HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-06649
I
:\
.~
,"j
~
f
~
:f
......
~
~
~
il /
,
a
'->
. I
OL<120 (0/06)
CEllTIFICATION
li)(ftIUI'T
I ( "" \ 1\\
1\ I' I -',.'
DATE: Docolllbor 1 e, 1096
Il1oroby <;ortlly IIllll RobllCCII L, IllJcI\loy, Dlloelor olll1u l:lillUlllJ olllilvor IICUIIUIIl\J of tl1u
POlllluylvlIllln Dopnrlmolll 01 TI'lIIlUpOllnlloll, Iu tl10 IUUIII CllUtodlllll 01 1110 Illlvor IIcolluo rucmdu 01 IIlll
POlllluylvllllln Dopllrll11ol11 of Trnllupoltnlloll, Au 1110 Dlmctor olllw llflHlJlJllld IlUl OlllJ , UllllllllU IUUIII
clJulody 01 1110 OIlglllnl or mlcrolllm rocordu whlcl1 11I0 roprodlJcod III 1110 II II Ill; 11 od <;olllllclllioll,
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF
THIS DEPARTMENT THE DA Y AND YEAR AFORESAID.
.~:~OI~;~j~AN.PORTATiON.. ..
I HERES" CERTIFY THAT THE FOI1EGOING AND ANNEXED IS A FULL, TF1UE AND
COFlI1ECT CERTIFIED PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF:
1) Official Notice of suspension doled & moUod 11/11/90, offecllve 12/16/96; 2) Heming Examlnor
ReC0l111110ndotloll Form dotad 11/01/96; 3) Lollar datod 00/25/9610 tlio dofondont I'ognrdlng point
OSGOSSl11ont and futuro notica to allond 110arlno; 4) Record of Convlcllon Dotolls rocolvod by Il1e
Doparll11ont oloclronlcolly frol11 Dlstrlcl Court No. 19300, for Cllnllon No, A 13841402, dale of
violation 06/26/06, dolo of convlcllon 00/04/96; 5) Lollor dalod 11/30/93 10 1110 dofondanl
regmdlno point ossossl11onl nnd fuluro notico 10 alland 110arlng; G) Cllation No, 0112931, datod
10/17/93, rovarso oltacl1od Corllflcotion of Dlsposltioll do.tod 10/20/83, sool nltocl1od 10 orlolnal;
7) Roslorod offoctivo 05/16/93; 0) Lollor dalod 03/01193 10 1110 dofondnlll requiring apoclal oxom
10 bo lal{Of1; 9) Cllalloll No. 133127, dalod 12/04/92, revorso allacllOd Cortlllcullon of Dlsposlllon
dated 01/07/93, soal ullached to original; 10) Lollor dalod 12/00/92 to 1110 dofondllnl rogardlng
polnl US6eS51l1lJnt 101' vlolnllon on 00/05/92; 11) Cllallon No. 418832, dalod 09/05/92, rovorso
ottachod Cortlflcatlon of Disposition dated 09/17/92, soul attachod 10 original, and 12) Drilling
I~ocord, wl1lch appears In the file of tho defondant Tracie L. Well(or, opera lor's no, 22062862,
dolo of birth 11/05/69, In the Bureau of Driver Licensing, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
CERTIFIED TO as prE/scribed by Sections 6103 and 6109 of the Judicial Code, Act of July 9,
1976, PL. 586, as amended, 42 PACS gg61 03 and 6109.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR
AFORESAID. cgQ[k~(... ;~\, ~~~JQ"J
REBECCALBUCI<LEY, Di-R~O-R~-SEAL
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING
I
f
,\
~\'
i
I
J
I
\
~
,
'.~;"
,
IIUI" L L D^"KII
U
DIlIVI" LIC'N,. alNTIIl
ItAIlIlIIIUIlG
, PA
ItrAIlINO IXAHINIIl IlICOHHINDATION POliN PAIlT ON'
'"Am; L WELKE"
401 "ADeLI"E D"IYE
APT.
HA""ISIUftG PA ~?~D~
allD TINI all NOIlI OVIIl , POINTS
un
NON-eOL eltANDI OP ADDIlIII ONLY'
"" t.
1I/00/UU
lI,ao AN
17104
'~11~'~~~4DI11' DOl
0"1/11 . ~~~
/lID~"
U/Oal ~.,
06/U/1 ".
IkellDIHG NAklNUH IPIID
-
ItEARING RECOH"INDATION
(CIRCLI ONI Oil HOIlI)
~~ No DIPer~lnhl AcUon
~ sUIPln~~ De~1
I . 1501 Drivlr IKI~
k . 1501 Drivlr IKlm Ind
SUIPlnd ____ DI~I
T . Drivlr FIllld to Attend
Sch,dulld D.plrt~entll
H.lring - SUI ~nd ____ OIYI
,
\
DIlIVER'S SIONATUIl
HIAIlING EXAHINIR'S
ID NUN""
. ,'I."
"
" ,
," ~ "..', ~ " ",,,'..,,
P · Splcil1 T.lt/Drivlr',
Tnt
Q · Splciel PoSnt Tilt
D . 1108 Drivlr Telt
R . Rljut PI U Uoner 'or
FL
I . elhlble for PL
W . Wlthdrlw
"
V 'Illed to AUlnd
...::---- I
,-.,.-....-> A TI.JJ./...L.I
,
I
'.
'.
.'
"
",' ..1' , {:.,
,
". .,
.
