license. Twenty-five dollars of the fee must be retained by the department for supplying and maintaining all necessary vehicle videotaping equipment. The remaining five dollars must be retained by the department for administrative costs associated with the issuance of the temporary alcohol restricted licenses. The temporary alcohol restricted license allows the person to drive without any restrictive conditions pending the outcome of the administrative hearing provided for in this section, or the final decision or disposition of the matter; and

(2) request an administrative hearing.

At the administrative hearing if:

(a) the suspension is upheld, the person's driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege must be suspended or the person must be denied the issuance of a license or permit for the remainder of the suspension periods provided for in subsections (F) and (G);

(b) the suspension is overturned, the person shall have his driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege reinstated and is not required to complete the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program in which he is enrolled. Any costs paid by the person to the certified Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program pursuant to Section 56-5-2990 must be refunded.

(K)(L) The periods of suspension provided for in subsections (F) and (G) begin on the day the notice of suspension is issued, or at the expiration of any other suspensions, and continue until the person applies for a temporary alcohol restricted license and requests an administrative hearing.

(L)(M) If a person does not request an administrative hearing, he shall have waived his right to the hearing and his suspension must not be stayed but shall continue for the periods provided for in subsections (F) and (G).

(M)(N) The notice of suspension shall advise the person of the requirement to enroll in an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program and of his right to obtain a temporary alcohol restricted driver's license and to request an administrative hearing. The notice of suspension also shall advise the person that, if he does not enroll in an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program and does not request an administrative hearing within ten days of the issuance of the notice of suspension, he shall have waived his right to the administrative hearing, and the suspension continues for the periods provided for in subsections (F) and (G).

(N)(O) An administrative hearing must be held within ten thirty days after the request for the hearing is received by the department. However, upon a showing of exigent circumstances by either party, a continuance may be granted not to exceed thirty days. If the department does not schedule the hearing within thirty days, a written order must be issued by the department within ten days. The order must set forth the reasons why the hearing was not held within thirty days, and a new hearing must be scheduled. If the department does not issue a written order within ten days or fails to schedule or hold a subsequent hearing, the person shall have his driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege reinstated. The scope of the hearing must be limited to whether the person:

(1) was lawfully arrested or detained;

(2) was advised in writing of the rights enumerated in subsection (H);

(3) refused to submit to a test pursuant to this section; or

(4) consented to taking a test pursuant to this section, and the:

(a) reported alcohol concentration at the time of testing was two one-hundredths of one percent or more;

(b) individual who administered the test or took samples was qualified pursuant to this section;

(c) test administered and samples taken were conducted pursuant to this section and regulations adopted as provided in Section 56-5-2951(Q) division procedures; and

(d) the machine was operating properly.

Nothing in this section prohibits the introduction of evidence at the administrative hearing on the issue of the accuracy of the breath test result.

A written order must be issued to the person upholding the suspension of the person's license, permit, or nonresident's operating privilege, or denying the issuance of a license or permit within thirty days after the conclusion of the administrative hearing. If the suspension is upheld, the person must receive credit for the number of days his license was suspended before he received a temporary alcohol restricted license and requested the administrative hearing.

(O)(P) An administrative hearing is a contested proceeding under the Administrative Procedures Act, and a person has a right to judicial review pursuant to that act. The filing of a petition for review shall stay the suspension until a final decision is issued.

(P)(Q) A person who is unconscious or otherwise in a condition rendering him incapable of refusal is considered to be informed and not to have withdrawn the consent provided for in subsection (B) of this section.

(Q)(R) When a nonresident's privilege to drive a motor vehicle in this State has been suspended under the procedures of this section, the department shall give written notice of the action taken to the motor vehicle administrator of the state of the person's residence and of any state in which he has a license or permit.

(R)(S) A person required to submit to a test 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 proceeding in which the results of the tests are used as evidence. A person who obtains additional tests shall furnish a copy of the time, method, and results of any additional tests to the officer before any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in which the person attempts to use the results of the additional tests as evidence.

(S)(T) A person whose driver's license or permit is suspended under this section is not required to file proof of financial responsibility.

