Background
SCDMV sought review after the Administrative Law Court reversed an administrative ruling that had upheld Breyonna Jeter’s license suspension. Jeter attempted a breath test, but the machine did not register a completed sample. The record included evidence about her effort, the testing sequence, and whether equipment or circumstances—not unwillingness—prevented completion. The dispute was whether the ALC improperly reweighed evidence when it concluded Jeter had not constructively refused testing.
The appeal placed those facts in the procedural framework governing administrative law, dui, appellate procedure. The court reviewed the preserved questions under the standards applicable to the tribunal and ruling below, while keeping separate factual disputes, legal conclusions, and issues that could be reached on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying the Administrative Procedures Act’s substantial-evidence standard, the panel held the ALC stayed within its appellate role. Evidence supported the conclusion that Jeter tried to provide a sample and did not deliberately frustrate the test. A failed or incomplete machine result is not automatically constructive refusal when the driver cooperated and the failure was not her fault.
The result is tied to the record and posture before the court. Practitioners should read the disposition together with the court’s preservation and standard-of-review analysis; the opinion does not create broader relief than was necessary to resolve the issues properly presented.
Key Takeaways
- Constructive refusal turns on the driver’s conduct, not merely the absence of a completed breath result.
- The APA permits reversal when an agency finding lacks substantial evidence, while barring a reviewing court from substituting its preferred factual view.
- Officers and hearing counsel should preserve machine messages, timing, instructions, and the driver’s observable efforts.
Why It Matters
Although unreported, the decision is useful in South Carolina implied-consent litigation. Practitioners should separate inability from refusal and develop a technical record showing what the breath instrument reported. The case also illustrates how a substantial-evidence argument can succeed without inviting the ALC to make fresh credibility findings.
The immediate practice point is to develop the decisive facts at the earliest stage and connect each requested remedy to the correct South Carolina authority. Clear preservation, a complete record, and precise proposed findings will make later review more useful and reduce the risk that procedure controls an otherwise substantial issue.