C'};!O:1II00 :WJ.03UO;! conviotion Oetail
8o~.en 1 or 2 A013030] 12/16/9ti
WIll No 96262 nll3 :ll1l9UO 001
NUllltl WI':J.IO,1l 'I'HM:m
Chuck I.l iq t t U I
1ut I,ino Addl.'uIW I
2nd I,inu Addruaa I
City/Utllte/Zip I
Dnto Il" Ili nh I
Opol.'lItcr Number I
80cilll Uocurity I
lJiatJ:lct Numbul: ,
Citation Numbol: I
Dockot NU~Jur I
Fino I
Alllount owod I
Hoction Violated,
SUIlP Auth Coda ,
Upcod Limit ,
Spood Tr6volod ,
Suction lJo6cl:iptl
11i . HE'I'UHN
:.IO-NItX'l'
I.,
00405 IlADC1,n'I" Oil, I)
IiMIlIHIlUIW 1>^ 1'1109
11/05/69 1 OJilIll: l,io IItata PA
22062862 l3ex/l~aol'l l"
ViOlation Patll 06/:.111/96 1
19309 IF i l1nQ PaLfI 06/:lQ/91$ 1
A131J41402 I "lJIIII Date 06/:16/911 1
'l'I~OOO:l 0 0596 Dlltl'lndant 1> 1 1'1 a N01'
57.00 Convict ion Datil 09/04/96 1
130.00 R."ponu Pato I)
336:.1 DilJpositlon 0'1'
Ch4l:QI'I 8eq No 001
55 'l'rangmittnl Pntu 09/16/96 1
71 'l'RAN8MI'I"I'AL 'l'IMIE 073044
reXCltltD 55 MPH IN O'1'IiIER l,OC BY 16 MPIt
:lJ.NX'l'-ONRIEC
t\ ~\
cnOIIlOI) \111,0:1110] Convil'l\:ion Vetail
lIonen 2 of 2
AO~]O]O] 1~/tG/9~
ClIUl:OIllUL' NlIlJlhuL' ~~06~U6~
l:lI U t OIllU r NIIIIIU W~;LI<Ii:H 'I'HAC!1i: I,
COIIIIII Vullidu [lid I N Offenlle l'lnca 'I'WI' I,N I~XI'l' 1~
IIAZMA'J' 1/1.1 1 N Of f elllle 'I'illle 101.1 l'
CnJ, lIo1.1ur I AI.' ,'flllt AQuncy I'AO r, '111;00
Vull i d u I l'OI'l'I'lAC Off:oQr IP NY63
l<fI\liutrntio/1 No I I'N2491l COlln,'y 6'1
HI~(jHI'1'IW1'lON YIEM I 9'1 QOJ;n/"wp 204
HU'Jl.utrntio/1 6tatl':ll l"A ROlltll 83
Valliclll 'I'ype I CP 'l'itle I 'Iii
HOlllu nu Pefendnnt I Y Update ~ndioatorl
De~u/1dn/1t lliQned I Y SIlIlP/Re~t lnd I
AOI'C /lend Date I 09/115/915 1
11l-RJ1:TUIlN
20-NIl:XT
22 -1ST' INRItC
.. -.- ,.-'.
-
... .
, ~., i ....:-~~,\~tJ__..=:~c ~.':Ir:~U!;f~Lg~ SIJ::I~!.u ~~J~~=i"liii;::~;-
r..".!~l-!~~.~;~of,"~~!";l.t.~ , . .__.. L..:.':':~JI.!-'l:. ' '1'L "i:. ":!-::.'..!...,::.
..' ,'::~': :,.::,~:.~..!.~~~I,~~~.5l.L;..::I~I.:",~" _~~.~_. ~i_~~!I.+_.
, I "j?j;ii' , ') ..... .~_-.:::=--:,,~-- .~.~:~.~:..=r,!:aJ-~:.~~~=
~~t" ~ait:V1~'~1 '~N I"nl ,.~.. ,> ;.~. ~L~\~:::'~
'I JILt, I ~'t. j.lli_ r,<;}_~. ..;,1\tJer,;~_, ..!!.. ~~~~'\~~~--!'N_
, . 11" I' ' :J:JIJJ, . ~':' ()
o I; ~ "'I';;;-$" ~1}? -
Q ';,";;-;J;;- '$'~iDio -
~ ;>;;~~- '$ '1lh~
, o.;:;,;l~i'''{'lf.~~~o .
1-- r"""""""'"
" .1.<:.1 ~ 1.lIu
, ~AT~ '''~j'''''' r" . ~T---'t';-":' N ':!()!El~~t1' ff1,1:~ - ,
,n ~....2llJ ..... _ .~. rJ~...---- ~__..'t IL-...--.. ' . .
. . ~ I I .... . "'M ... . '...
, , .,,, II
t . _.,~__ --. .-.- -T:' ....-.-.... ,.....-' .....JJ...J_ I
.". ~.'t....., ""';';':~ .'~:"':...
I d .' T-"r''1ii~(j -:;;:.. t:'l ".~, ~. \7"'~;- ....;'.--.' ......JlJlL
, ' L7 L_..~_~L ~::'.JL~~" ..:"::r):~': ':::l~'~'~,l~}1
. .,:" 4'~O ," .::;:.r.,. n"lw~'" ''''~.., I It I
I, ..'i~ ,J:H~millr.,T...,;W\,._.\O.,n'~1aiiJ ;;",';;',;. -,;;,;;~'. ." '"I,;rr;.;,;;;,,;,",
\ !II ~;~,';;' I~ ': i 'J."~', _...j,....':"f"":'r-"";..II,.~I...t.. ~J,j"-
I I ~~M~l--!'~.J'1-~~~~.~ .......t~.~_........-_._. I\""u_l -:.1___
~I'~;O' ~.-
"'11.UlIdft.~~J.W.flll'-j10~. ~
. :'nYt.~- I~::"'''' l'~
'- ..;~~~;;;~~ ~~~:;ra~ lj~.~t;]i..'