(T)(U) The department shall administer the provisions of this section, not including subsection (D), and shall promulgate regulations necessary to carry out its provisions.

(U)(V) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no suspension imposed pursuant to this section is counted as a demerit or result in any insurance penalty for automobile insurance purposes if at the time he was stopped, the person whose license is suspended had an alcohol concentration that was less than ten one-hundredths of one percent."

SECTION   4.   Section 56-1-460 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-1-460.   (A)(1)   Except as provided in subsection (A)(2), A a person who drives a motor vehicle on any public highway of this State when his license to drive is canceled, suspended, or revoked must, upon conviction, be punished as follows:

(a)   for a first offense, be fined two hundred dollars or imprisoned for thirty days; for the first violation,

(b)   for the a second violation offense, fined five hundred dollars and imprisoned for sixty consecutive days,; and

(c)   for the a third and subsequent violation offense, imprisoned for not less than ninety days nor more than six months, no portion of which may be suspended by the trial judge.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 22-3-540, 22-3-545, and 22-3-550, an offense punishable under this item must be tried exclusively in magistrate's court.

(2)   A person who drives a motor vehicle on any public highway of this State when his license has been suspended or revoked pursuant to the provisions of Section 56-5-2990 must, upon conviction, be punished as follows:

(a)   for a first offense, imprisoned for not less than ten nor more than thirty days;

(b)   for a second offense, imprisoned for not less than sixty days nor more than six months;

(c)   for a third and subsequent offense, not less than six months nor more than three years.

No portion of the minimum sentence imposed under this item may be suspended.

(B)   The department upon receiving a record of the conviction of any person under this section upon a charge of driving a vehicle while his license was suspended for a definite period of time shall extend the period of the suspension for an additional like period. If the original period of suspension has expired or terminated before trial and conviction, the department shall again suspend the license of the person for an additional like period of time. If the suspension is not for a definite period of time, the suspension must be for an additional three months. If the license of a person cited for a violation of this section is suspended solely pursuant to the provisions of Section 56-25-20, then the additional period of suspension pursuant to this section is thirty days and the person does not have to offer proof of financial responsibility as required under Section 56-9-500 prior to his license being reinstated. If the conviction was upon for a charge of driving while a license was revoked, the department shall not issue a new license for an additional period of one year from the date the person could otherwise have applied for a new license. Only those violations which occurred within a period of five years including and immediately preceding the date of the last violation constitute prior violations within the meaning of this section.

If the license of the person convicted was suspended pursuant to the provisions of Section 56-5-2990, then he must be punished as follows and no part of the minimum sentence may be suspended:

(1)   for a first offense, imprisoned for not less than ten nor more than thirty days;

(2)   for a second offense, imprisoned for not less than sixty days nor more than six months;

(3)   for a third and subsequent offense, not less than six months nor more than three years."

SECTION   5.   Section 56-5-2930 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 434 of 1998, is further amended to read:

"Section 56-5-2930.     It is unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle within this State while under the:

(1)   under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the person's faculties to drive are materially and appreciably impaired;

(2)   under the influence of any other drug or a combination of other drugs or substances which cause impairment to the extent that the person's faculties to drive are materially and appreciably impaired; or

(3)   under the combined influence of alcohol and any other drug or drugs, or substances which cause impairment to the extent that the person's faculties to drive are materially and appreciably impaired."

SECTION   6.   Chapter 5, Title 56 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 56-5-2933.   It is unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle within this State while his alcohol concentration is ten one-hundredths of one percent or more. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of the offense of Driving With An Unlawful Alcohol Concentration. A person may be charged for a violation of Section 56-5-2930 but prosecuted pursuant to this section if the original testing of the person's breath or other bodily fluids was performed within two hours of the time of arrest and probable cause existed to justify the traffic stop. This section shall not apply to cases arising out of a stop at a traffic road block or driver's license check point. A person cannot be prosecuted for both a violation of Section 56-5-2930 and a violation of this section for the same incident. A person who violates the provisions of this section is entitled to a jury trial and is afforded the right to challenge certain factors including, but not limited to, the following:

(1)   whether or not the person was lawfully arrested or detained;

