Vol. 10, No. 2, Pg. 28. Patrol Lawyers In South Carolina Courts.

• Author: By John H. Kingsbury

South Carolina Lawyer

1998.

Vol. 10, No. 2, Pg. 28.

Patrol Lawyers In South Carolina Courts

28Patrol Lawyers In South Carolina CourtsBy John H. KingsburyA friend who had represented himself in a traffic court case corners you at a party and complains about how he was treated in traffic court. The cops run the whole show, your friend says, so there's no justice.

When he went to court to plead not guilty and ask for a jury trial, the officer was there taking pleas. No judge, just the officer. "What do you mean, not guilty," demanded the officer. "You turned in front of a car that was passing you. How can you be not guilty."

At trial the officer picked the jury, made an opening statement, called himself as a government witness, sat in the witness stand and told the jury the defendant was, in the officer's opinion, the primary cause of the accident and, therefore, guilty of an improper turn while the person who was passing him in a no passing zone was not the primary cause of the accident and therefore couldn't be ticketed.

The officer objected to the defense witnesses, exhibits and the testimony of your friend. The trooper told the judge and jury what law applied. At the end of the trial, he told the jury they should convict because the officer wouldn't have charged the defendant if the defendant wasn't guilty. And all the time, the highway patrolman wore his uniform and rested his hand on his handgun, which made your friend nervous.

30Welcome to the world of patrol lawyers. In 1958, the South Carolina Attorney General established a program to allow a highway patrol officer to act as both the prosecutor and the prosecuting witness in the trial of a traffic ticket case.

Only New Hampshire and South Carolina allow patrol lawyers to practice in their courts. State v. LaPalme, 104 N.H., 179 A.2d 284 (1962) (animal abuse prosecution), State v. Messervy, 258 S.C. 110, 187 S.E.2d 524 (1972) (DUI prosecution, cited LaPalme as authority), and State v. Aberizk, 345 A.2d 407 (1975) (DUI prosecution, reaffirmed LaPalme and cited Messervy as authority).

Messervy approved the practice of using state troopers as both the prosecutor and prosecuting witness in a driving while impaired case. The court noted it "found no case in this state on point and surprisingly little precedent in other jurisdictions" for this dual function of state...