,.,.__;-\. ;;:.~it.. hllof "iJ ~ '"I
- .f"'.
,~
';':~4" ::J.:r'
r)
r'",I
,
"
"
, I
.'..' -. --:':::=;:'::~=::':':'::~~'T ..... .::=:::::.::..-.:.__....._.~.......
, 'lill" . 9:'304 ...0I1liUDI4...'r.....,;aM ,
, ,- ~':!IfI'FICATU IlISIJ()SITION
, l~t '~_.....,...-_.......h._.~.l.......-~.._!. ...........__ n__'__"_'_'
1 .' AllIlll>fCA'JlON
, , Glnllt J~lIJR'."" O..N I
I tbl"'~"II."'" ....1 I'.... "'1" 'to
'fJllI>J Oullly ,I,
l'fJlM.l N<lt o.,lIly "
I I:.~~;r 1f.~'~hll"...nVI 1:1,
I PIu~" Ol/lIIy IlIn....N~1 . ...1.
I I"""...rli<JI. W1thllllWll 1, I .
, ,J)lJIIllJ ilulHy I)l ~II!l1.-
I _____:~..L..~~II MI. ,_~'::L .1ll11 __...
(
I' 'N'Jl!NCI!
; . ,fl?lI, " , ".. I...~J;..
l!M,S.. ., ,., "-~71'1 ....
,"Jr;~,. """ .., '-~7-dtJ
~~ ::" ,. "".. ., . ,:=~!~t~.
~', ~;"".." ..,.. .,. ..... ,J~tL_~
-.., buti~'MiJdlc4lllun _____ .L'l.----.-~----. ,g ~,
_. ~'nllted 10 ___. _____,
1 .,.. ttlmbuI 01 OIVII rt' , ____.__...__n..__..
u',' ,- t 'tfl_ "', ' ' ,'l4.~ II
i. ...I(i::::y:~:= ~~~=t".
'. ..~~"~""-~~J-'- '::~F~ M PII~""1' ~"l~~.
.~lnIotmai"ioIl~MlIT~ " '.;~'..
" WiIll1d cOII1IIlI aod """" II#1\JIId l/Ie. .. ,\
:':'_Of my omot,' "j J 'III ,,.
.......~ ... . ~.,.
~'1.'''' '. ',,'. ',f "'If. '. .'1'....'..'
)....~~ .... . I . "" ", , "', ..,. ,,~I.,.... .". .
t( -"1.:.1' ., " ,.." . I.'" ','.,. ' , '. I. I,
..
1\". .
, ;".'{ "_1", ',.. '",
,
I
r
q
~
4
&
d
I
, J
II
I.
\
~ I \ ' ,
,
I
CO"HOHW.~LTH OP rlHHsYLV~HIA
D.~ARTHIHT OP TRA SPORTATIOH
lur'.u of prlv.r Lla.n.lnu
H.~rl.burUI p~ 111~a
, blfCIIHMlII QQ, lUR
I,
, I
I
TIIAClt l. IiIt\.Ktll
US III \.QCUST !iT
APT ~o~
MtCHANXCSBUR4 PA
).1055
~aaO~644aDD~~51 oo~
~I!/O)'/)''1',e
ailO~llllbll
U/D5/),~\;~
. ,
.
I
o..r iRACIE L WELKER.
\
~~ur QonV1Q~lon on 0"17/1"~ for vlul.tlno s.atlan 1162
af th. V.hlcl. Cod., EXCEEOING MAXIMUH SPEED, on' 0"06/1"2
m.ndlt.. I ~ point a.....m.nt to wour driving r.cord, '
Your ~rl'flc vlolltlun ~huuld cuncern yuu becRu~el
.
You m.w 1.150 wuur driving prlvlloue If you cnnHnu. to
drlv'j unl'afely,
D~ v~alat'lng trufflc hWI, WOU al" mure llkulw to bu In
In Iccldent--Wuu 6rd rilking lerlnul InjurW to wour..lf
Ind otherl bW driving unlafolW. .
. H.glluent drivlno leldl tu hlghor Inluronco cnlt~.
.
If wou are a woung driver, It II elpeclal&w Important
vou to k.IP R cllan record, UnfortunatelW, Wuuno drlvur.
Inv~lv.d In more Accldentl than onw oth.r groUp,
"
,; \ \01 a Ilncar.1W hope that from now 011 wou will choo.~ \0
, I ,drlv, clrafupV and obnrvo all traffic 18w~, 110t onlw for
I \lour own u;etw but allo for tho lafet\l of everwonu .In
.hlrln~ the road with \IOu.
,
51nc.rllll,
.
"
" I
~. '1.'1 : \'
'I~, I .
~,. ,," '\ I
'l;' .'. r 1;1
Ii,,;: '.' " 11.1'
"11'1 ,I, l.
~ _J? ,I, r#t'~~
lIaugl" K. 'roblr., '~'Irector
Bureau of Orlvet'., ~.~can.lng
'., '\
v
I I
-to'
~ \\i
Uao'WIIOO lU7
IN~O~"ATION (7100
"HhblJrllh Aru
"hllld.lphll Ar.1
Itlrrllburll Ar..
hll 'r..
"'''1''""'' '"
.
. ." .......
,~
.....