(2)   whether or not probable cause existed to justify the stop;

(3)   the period of time between arrest and testing;

(4)   whether or not the person was advised in writing of the rights enumerated in Section 56-5-2950;

(5)   whether the person consented to taking a test pursuant to Section 56-5-2950, and the:

(a)   reported alcohol concentration at the time of testing was ten one-hundredths of one percent or more;

(b)   individual who administered the test or took samples was qualified pursuant to Section 56-5-2950;

(c)   tests administered and samples obtained were conducted pursuant to Section 56-5-2950 and regulations adopted pursuant to Section 56-5-2951(Q) and Section 56-5-2953(F); and

(d)   machine was working properly.

Nothing contained in this section prohibits the introduction of:

(1)   the results of any additional tests of the person's breath or other bodily fluids;

(2)   any evidence that may corroborate or question the validity of the breath or bodily fluid test result including, but not limited to:

(a)   evidence of field sobriety tests;

(b)   evidence of the amount of alcohol consumed by the person; and

(c)   evidence of the person's driving;

(3)   a videotape of the person's conduct at the incident site and breath testing site taken pursuant to Section 56-5-2953 which is subject to redaction under the South Carolina Rules of Evidence; or

(4)   any other evidence of the state of a person's faculties to drive which would call into question the results of a breath or bodily fluid test.

At trial, a person charged with a violation of this section is entitled to a jury instruction stating that the factors enumerated above and the totality of the evidence produced at trial may be used by the jury to determine guilt or innocence."

SECTION   7. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 56-5-2934.   Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person charged with a violation of Sections 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 who is being tried in any court of competent jurisdiction in this State shall have the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor including, but not limited to, state employees charged with the maintenance of breath testing devices in this State and the administration of breath testing pursuant to this article. Such process may be issued under the official signature of the magistrate, judge, clerk, or other officer of the court of competent jurisdiction."

SECTION   8.   The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 56-5-2935.   Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person charged with a violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 who is being tried in any court of competent jurisdiction in this State must have the right of trial by jury. A person charged with one or more of these offenses shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and the right to be fully heard in his defense by himself or by his counsel or by both."

SECTION   9.   Section 56-5-2940 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 434 of 1998, is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-2940.   A person violating who violates a provision of Section 56-5-2930 or 56-5-2933, upon conviction, entry of a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeiture of bail, must be punished in accordance with the following:

(1)(a)   By by a fine of three hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than forty-eight hours nor more than thirty days, for the first offense.; However however, in lieu of the forty-eight hour minimum imprisonment, the court may provide for forty-eight hours of public service employment. The minimum forty-eight hour imprisonment or public service employment must be served at a time when the person is off from work and does not interfere with his regular employment under terms and conditions as the court considers proper. However, the court may not compel an offender to perform public service employment in lieu of the minimum sentence.

(2)(a)   By by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars and imprisonment for not less than forty-eight hours nor more than one year for the second offense. However, the fine imposed by this item may not be suspended in an amount less than one thousand dollars. In lieu of service of imprisonment, the court may require that the individual complete an appropriate term of public service employment of not less than ten days upon terms and conditions the court considers proper.

(3)(a)   By by a fine of not less than three thousand, five hundred dollars nor more than six thousand dollars and imprisonment for not less than sixty days nor more than three years, for the third offense.

(4)(a)   Imprisonment by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years for a fourth offense or subsequent offense.

No part of the minimum sentences provided in this section must be suspended. The court may provide instead of service other sentences provided in this section. For a third or subsequent offense or for a violation of Section 56-5-2945 for great bodily injury, the service of the minimum sentence is mandatory. However, the judge may provide for the sentence to be served upon terms and conditions as he considers proper including, but not limited to, weekend service or nighttime service in any fashion he considers necessary.

The fine for a first offense may not be suspended. The court is prohibited from suspending a monetary fine below that of the next preceding minimum monetary fine.

