State v. Zaremba, 23105
| Decision Date | 19 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 23105,23105 |
| Citation | 300 S.C. 81,386 S.E.2d 459 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Gregory A. ZAREMBA, Appellant. . Heard |
John D. Crumrine, of Lempesis Law Firm, Charleston, for appellant.
Brady Hair, James E. Gonzales, North Charleston, and S. Melville Coleman, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant, Gregory A. Zaremba (Zaremba) was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). We affirm.
On November 7, 1987, Zaremba was arrested for DUI, taken to the police station, placed in front of a video camera, and read his Miranda 1 rights. After requesting counsel, he phoned his attorney who told him to "Go with the flow." The police officer, Craddock, also spoke with Zaremba's attorney, advising that Zaremba was being videotaped. Zaremba again spoke to counsel, saying "I'll just go ahead and go through with it and check with you in a little bit." Upon hanging up, Zaremba said "Okay" to Officer Craddock. During interrogation, Zaremba appeared confused over the date and time, admitting, "I might be under the influence of alcohol." Sobriety tests showed Zaremba to be intoxicated. The sole issue is whether, as contended by Zaremba, the videotaped evidence was obtained in violation of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
An accused suspect who requests an attorney is not subject to further interrogation by police until counsel has been made available. 2 Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). Here, the record reflects both that counsel was made available, and that Zaremba was advised to proceed with the interrogation. Accordingly, no Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations occurred and the videotaped evidence was properly admitted.
Zaremba's remaining exceptions are affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23: State v. Parker, 271 S.C. 159, 245 S.E.2d 904 (1978) (Exceptions 1, 2, 6 & 7); State v. Newton, 274 S.C. 287, 262 S.E.2d 906 (1980) (Exceptions 4 & 5).
AFFIRMED.
2 An exception to this rule occurs when an accused initiates further conversation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Degnan
...to the holding of this Court in State v. Lewis, supra. 1 We disagree with Degnan's assertion that this Court held in State v. Zaremba, 300 S.C. 81, 386 S.E.2d 459 (1989) that the right to counsel attaches prior to administration of the breathalyzer. Zaremba involved continued interrogation ......
-
Urban v. Kerscher
......We find this reading of Harrison best comports with our state's 423 S.C. 624public policy of reuniting children with their families in timely manner and this ......
-
Dodge v. Dodge
......Dillon-Marion Human Resources Dev. Comm'n, 277 S.C. 533, 536, 291 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1982) . State appellate courts will not issue advisory opinions on questions for which no meaningful relief can ......
-
Middleton v. Johnson, 4108.
......Granville, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether the application of the state of Washington's visitation statute violated Granville's due process right to make decisions ......