I
, ,
A" to "to P" I
" 1112-561J-"'70
- 2 1IS-"1"1ll00
- 7l7-717"IIUO
1- IIl0-n2-'\600
SAFI, DRIVI SMART" ,AND ALWAVS WIAA YOUR IIAT liLT I
.
t.
,
,
.,
"
I, " '~,
,
I ,- ,rr
\
. ,
, ,
-..
COMMONWJi;Al,'rll Olf PENN6YloVANIA
l'ENNfJyr..VANIA IJI!PM'I'MI!N'I'
or T"ANBPORTATION
IlUI~EAU Olf IJIHVEII r.IC~;N6IN(j
APPI!'.l.!!!':
VII,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ij.QJ 1('1'; 0;'
IN TIll': COUll'I' O~. COMMoN PI.~:Ml 01'
CU~IIlElll.flNn COUNTY I l'I!NNBYl.VANIA
NO, ql", (~" '/~ Ct'~'11 7J1"~
THACIJr w!':r,'IE~
APPI~J.I.ANT
APPEAr.
I, Appellant, Traclo \~l'JlkrH III IIn ad\llt lndlvldulIl Ilhorn
currently r~9ldus at ~C5 Radelltfo Dr, Apt U 1I11rrl&burg,
Pennsylvanla, 17109/ POllphln County,
~. Appolloll, CO/llmQIII/lllllth or Punnsylvanlo, Pel1l16ylvunla PepllrtlllulI':
of Tral1sportatlon. l,lIruuu or Drlvll1g Ucen6lnl). lIarrlapurg. l1nuphlll
county, PClllnllylvllnla, 171 ~J Is a stille u'Jeney.
-. Your Appollal1t reeulvu~ 6 spoudlna tlc~ot on 6/~6/96 und
u conviction on 9/0~/96. ~ polnl9 had then been aS6lgnl)~ to
driving record.
4. Your Appollant WUB nutlflod 011 or about 11/09/96/ that hor
llcenllll wall being sUllpondod ror a period of ono month Whlch
would go Into effect 12/16/96 at 12,0: 6,m. A ~ruo and correct
copy of the Notlce ls attachod,
5. Also uttnchod Is a ! yoar drlvlng record of tho Appellant,
shOWing only thu ticket nlrl16dy montloned, no aecldent6, I.hleh
questions the suspon6lon.
5, The 9usponslon 15 hJrsh slnc~ tho tl~~ot was glvell on Rt.A3
In the flrst plu~a. ~hn ~ravell apFrCXlmatoly lOG mllal a
doy on this hl'lhllJY tolel, o\nd r<lrl:h ~'.: '"or:" !'<lInt t'iln';,
tho horrendous constructlon. hours spent slttln'l galnq
f\l
'" e;
.- ~
~ ~
....:::r-
'"
I" .., Z ."
I., """'
.. ~ I'-
11/' 1;1 ....
, .
, "r I' ~
I ~
, .: C(\ ~ ....
, ........ ~
I ' I
I
n---<., ~\..' ..
'....... ~ I.() , ~
, ,
'-
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSI'ORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRiveR
LICENSING
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNBYLVANIA
V,
TRACIE WELKER
96.66"9 CIVIL TERM
Iti.8I.L.QBJYIB1J.J.QINet; DVeel~J.QN
gaoJR OF eQuat
AND NOW, this JL day of March, 1997, tho suspension of Pllltltlon.r's
operating prlvllege for GO days, IB REVERSED. The case hi reminded to the
Department of Transportallon, Bureau of Drlver L1oenslng, to Impose 0 15.doy
suspension as a result of pelllloners convlollon on June 26, 1996, for speeding at 71
miles per hour In a 515 mile per hour z~ne,
/
By the coutrl
George H, Kabusk, esquire
For the Department of Transportallon
TraciE! Welker, Pro se
405 Radollffe Drlve
Apartment B
Harrlsburg, PA 17109
I 1'1')
l'tJ~l.t." 'lI""I",~"l .J II) lo~ ~J I
:saa
COMMONWEAL TH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRIVEI~
LICENSING
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
OUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V,
TRACIE WELKER
96.654Q CIVIL TERM
It!BI~Ne SUBP~~flJ.uM
QfJ.NI.QtiANlLOBC..Ef.LQf COUBI
BAYLEY, J" March 18, 1881..
Petitioner flied this appeal from the tluspenslon 01 her driving priVilege lor GO
days by the Department of Transportation pursuant to the Vehicle Code at 76 PI!I,C,S,
Section 163B(0) that provides:
Sublequent accumulatlonl 01 ehl polntl,..When a porson'u
record has been reduced bolow six points and for tho third or
subsequent tlmo shows as many 8S six points, thl departmont Ihlll
require the driver to attend a depnrtmentolhearlng to determine
whether th6 perlon'l operotlng prlvlluge Ihould be r/ulpended for
period not to eMceed 30 days, , " (Emphasis Udded,)
The certified driving record of petllloner shows that os a result or a conviction
on September 5, 1992 for speeding at 76 miles per hour In a 70 mile per hour zone,
the Department assigned pellllonar four points, On December 4, HJ92, as a result of
a conviction for speeding at 67.B miles per hour In 0 35 mile per hour zone, the
Department aS6essed pelllloner another four points giVing her a total of eight points.