For the purposes of this chapter any conviction, entry of a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeiture of bail, for the violation of any law or ordinance of this or any other state or any municipality of this or any other state that prohibits any person from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drugs, or narcotics shall constitute a prior offense for the purpose of any prosecution for any subsequent violation hereof. Only those offenses violations which occurred within a period of ten years including and immediately preceding the date of the last offense violation shall constitute prior offenses violations within the meaning of this section.

Upon imposition of a sentence of public service, the defendant may apply to the court to be allowed to perform his public service in his county of residence if he has been sentenced to public service in a county where he does not reside."

SECTION   10.   The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 56-5-2941.   In addition to the penalties required and authorized to be imposed against a person violating the provisions of Section 56-5-2930, the court may require such person, whether or not he is a first or subsequent offender and if he is a resident of this State, to have installed on the vehicle he was operating if it is registered and licensed in his name or in the name of a member of his immediate family an ignition interlock device designed to prevent the operation of the motor vehicle if the operator has consumed alcoholic beverages. The court in imposing the requirements of this section shall specify the length of time which the interlock device is required to be affixed to the vehicle, shall provide that the cost of the interlock device must be borne by the offender, and shall require the offender to periodically report to appropriate law enforcement or probation authorities for the purpose of verifying that the interlock device is affixed to the vehicle during the time required by the court.

If the offender is determined to be indigent by the court and cannot afford the cost of the ignition interlock device, the court may order an interlock device to be affixed to the vehicle and paid for by the jurisdiction making the arrest from fines paid pursuant to Sections 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, and 56-5-2945."

SECTION   11.   Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 56-5-2950 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 434 of 1998, are further amended to read:

"(a) A person who drives a motor vehicle in this State is considered to have given consent to chemical tests of his breath, blood, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol or drugs or the combination of alcohol and drugs if arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of them. A breath test must be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer who has arrested a person for driving a motor vehicle in this State while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of them. At the direction of the arresting officer, the person first must be offered a breath test to determine the person's alcohol concentration. If the person is physically unable to provide an acceptable breath sample because he has an injured mouth or is unconscious or dead, or for any other reason considered acceptable by the licensed medical personnel, the arresting officer may request a blood sample to be taken. If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is under the influence of drugs other than alcohol, the officer may order that a urine sample be taken for testing. If the alcohol concentration is ten one-hundredths of one percent or above, the officer may not require additional tests of the person as provided in this chapter. The breath test must be administered by a person trained and certified by SLED the department, using methods approved adopted by regulation approved pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act not later than March 1, 2001, by SLED. After that date, no policy relating to training procedures or certification may be implemented unless adopted by regulation approved pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. The arresting officer may administer the tests if the person's conduct during the twenty-minute pre-test waiting period is videotaped pursuant to Section 56-5-2953(A)(2)(d). Before the breath test is administered, a ten one-hundredths of one percent simulator test must be performed and the result must reflect a reading between 0.095 percent and 0.105 percent. Blood and urine samples must be obtained by physicians licensed by the State Board of Medical Examiners, registered nurses licensed by the State Board of Nursing, and other medical personnel trained to obtain the samples in a licensed medical facility. Blood and urine samples must be obtained and handled in accordance with procedures approved by SLED.

No tests may be administered or samples obtained unless the person has been informed in writing that:
(1) he does not have to take the test or give the samples but that his privilege to drive must be suspended or denied for at least ninety days if he refuses to submit to the tests and that his refusal may be used against him in court;
(2) his privilege to drive must be suspended for at least thirty days if he takes the tests or gives the samples and has an alcohol concentration of fifteen one-hundredths of one percent or more;
(3) he has the right to have a qualified person of his own choosing conduct additional independent tests at his expense;
(4) he has the right to request an administrative hearing within ten days of the issuance of the notice of suspension; and
(5) he must enroll in an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program within ten days of the issuance of the notice of suspension.

A hospital, physician, qualified technician, chemist, or registered nurse who obtains the samples or conducts the test or participates in the process of obtaining the samples or conducting the test in accordance with this section is not subject to a cause of action for assault, battery, or another cause contending that the drawing of blood or taking samples at the request of the arrested person or a law enforcement officer was wrongful. This release from liability does not reduce the standard of medical care required of the person obtaining the samples or conducting the test. This qualified release also applies to the employer of the person who conducts the test or obtains the samples.

