Driving under the influence
S. 52 is a comprehensive overhaul of South Carolina’s DUI and related traffic-offense laws. It increases and restructures criminal penalties for driving under the influence and driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration, including higher fines and longer jail/prison terms for repeat and high-alcohol-concentration offenses. The bill also creates a new felony DUI second-degree offense for cases involving moderate bodily injury or significant property damage, adds felony reckless driving offenses tied to great bodily injury or moderate bodily injury, and expands child endangerment to cover additional dangerous driving offenses when a child is in the vehicle.
The bill makes major changes to implied-consent and license-suspension procedures. It revises when breath, blood, and urine tests may be administered, who may collect samples, the warnings officers must give, and the suspension periods for refusing testing or testing above the statutory alcohol threshold. It also expands and standardizes ignition interlock requirements, creates temporary alcohol license options with interlock restrictions, and changes how contested case hearings and video-recording requirements operate in DUI cases. In addition, it requires DUI offenders to attend victim impact panels and complete alcohol and drug safety programs, with community service available for those unable to pay program costs.
Beyond the core DUI provisions, the bill changes court administration and prosecution of these cases. It directs circuit solicitors to take over first- and second-offense DUI prosecutions, creates centralized magistrates courts for certain DUI and related offenses, adds reporting requirements for courts and agencies, and limits plea reductions unless a court finds compelling reasons on the record. It also adds a restitution mechanism allowing courts to order child-support-like financial support when a parent or guardian is killed or permanently disabled by felony DUI, and it asks the Department of Insurance to study an “impaired driver accountability bond” for repeat offenders.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive of tougher DUI enforcement, with the bill passing the Senate 45-0 on second reading and the House 104-0 on passage. However, the bill was not unanimously accepted in all procedural steps: a Senate motion to table Amendment 45 failed narrowly, and the motion to adopt that amendment also failed. The House later voted 0-110 to refuse concurrence in the Senate amendments, indicating disagreement over the amended version even though the underlying bill had broad support.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope and severity of the amendments, especially around sentencing, license suspension, ignition interlock requirements, plea bargaining limits, and court-processing changes. The bill’s broad expansion of penalties and administrative requirements suggests a policy choice to treat impaired driving more aggressively, while the failed amendment votes and the House’s refusal to concur indicate that some lawmakers objected to specific details of the Senate-amended package rather than the general goal of stronger DUI enforcement.
The bill would substantially amend multiple sections of Title 56 and related criminal procedure provisions, increasing penalties for DUI and unlawful alcohol concentration offenses, creating new felony and misdemeanor traffic offenses, expanding ignition interlock and temporary license rules, and revising implied-consent testing procedures. It also changes court jurisdiction and prosecution practices for DUI cases, adds reporting obligations for the judiciary and executive agencies, and amends the violent-crime statute to include certain felony DUI deaths. Affected parties include drivers charged with DUI or related offenses, courts, solicitors, DMV, SLED, the Department of Public Safety, the Office of Substance Use Services, insurers, and families of victims in fatal or disabling DUI crashes.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support for its public-safety goals, as shown by overwhelmingly favorable votes on key stages in both chambers. The Senate and House both approved the bill itself by large margins, suggesting general agreement that DUI laws should be strengthened. At the same time, the procedural votes show that some lawmakers were divided over specific amendments and implementation details, particularly in the Senate and later when the House declined to concur in Senate amendments.
The most notable disagreements center on how far to escalate DUI penalties and how to structure enforcement. Potential points of contention include longer mandatory suspensions, expanded ignition interlock use, limits on plea reductions, mandatory victim impact panels, centralized prosecution and court handling, and the creation of new felony categories for moderate bodily injury and reckless driving. The failed Senate amendment votes and the House’s refusal to concur suggest that while lawmakers largely agree on tougher DUI enforcement, there was not consensus on the final amended language or on the balance between punishment, due process, and administrative burden.