After passing a departmental exemlnatlon, petitioner was credltlld three points
effective May 6, 1993, with five points remaining. On October 17, 1993, as a result 01
a conviction lor speeding at 71,6 miles per hour In a 66 mile per hour zone, the
96.6649 CIVIL TERM
Department assigned pqllllonflr four more polnttl Qlvlng her a total 01 nine points,
Pelllloner attended a deparlmental hearing after whloh no sollon wall taken. Alter
pelllloner wall vlolallon free tor over one year, the Department on Oolober 17, 1995,
oredlted pelllloner with six points roduclng her tot.al points to IImle. As a result of a
oonvlollon on Jllne 26, 1990, for speeding at 71 miles per hour In a 55 mile per hour
;zone, the Department usslgned pelltloner h)ur morEl points giVing her a total of r.even
points, Since palllloner's record previously had been reduced below six polntslhree
separate limes, and her record agalnshowod mora than six points, a departmental
hearing was conduoted pursuant 10 Section 153B(c) of the Vehicle Code, The record
of the hearing e)lBmlner which resulted In the Impllslllon of a maximum 30.day
suspension contains the following notations:
Drives 30,000 mllCIIs per yr,
Has Ins.
no recent accidents
no vlolallons pending
Driven (illegible)
71/66 npeedlng
163
not sure which police
VASCAR
was not aware of speed
was Bware of limit
Pelltloner challenges the Imposition of the maximum 30.day penalty following
the Section 1536(0) hearing. Petitioner, age 27, works for AMP, Inc, For two years
she has worked Ii!WHl days a week commuting 100 miles round trip each day from
Harrisburg to AMP on Interstate 63. Petitional' maintains that the Imposition of a
.2.
06.6640 CIVIL TERM
maximum 30.day pflnalty under Soollon 1536(0) was too harsh, unralr and
Inappropriate given her 10lal olrcumlltances, She notes thot her Il1llt convlollon on
.June 26, 1906, wall for exoeedlng a 66 mll6 per hour spelld limit by 16 miles per hour
on In Intlrstate hlQhway,
In Commonwealth of Pennlylvanla, Oeportment or Tranlportollon, Bureau
01 Orlver Llcenllng v, Flore, 131l Po, COlllmw, 506 (1001), a case heard before
Ileven Commonwealth Court Judges !In b!\JJg, the Court eXBllllned Iho slandard 01
rlllvlew In motor vehlcll'l operator IIcllnse suspension cases, The trial cOUl1 suspended
appellant's lIoenfle for 16 days, Appellanl waB convicted of speeding 73 mllas per
hour In 1140 mll13 per haUl' zone on July 10,1066,' Appellont had throe prior
convlcllons for speodlng between January 011083 and August of 1966, At the de
novo hearing before thA trial cou/1, the Department emphasized that It WI1S appellant's
fourth speeding violation In five yeers, There '....ss evidence tllat a 16.day suspension
was generally Imposed pursuant 10 the Vehicle Code at 75 Pa,C,S, Secllon 1536(d)
rather th~n a suspension of some shorter duration because It was almost Impossible
for the Department to process a suspension In less than 15 days, The trial judge
pointed out that lhe statute allowed for 5uspenslons of le5s than 16 days and reduced
1. Under Section 153B(d) of the Vehicle Code, when a person Is convicted of
driving 31 miles per hour or more In excess of the speed limit, tho Department must
hold a hearing and the hearing examiner can recommend one or more 01 tile
following: (1) tllatthe person be required to attend a driver Improvement school, (2)
that the person undergo an examination as provided for In Section 1506, and (3) that
the person have his driver's license suspended for a period not exceeding 15 days,
.3.
96.6649 CIVIL TERM
appellant's suspension from 16 days to 10 days becallse"lt seemll very unfair to (lIve
him the ma)(lmum penally just bl3CauslI 01 1110 PenI1DOT'1S physlcallncopablllty, , , ,"
The Commonweallh CoU/1 stated that a 11'101 court's elf! "avo review acls all a Ol'leol<
on the arbllrary e)(erclse olacfmln/strntlvo powor rmd fullllls Ihe legl!ilnllve Intent to
grant "the trial cOllrt broad dlliorollonary powers In Ihe Intorest of !he odmlnllltrallon or
jllstlce." The Court noted thAt de novo rEvlow Is II "lull consideration of the oase at
another time," and It stotad:
In ordlllr for the trial courts to provide rorums which ore true and
effective cheol<s on the department, the broad discretion granted them
to ensure tho admlnlstrallon 01 justice by protecllng drivers agalnlltths
arbitrary e)(erclss of power by the department must e)(tend beyond a
mere review of tha facts to tl10 modification of SAnctions Imposed where,
as hero, the department has ubuasd lis dlscrotlon when choosing from
the range 01 pan allies provldod. Without such authorlly, a trial court's
ability to protecl against Abuso 0' dllicrellon by the deportment would be
meaningless,
In Flore, tho Commonwllalll, Coul1 disapproved sllnctlonfl bl1sed upon
administrative concerns rather than the sevorlty of the offense Involved, The
Departmentl'1ad a policy of never Imposing a sUllpenslon or less thAn 16 days due to
the difficulty In processing shorter suspensions, The Court conclllded that tile Irlal
court must determine II the Department had treated each case Individually wilen It
had discretion os to which penally to Impose, Tho stAtutOry grant 0' discretion to the
Department and the hearing e)(amlnerlS carries wllh It an Obligation 10 e)(erclse that
discretion based upon the Individual facts 0' the case, If the trial court upon
consideration of all the 'acts of the case, determines that the Department has abused
.4.