The person tested or giving samples for testing may have a qualified person of his own choosing conduct additional tests at his expense and must be notified in writing of that right. A person's failure to request additional blood or urine tests is not admissible against the person in the criminal trial. The failure or inability of the person tested to obtain additional tests does not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the tests or samples obtained at the direction of the law enforcement officer.

The arresting officer must provide affirmative assistance to the person to contact a qualified person to conduct and obtain additional tests. Affirmative assistance, at a minimum, includes providing transportation for the person to the nearest medical facility which provides blood tests to determine a person's alcohol concentration. If the medical facility obtains the blood sample but refuses or fails to test the blood sample to determine the person's alcohol concentration, SLED must test the blood sample and provide the result to the person and to the arresting officer. Failure to provide affirmative assistance upon request to obtain additional tests bars the admissibility of the breath test result in any judicial or administrative proceeding.
SLED shall administer the provisions of this subsection and shall make regulations necessary to carry out its provisions. The costs of the tests administered at the direction of the law enforcement officer must be paid from the general fund of the State.

A qualified person who obtains samples or administers the tests or assists in obtaining samples or the administration of tests at the direction of a law enforcement officer is released from civil and criminal liability unless the obtaining of samples or tests is performed in a negligent, reckless, or fraudulent manner. No person may be required by the arresting officer, or by another law enforcement officer, to obtain or take any sample of blood or urine.

(b)   In the criminal prosecution for a violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 relating to driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of them, the alcohol concentration at the time of the test, as shown by chemical analysis of the person's breath or other body fluids, gives rise to the following:

(1)   If the alcohol concentration was at that time five one-hundredths of one percent or less, it is conclusively presumed that the person was not under the influence of alcohol.

(2)   If the alcohol concentration was at that time in excess of five one-hundredths of one percent but less than ten one-hundredths of one percent, that fact does not give rise to any inference that the person was or was not under the influence of alcohol, but that fact may be considered with other evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the person.

(3)   If the alcohol concentration was at that time ten one-hundredths of one percent or more, it may be inferred that the person was under the influence of alcohol.

(4)   If the alcohol concentration was at that time ten one-hundredths of one percent or more and the original testing of the person's breath or other bodily fluids was performed within two hours of the time of arrest, the person has violated Section 56-5-2933.

Except for item (4), The the provisions of this section must not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other evidence bearing upon the question of whether or not the person was under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of them."

SECTION   12.   Section 56-5-2951(A) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 115 of 1999, is further amended to read:

"(A)   The Department of Public Safety shall suspend the driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege of or deny the issuance of a license or permit to a person who drives a motor vehicle and refuses to submit to a test provided for in Section 56-5-2950 or has an alcohol concentration of fifteen one-hundredths of one percent or more. The arresting officer shall issue a notice of suspension which is effective beginning on the date of the alleged violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or Section 56-5-2945."

SECTION   13.   Section 56-5-2951(D) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 115 of 1999, is further amended to read:

"(D)   Within ten days of the issuance of the notice of suspension the person may:

(1)   obtain a temporary alcohol restricted license by filing with the department a form after enrolling in an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program. A thirty-dollar fee must be assessed for obtaining a temporary alcohol restricted license. Twenty-five dollars of the fee must be retained by the department for supplying and maintaining all necessary vehicle videotaping equipment. The remaining five dollars must be retained by the department for administrative costs associated with the issuance of the temporary alcohol restricted licenses. The temporary alcohol restricted license allows the person to drive without any restrictive conditions pending the outcome of the administrative hearing provided for in subsection (H), or the final decision or disposition of the matter. If the suspension is upheld at the administrative hearing, the temporary alcohol restricted license shall remain in effect until the department issues the hearing officer's decision and sends notice to the person that he is eligible to receive a special restricted license pursuant to subsection (J); and

(2)   request an administrative hearing.

