the South Carolina Supreme Court has held that ‘an order denying a double jeopardy claim is not immediately appealable’ ” (quoting Miller, 289 S.C. at 427, 346 S.E.2d at 706)); Gilliam v. Foster, 63 F.3d 287, 291 (4th Cir. 1995) (denying State’s motion to stay federal district court’s grant of habeas corpus for pending decision on merits of defendant’s double jeopardy claim in state court proceedings; stating, “[i]t is also regrettable that, because South Carolina law does not permit an interlocutory appeal of the double jeopardy ruling, the appellate courts of that state were not the ones to rule on the matter in the first instance”); cf. Paul v. People, 105 P.3d 628, 633 (Colo. 2005) (en banc) (concluding that denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss on d 2, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (<HOLDING>). 5 . S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2950 (Supp. 2015)
holding that blood alcohol dissipation was not sufficient by itself to create an exigent circumstances exception to virginia statutory requirement that the driver be arrested within three hours of the offense holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw holding that in drunkdriving investigations the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant holding existence of arrest warrant compelling case for finding dissipation