96.6649 CIVIL T1mM
1If1 discretion, It can modlty Ih6 sanctIon Imposed, A blanket rule Improperly
restricting the exercise of dlsoretlon Is such an abuse, In upholding Ihe reduotlon 0'
thlll penalty by the trial court, the COl11monwaalth CouI1 stated In Flore:
Here, the department, admlt1lng that the duration or the penally
Imposed Is often based on admlnlstretlve concerns ralhor than on the
severity of one's violation of lhe Vehicle Code, abused lis dlsoretlon by
Imposing the maximum suspension provided for In Section 1636(d),
Suoh an arbitrary exercise 01 power Is clearly tile type 01 obuSEl ogalnst
which de novo review WAS Intended 10 protect.
In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dopartmentof TranspClrtatlon. Bureau
of Driver L10enllng v, Banketon, 156 Pn, Commw, 127 (1 ~193), tho Department
appealed from an ordar 01 a trial court remanding an operator's license suspension
appeal to the Department wltl1 direction to Impose the sancllon of requiring a special
driver's IIcenso examination rather Il1an tile Imposed 15.day 5ulipenslon following a
Secllon 1536(d) l1earlng. The operator l1ad been convicted 01 going 90 miles per
hour In a 56 mile pOI' 110ur zone. At tile departmental hearing, the operator tostlfled
that he estimated his speed on 1l1e date In quesllon at 70 miles par hour and tl1at he
believed tl1at he was traveling In a 66 mile per 110ur zone. He ergued that his driving
record was generally good and thatl1e had not been cited for Ci vlolallon since 1985,
The hearing examiner told the operator that the Department could Impose either a 15.
day suspension or require a special driver's license examination under Section
153B(d). At the trial de novo before the trial court, the operator tesllfled that he lived
In a rural area where alternate transportallon wes not easily obtained and that he
needed his vehicle for work. He tesllfled that he did not believe that tho mll)(lmum
.6.
06.6649 CIVIL TEI1M
115.day suspenlllon WAS lair, Tile trial COln1 concluded that tl1ere was no rflason to
Impose tile suspenlllon Inllgl1t of the QvldencQ of "nddlllonnl clrcumlltnnoes"
presented atthQ do novo l1earlng, Tile Commonwealtl1 Coul1 conoluded tl1Bttl1e trial
court's order complied wltl1lts:
[ojbllgallonundor Plore 10 o~nl11lllu 1110 pOllnlty Il1lpoBed to DOT In IIgl1t
or tile sovmlly of tl10 OffUIlBO nit or n full rocollGldol'lllloll of Il1e CBSCl,
DOT alt,,",pll to dlllllngulsl1 Flore by arguing 1111 IImlllld to
Inltal1011 whore tl1l1 pllnlllly Imposed IB sololy bond 011
admlnlltrnllvo conoorns, We dlBngroo, Floro orlllolzed OOT'I
ullenlld jUlllflollllon lor Imposing 0 flftoon-day sUlpot1l5lon: tho
mllre Imposolhlllly of procosBlng 0 susponslon of lelSor durl\lIon,
The Impon of Floro, howover, hI not ffmllod to liB pl'oollO faotl,
Impllollln 1111 dlsousslon of tho noluro of do novo rovlllw and the
protllollon 1\ offors thoso offoctod by ndmlnltllrollvo doolslonl II II
reoognlllon thotlho trlol court cnn and should aotln the Interest 01
thll ndn'lnlltrnllon 01 jusllce.
Moroovor, DOT ndl11ltli to n BOl11uwhot sl/11l1or justlflcallon for tile
suspension Imposocj Oil Bonl'Gton l1oro:
In tile preGullt mothal', tl10 Depnrtmelll sUGpended Bllnl,Bton's
operallng prlvllego for tlflesn days pursuant to Its policy of
suspending tile operntlng privileges of all mOlorlslB who arll
convicted 01 oxceedlng a speed limit by 31 or mora miles per
l10ur for flfleen days,
(DOT brief, p, 21.) TI1IB DOT policy binds lIs hearing B':amlners to
recommending a suspension In these cases, It Is hard to reconolle tills
mqulrement wllh the language 01 Secllon 153B(d) of the Vehicle Coda
providing l1earlng examiners with n list of penallles from which they may
choose, If a hearing examiner must alwaYB recommend a suspension
regardless of tl1a totality 01 Itle circumstances In a case, the dlscrellon of
the hearing examiner Is really no dlscrellon, Willie cel1alnly
admlnlstrallvoly convenient, this policy dOllS not comply with the hearing
examiner's obligation under the statute IlS Interpreted In Flore,
DOT also cites B plathora of cases holding that IIle jusllflcatlon for
the modification of the penalty Imposed here, economic hardship due to
the suspension and a malfuncllonlng speedometer, are Insufficient to
allow a modlflcallon of the penalty Imposed by admlnlstrallve authorities,
Further, DOT cites cases holding that excessive speed alone can justify
a suspension, ThesEl cases are all dlsllngulshable because they predate
.6.