At the administrative hearing if:

(a)   the suspension is upheld, the person's driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege must be suspended or the person must be denied the issuance of a license or permit for the remainder of the suspension period provided for in subsection (K);

(b)   the suspension is overturned, the person shall have his driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege reinstated and is not required to complete the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program in which he is enrolled. Any costs paid by the person to the certified Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program pursuant to Section 56-5-2990 must be refunded.

The provisions of this subsection do not affect the trial for a violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or Section 56-5-2945."

SECTION   14.   Section 56-5-2951(H) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 115 of 1999, is amended to read:

"(H) An administrative hearing must be held within thirty days after the request for the hearing is received by the department. If the department does not schedule the hearing within thirty days, a written order must be issued by the department within ten days. The order must set forth the reasons why the hearing was not held within thirty days, and a new hearing must be scheduled. If the department does not issue a written order within ten days or fails to schedule or hold a subsequent hearing, the person shall have his driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege reinstated. The scope of the hearing must be limited to whether the person:
(1) was lawfully arrested or detained;
(2) was advised in writing of the rights enumerated in Section 56-5-2950;
(3) refused to submit to a test pursuant to Section 56-5-2950; or
(4) consented to taking a test pursuant to Section 56-5-2950, and the:
(a) reported alcohol concentration at the time of testing was fifteen one-hundredths of one percent or more;
(b) individual who administered the test or took samples was qualified pursuant to Section 56-5-2950;
(c) tests administered and samples obtained were conducted pursuant to Section 56-5-2950 and division procedures regulations as provided in subsection (Q); and
(d) the machine was working properly.

Nothing in this section prohibits the introduction of evidence at the administrative hearing on the issue of the accuracy of the breath test result.

A written order must be issued to the person upholding the suspension of the person's license, permit, or nonresident's operating privilege, or denying the issuance of a license or permit within thirty days after the conclusion of the administrative hearing. If the suspension is upheld, the person must receive credit for the number of days his license was suspended before he received a temporary alcohol restricted license and requested the administrative hearing."

SECTION   15.   Section 56-5-2951(K)(1) and (2) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 115 of 1999, is further amended to read:

"(K)(1)   The period of a driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege suspension for, or denial of issuance of a license or permit to an arrested person who has no previous convictions for violating Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 or any other law of this State or another state that prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or another drug within the ten years preceding a violation of this section, and who has had no previous suspension imposed pursuant to Section 56-5-2950 or 56-5-2951 within the ten years preceding a violation of this section is:

(a)   ninety days for a person who refuses to submit to a test pursuant to Section 56-5-2950; or

(b)   thirty days for a person who takes a test pursuant to Section 56-5-2950 and has an alcohol concentration of fifteen one-hundredths of one percent or more.

(2)   The period of a driver's license, permit, or nonresident operating privilege suspension for, or denial of issuance of a license or permit to an arrested person who has been convicted previously for violating Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 or any other law of this State or another state that prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any other drug within the ten years preceding a violation of this section, or who has had a previous suspension imposed pursuant to Section 56-5-2950 or 56-5-2951 within the ten years preceding a violation of this section is one hundred eighty days if he refuses to submit to a test pursuant to Section 56-5-2950 or sixty days if he takes a test pursuant to Section 56-5-2950 and has an alcohol concentration of fifteen one-hundredths of one percent or more."

SECTION   16.   Section 56-5-2951(P) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 115 of 1999, is further amended to read:

"(P)   An insurer may not increase premiums on or add surcharges to the automobile insurance of a person charged with a violation of Sections 56-1-286, 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945, or any other law of this State or another state that prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any other drug unless he is convicted of the violation."

SECTION   17.   Section 56-5-2951(Q) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 115 of 1999, is further amended to read:

"(Q) The department shall administer the provisions of this section and shall promulgate regulations necessary to carry out its provisions not later than March 1, 2001. After that date, no SLED policy relating to the administration of breathtesting in this State may be used unless that policy has been adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act."

SECTION   18.   Section 56-5-2953(A) and (B) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 434 of 1998, are further amended to read:

"(A)   A person who violates Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 shall have his conduct at the incident site and the breath test site videotaped.