06.51349 CIVIL TEF1M
tile expenslon at the Irlal cOUli's role In Flore,
Moreovor, Ihl5 nrgul11ent does not IlddreslJ Il1e lacttl1at DOT's
polloy Il11properly restricts IIle 110nrlllg oxnl11l1lor's exorcise of n slntutory
grant ot dlscrellon Assuming, arguendo, IIllIt Flore did not dlange the
Import at the cnsos DOT clltJs, 1I1Is Impmpur roslllclloll nlone jusllfles the
Irlal court's ncllol1
DOT nll:il) nruuuH 1I111t tho ',Iul COUlt II1IplllpllIly l:iul:ll:illluted lIs
judicial dlBcl'Olian for 1110 udl1'lllllsHnllvo dlticrullon of DOT.lhlti
Ilrgul11ent avolloolls 111IJ fncllllut DOT's policy IJlndl:i lis hOllllng
exnmlnors, pruvol1l1nU II1IlI1l from oX'JI'(:lslnu 1110 dlscrotlon provided by
the Vallldo Codo, In slIcl1u sltullllon, IIl0tll,,1 COUlt'S ll'lodlllcHtlon 01 the
sancllon ImplJ50d lollowlno II do Il0VO Ilollllno II; Ilot IIn IlYlprmnlsslIJle
uaurpnllon of ndllllnlsllilllvo dlscrolloll. (1:l11pllntils IIddod,)
In WeblJl' v, COllll11onwonlth of Pennsylvanln, Oepar1l11ont of Traneportallon,
Bureau 0' OrlvlJr Licensing, . Pn, COITlI11W, ._, 675 A2d 350 (100G), follrJwlnO
appellant'a third accumulatlol1 of 151)( or 11101'0 polnls on a convlcllon for speeding at 138
miles pOI' 110lJr In a 40 mile pel' 110ur lone, the Deportment suspended appellLlnt's
operating privilege for 30 days following a hemlng under Section 1536(0) of the
Velllcle Code, Sustaining l'Ippellant's appeal from the suspension, Ihe trial court
concluded that appellant was not given an opportunity to present mlllgallng
Olr(\llmstances regarding why 11e was speeding, The Commonwealth Court reversed
the order ot the ttial court staling:
Inltla!ly, we note thallhe trial court, on an appeal from a license
suspension by DOT, conducts a de novo review and any Irregularities 01'
defects allaged 10 have occurred In 1I1e administrative proceedings are
cured by sold review, SQe Depnrtment of Tronsportntlon v, lSutton,
641 Pa, 35, 660 A.2d 46 (1905) citing Commonwenlth v. Wolklnshaw,
373 Pa, 410, 86 A,2d 304 (1953), The only Issues which tile statutory
appeals court can consider on appeal are whetller tile licensee was In
fact convicted of the underlying violation and whetller DOT acted In
accordance Wltll applicable low In Instituting the suspension, Orndoff v,
Department 0' Trnnspor1otlon, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 1354 A,2d 1
.7.
96.6649 CIVIL TI:11M
(Pa,Cl11wllh, 19(4), Where the auapenslon hwolvea the filMerclae 01 DOT'a
dlsoretlon, tho tl'llIl COlJI1's acope 0' review Includes A determination of
whether there WI\6 An l\buso 01 dlacrellon In choosing from the rAnge 01
pOllslllle penllllllls for n pmllculnr vlolnllon, Department of
Transportallon, Bureau 01 DrlvQr l.IoellshlQ v, Flore, 1311 Pn,Cmwllh
696, 6813 A,2d 1332 (1001)
Here, III. undl.putlld thnt Wellllr wns, III fnol, llonvloted of
vlolallng 5eolloll 3362 of the Coda lor trnvollng In eMoellS of the
posted epeed IImll nnd thnl bnsod upon enld 1l0llvlcllon his driving
record reflooted nn nr,oul11ulnlloll of 1I1M pol Ills for Ihe third lime,
Therefore, the Ollly ISlluo holoro Iho Irlnl court Wall whelher DOT
aoted III nOlJordnllol! with Ihl! Code III OUllplllldlllO hili opernllng
privilege,
Clumly, undul' SU,:II,)I1 lli~ll3(c) of tho Codu, aot forlhl'1aralnl'lbove,
DOT had Iho nulllollly 10 6uajJolld Wobor'B IlconBo for 30 dnys,U
Moreover, thore Is nolhlllg In tho reoord whloh would Indloate thst
DOT abused II. dlsorellon In Imposing Ihlll ponnlly,
BeCCluao our review londa UB 10 coneludo IIll\t tho trlnl court
exceedod lis acapo 01 /'Ovlow In auatnlnlng Weber's appenl, we reverse
Its decision and ordor, (i:l11pI1llsls addol!.)
I This Court has held that DOT hearing offlcors have dlscrallon to
determine Ihe soncllon 10 be Imposed with rospect 10 suspension of
operallng privileges for a third Accull1ulallon of six points, Soviet v,
Department 01 Transportallon, 126 Po, Cmwltl1. 151,550 A,2d 934
(1969) ,
Thara appears to IJe conflict betwaen Ihe Comll1onweallll Court panel dllclslon
In Weber, and Ihe Commonwealth Court's !In Imm; decision In Flore and lis panel
decision In Bankston. In Weber, Ihe Coul1 cites Orndoff v, Department of
Tranlportatlon, Bureau of Driver Lloen.'ng, _ Pa, Commw, _, 654 A.2d 1 (1994),
In support of Its statement thai because appelll:le was convicted of splledlng as the
result of the accu/l1ulatlon of polnls whlcl1lrlggered a Section 1536(c) hearing, "the
onlv I.sue before the trial court was whether DOT acted In accordanco with the Code
.6.