(1)   The videotaping at the incident site must:

(a)   begin not later than the activation of the officer's blue lights and conclude after the arrest of the person for a violation of Section 56-5-2930 or a probable cause determination that the person violated Section 56-5-2945; and

(b) include the person being advised of his Miranda rights, if required by state or federal law, before any field sobriety tests are administered, if the tests are administered.

(2)   The videotaping at the breath site:

(a)   must be completed within three hours of the person's arrest for a violation of Section 56-5-2930 or 56-5-2945 or a probable cause determination that the person violated Section 56-5-2945, unless compliance is not possible because the person needs emergency medical treatment considered necessary by licensed medical personnel;

(b) shall include the reading of Miranda rights, if required by state or federal law, the entire breath test procedure, the person being informed that he is being videotaped, and that he has the right to refuse the test;

(c) shall include the person taking or refusing the breath test and the actions of the breath test operator while conducting the test;

(d) shall also include the person's conduct during the required twenty-minute pre-test waiting period, unless the officer submits a sworn affidavit certifying that it was physically impossible to videotape this waiting period. However, if the arresting officer administers the breath test, then the person's conduct during the twenty-minute pre-test waiting period must be videotaped.

The videotapes of the incident site and of the breath test site are admissible pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Evidence in a criminal, administrative, or civil proceeding by any party to the action.

(B)   Nothing in this section may be construed as prohibiting the introduction of other evidence in the trial of a violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945. Failure by the arresting officer to produce the videotapes required by this section is not alone a ground for dismissal of any charge made pursuant to Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or 56-5-2945 if the arresting officer submits a sworn affidavit certifying that the videotape equipment at the time of the arrest, probable cause determination, or breath test device was in an inoperable condition, stating reasonable efforts have been made to maintain the equipment in an operable condition, and certifying that there was no other operable breath test facility available in the county or, in the alternative, submits a sworn affidavit certifying that it was physically impossible to produce the videotape because the person needed emergency medical treatment, or exigent circumstances existed. Further, in circumstances including, but not limited to, road blocks, traffic accident investigations, and citizens' arrests, where an arrest has been made and the videotaping equipment has not been activated by blue lights, the failure by the arresting officer to produce the videotapes required by this section is not alone a ground for dismissal. However, as soon as videotaping is practicable in these circumstances, videotaping should begin and conform with the provisions of this section. Nothing in this section prohibits the court from considering any other valid reason for the failure to produce the videotape based upon the totality of the circumstances, nor do the provisions of this section prohibit the person from offering evidence relating to the arresting law enforcement officer's failure to produce the videotape."

SECTION   19.   Section 56-5-2953(F) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 434 of 1998, is further amended to read:

"(F)   The Department of Public Safety and SLED shall promulgate regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this section not later than March 1, 2001. After that date, no SLED policy relating to the administration of video taping at the incidence or breath site in this State may be used unless that policy has been adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act."

SECTION   20.   Section 56-5-2970 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-2970.   All clerks of court, magistrates, city recorders, and other public officers in this State having charge or responsibility with respect to convictions or of the entry of pleas of guilty or of nolo contendere or of the forfeitures of bail posted for violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or for convictions or of the entry of pleas of guilty or of nolo contendere or of the forfeitures of bail posted for violations of any other laws or ordinances of this State that prohibit any person from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drugs, or narcotics are required to report to the motor vehicle division of the Department department every such conviction, plea of guilty or of nolo contendere or bail forfeiture within ten days after such conviction, entry of a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere or forfeiture or after the receipt of such report, as the case may be. Such reports shall be made upon forms to be provided by the Department department, arranged in duplicate, and the director of the motor vehicle division of the Department department shall acknowledge the filing of each such report by signing the duplicate of such report and returning it to the officer making it, to be kept by such officer as evidence of his compliance with the requirement that he make such report.

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be subject to a penalty of twenty-five dollars for each such failure, to be collected by the Attorney General or the solicitors of the State under the direction of the Attorney General and paid into the general funds fund of the State."

SECTION   21.   Section 56-5-2980 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-2980.   In all trials and proceedings in any court of this State, in which the defendant is charged with a violation of Section 56-5-2920 or , 56-5-2930, or 56-5-2933 which forbid the operation of a vehicle in a reckless manner or by one while under the influence of intoxicants, drugs or narcotics, photostatic, optical disk, or other copies of the reports required to be filed with the department pursuant to Section 56-5-2970, when such copies are duly certified by the director of the department or his designee as true copies of the original on file therewith, shall be deemed prima facie evidence of the information contained on such reports for the purpose of showing any previous conviction, of the defendant in any other court. Copies of the reports must be duly certified by the director of the department or his designee as true copies. But, the accused may stipulate with the solicitor If the defendant stipulates that the charge constitutes a second or further subsequent offense, in which event the indictment shall not contain allegations of prior offenses, nor shall and evidence of such prior offenses must not be introduced."

SECTION   22.   Section 56-5-2990(A) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(A)   The department shall suspend the driver's license of a person who is convicted, receives sentence upon a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeits bail posted for a violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or for the violation of another law or ordinance of this State or of a municipality of this State that prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drugs, or narcotics for six months for the first conviction, plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeiture of bail; one year for the second conviction, plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeiture of bail; two years for the third conviction, plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeiture of bail; and a permanent revocation of the driver's license for the fourth or subsequent conviction, plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeiture of bail. Only those violations which occurred within ten years including and immediately preceding the date of the last violation shall constitute prior violations within the meaning of this section. However, if the third conviction occurs within five years from the date of the first offense, then the department shall suspend the driver's license for four years. A person whose license is revoked following conviction for a fourth offense as provided in this section is forever barred from being issued any license by the Department of Public Safety to operate a motor vehicle except as provided in Section 56-1-385."

SECTION   23.   Section 56-5-2990(F) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(F)   Except as provided for in Section 56-1-365(D) and (E), the driver's license suspension periods under this section begin on the date the person is convicted, receives sentence upon a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeits bail posted for the violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or for the violation of any other law of this State or ordinance of a county or municipality of this State that prohibits a person from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drugs, or narcotics; however, a person is not prohibited from filing a notice of appeal and receiving a certificate which entitles him to operate a motor vehicle for a period of sixty days after the conviction, plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or bail forfeiture pursuant to Section 56-1-365(F)."

SECTION   24.   Section 56-5-2995 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-5-2995.   (A)   In addition to the penalties imposed for a first offense violation of Section 56-5-2930 or 56-5-2933 in magistrate's or municipal court, an additional assessment of twelve dollars must be added to any punishment imposed which must be remitted to the State Treasurer who shall then distribute the twelve-dollar assessments in the manner provided in Section 14-1-201.

(B)   In addition to the penalties and assessments imposed for a second or subsequent violation of Section 56-5-2930, 56-5-2933, or a violation of Section 56-5-2945 in general sessions court, an additional assessment of twelve dollars must be added to any punishment imposed which must be remitted to the State Treasurer who shall then distribute these twelve-dollar assessments in the manner provided in Section 14-1-201."

SECTION   25.   In the event the alcohol concentration level for driving under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substance offenses changes from ten one-hundredths of one percent or more to eight one-hundredths of one percent or more as provided by law, Sections 56-5-2933 and 56-5-2950(b)(4) of the 1976 Code do not apply to alcohol concentration levels between eight one-hundredths of one percent up to ten one-hundredths of one percent and instead, for this range, there is an inference that the person was under the influence of alcohol or other such substances.

SECTION   26.   If any provision of this act or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to that end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable.

SECTION   27.   The provisions of this act shall not take effect until the Chief of the State Law Enforcement Division certifies to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that all breath test sites in the State have been equipped with video cameras so that a person's conduct may be videotaped pursuant to Section 56-5-2953(A)(2). /

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

With Senator McCONNELL retaining the floor, Senator HUTTO was granted leave to explain Amendment No. 43.

Senator HUTTO moved that the amendment be adopted.

The amendment was adopted.

On motion of Senator HUTTO, with unanimous consent, Amendment No. 27 and all remaining amendments were withdrawn from consideration.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives with amendments.

At 5:45 P.M., on motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.

This web page was last updated on Friday, June 26, 2009 at 9:36 A.M.