06-60110 CIVil. TEI~M
In suspending Ills operating prlvllooe," (Empl1asls added,) In Orndoff. II one-yel!r
suspel'llon Wl!1I mlndltld for tile opel'ator's violation 01 Beotlon 1t\043 01 the Vehlole
Code which provldeu In pel1lrlf1nl palt
su,plnslon or revoosllol1 of operlllng prlvllllge,..Upon
reoqlvlng R OIlr1lflfld I'ocord of tile conviction of nay pllrson under 111111
seotlon, ttle dmpartl11l3l1tsl1all IIJspend or revol<e tl1l1l parson's operallng
prlvllllge as follows:
(1) If tile dopn/1m13nt's rocordll show Ihatll1e person was under
susponslon, recall or 0011013l1l1t1on 011 tile date or violation, the
depol1111enl Il1all fluupend tho person's operating privilege for an
addlllon/ll ono.yenr period,
The Department In Orndoff l1ad no discretion In set1lno a penolty at loss Ihlln one
year for Ihe violation 01 Section 15113(c) of tho Vehlclll Code, In contrast, however,
the Department l1as discretion to set tha penally following Ii Bectlon 1536(0) hearing,
In Wlb.r, tile Commonwealtl1 COUI1 dismissed fI Flore al1lllY51s by simply saying
"lmjoreovel', there Is notl1lng In tile record tllot would Indlcato tl1at DOT abused Its
dlsore!lon In Imposing tills l30-doy) penolty,"
In Goldetlln v. CommonwealU, or Penneylvanlo, Deplrtment of
Trln.portlllon, Burllu of Driver Lloenslng, _ Po, Commw, _, GBG A.2d 43 (Hl96),
appellee was assessed a maximum IS.dAY 5uspenslon following 6 Section 163B(d)
hearing lor being convlotBd of operating e motor vehicle In eXCElfjS of 31 miles per
hour over the speed limit. The reason provided by the heorlnc examiner for the
suspension wes "high speed [Illegible] & nature of violation," The operator appealed
and at the de novo hearinG! beforo the I rial court, the Department entered Into
evldenoe the operator's certified driving record and rested, l'he trial court reversed
.9.
(lB-B6I1ll CIVIL nmM
the lIoense suspension ond Instead ordered Ihe operator 10 lIulJmltto a driver's
e)(8mlnatlon, The Departmenlappealed, Thlt CommonwlllIlUl Court alflrmlld Ihll
order 01 the trial oourt ogreelno IholUllt hearing exomlner'lI reasoning '01' Imposing
Ihe malllmum suspension wos "lantol11ountlo It locl< ond/or obl/Ile 0' dlllorlllllon," The
Court slated:
We recognl1e thllllhlt lacta hore om dlllUngulahulJle 'rom those
prllsllnled In Flllre and Sankston, In that no admlnlstraUve COnllel'l1S or
statemenls of policy hove beon lldmll1ed by Ihe Deportment as B basis
lor the Imposllloll lor the f11llxlrml/n penlllly allowed; Inllddlllol1, the 11'101
court has not clled on abulle of dlllcreUon by the Depllrtment os the
realon for Its modlllcllllon In this case, Tile Deportmenl malnlolns Ihat
the 11'101 court's conclusion that tho suspension 'would saNe no
reallonahla pllrpose' Is not a proper basis upon which 10 sublltltute Ih8
trial court's discretion for thllt or the Depflrtmont, WereUwre ony
evldenoeUlot the Depm1mflnt hlld exerclsfld dlscreUon, we would
conour, However, Wfl agree wllll L1censeo Ihot Ule 'reasoning' set forth
In thll hearing examiner's rllcomrnendflUon rallll 10 reflect that Ihe
hearing examiner 01' the Deportment exercised ony dlscreUon based
upon the Individual focls presenled In this COile, Abllent ovid once that
dlacreUon was, In fncl, eXltrclsed, Iho 11'101 court did not commit error of
law In 'substllutlng' 1111 dlscrellon for thai of Ihe Deportment,
In accord wllh our decllllol1s In Flore and Bankston, we hold that
where, as here, the record Is devoid or evidence reflecllno thut the
Deportment and lis hearing examiner, In Imposing a sAncllon under
Section 153B((I), have flllfllled thaiI' olJlIoallon to treat eacll caae
hldlvldually and to exercise dlscreUon balled on the Individual facts 01
the case, the trial court Is authorl;llld 10 modify the suspension Imposed,
(Footnote omllt~d,)
In the CBse iUD, ULdI~, the evidence Is that petitioner hall Bn eXl!mplary worl<
history that requires thl!lt shs drive many commuting miles, Her recenl speeding
conviction for driving 1B mll~s per hour over a 55 mile per hour speed limit on an
Interstate highway WBE Irom Inadvertence, In our opinion, these olroumstsnofJs
.'0.
9fH'l!l4G CIVIL TERM
mitigate Ihe Imposition of a m.:clmum 30.day penally und8r Eleotlon 163B(0). As In
Oold.llln, tho reoord of tho hoorlng ~~amlner lalls 10 refleot that Ihe e~amlner or the
Department e)lerolsed any dllloretlon based upon the olrcumstances prosented, Tho
e)lamlner listed soma faots but gBve no reo son why Ihe mSlllmum penalty WBS
reoommended, Absent evidence that discretion was, In foct exercised, this court msy
lSubstltuto lis discretion for Ihot of the Deportment. Acoordlngly, based on our
Ilnalysls of the faots, we are satisfied that the more opproprlAto penalty In the Interest
of justice Is a 16.day suspension. Therefore, the following order Is entered,
QBD.EB...O.Lct9!.!BI
AND NOW, this ,~_ dAY 01 March, 1997, the suspension of petitioner' a
operating privilege for 30 days, IS REVERSED, The r.ase Is remanded to the
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver L1oenslng, to Impose a 16.day
suepenslon as 6 result of petitioner's convlollon on June 26, 1996, for spefldh,g at 71
miles per hour In a 66 mila per hour zone.
By the Court,,;
I
//
George H, Kabusk, Ellqulre
For lhe Department of Transportation
Traole Welker, Pro se
406 Radcliffe Drive
Apartment B
Harrisburg, PA 17109
,
: Baa
.11.