The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-00366 -- _.,,~ "~ '" o , 0' DARRY SINGLETON, Petitioner v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. J.J;-rv ~ 3&& ~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL ORDER -;rJ, ;)LJ7J'V AND NOW, this0$ day of ~AA.tVl.1J ,~ upon Petition of Darry Singleton, a hearing is set on the License Suspension Appeal for the ?-tA day of ~ ,2000 at 9 ; 3 0 o'clock in Courtroom No. ~, Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, all proceedings to stay meanwhile. Notice of said hearing shall be given by Petitioner's counsel to the Department of Transportation at least 60 days prior to the date of said hearing, Pursuant to Section 1550(b) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, Petitioner's appeal shall act as an automatic supersedeas, and Petitioner's operating privileges shall not be suspended pending a final determination in this matter. By the Court: Distribution: ilL ~~ J'~5.00 RK3 J. David E. Hershey, Esquire 2233 N. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17110 George Kabusk, Esquire PA Department of Transportation, 1101 S. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 J. , I I I I i I I. T rr1\ ED'.I':":Pr,f' ,_ ....- V ,1.);- nF -. ,,- ~rrJ~"'-'\ 'QT/!l.RY J ,,.,T- \..j,.. (."". ,\H ,i '.,. \ I 'c~" , ,"." '.' , 00 J~N 25 tIll 10: 3~ CUMBEHLNlO couNTY PENNSYLVM~IA .. . "'.- !!'i!'lF'" ,~~ o I~~. llJRII ~,_",. . ,IJ"'U~ JIf "1l-l1!!l~ ,',~ ,- ~ , r" ~w' ~~' 't IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Darry Singleton, Appellant v. No. 1756 C.D. 2000 Submitted: January 19,2001 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing BEFORE: HONORABLE JOSEPH T. DOYLE, President Judge HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH, Judge HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge 0 0 r'" '>-) C -n ~: <", .-,1 U !-! rn rr. "",.- Z n,_ Z F" :"..) (jJ ,~- CI", j f=-~'? '--' ,-0 ,j ~ ~-;-:J ,-, ,~, ) (-) Z " "i=",: C"j 0-.) (j i"n / C ---; Z " ::1"= ::! ::lJ 'l' -< OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FLAHERTY FILED: April 26, 2001 Darry Singleton ("Licensee") appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County denying the appeal of a one-year suspension of his motor vehicle operating privileges by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing ("Department") pursuant to Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code which sets forth the Driver's License Compact of 1961 ("Compact").l For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the Order of the Court of Common Pleas. 1 Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. S 1581. The Compact is an agreement among the states to promote compliance with each party state's motor vehicle laws, Pennsylvania became a party state to the Compact in 1996 by adopting Sections 1581-1585 of the Vehicle Code, til~",""'~'~"-'---'.a,.L~~M""_"".'~li!lIIill'lil3l1&@ii~~~i!~~'--""'" ~ :"j;", " _ ~'w ~ '.""'~< .' ".' -<> < ' On November 1, 1999, Licensee was convicted in New York of driving while ability impaired (DW AI) under N.Y. Vehicle & Traffic Law S 1192(1). Pursuant to Article III of the Compact, to which both Pennsylvania and New York are parties, New York notified the Department of Licensee's conviction.2 The Department then notified Licensee that it was suspending his operating privileges for one year under Article IV of the Compact, treating Licensee's New York conviction as it would a conviction under Section 373l(a) of Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. S 373l(a) (driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance).3 At a de novo hearing, the Department 2 Article III of the Compact provides: The licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee. Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated, identify the court in which action was taken, indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond, or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith. 75 Pa.C.S. S 1581, art. III. 3 Article IV of the Compact provides: (a) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of a conviction for: 2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle[.] 75 Pa.C.S. S 1581, art. IV. 2 " - I presented documents under seal consisting of the official notice of suspension, record of Licensee's New York conviction, and a certified copy of Licensee's driving record. Licensee raised a multitude of issues at the lower court; many of which are asserted sub judice. The Court of Common Pleas denied Licensee's statutory appeal and this appeal ensued.4 Licensee presents thirteen questions before this Court, five of which he concedes have been resolved by Department of Transportation v. McCafferty, 563 Pa. 146, 758 A,2d 1155 (2000).5 Therefore, we will address those remaining issues raised by Licensee seriatim. 4 Our review of a trial court's determination in a license suspension appeal is limited to a determination of whether the requisite findings of fact are supported by record evidence and whether the trial court committed legal error or abused its discretion. Paooacena v. Deoartment of Transportation.. Bureau of Driver Licensing. 716 A.2d 714, 715 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); Commonwealth v. Danforth, 530 Pa. 327, 608 A.2d 1044 (1992). 5 We pause to note that the Rules of Appellate Procedure provide specific guidance regarding page and spacing limits for the Statement of Questions Involved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Licensee has failed to comply with these rules, however we will exercise our discretion by excusing the improper form. We concur with the learned Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, who has explained the value of selecting appellate issues carefully by stating: With a decade and a half of federal appellate court experience behind me, I can say that even when we reverse a trial court it is rare that a brief successfully demonstrates that the trial court committed more than one or two reversible errors. I have said in open court that when I read an appellant's brief that contains ten or twelve points, a presumption arises that there is not merit to any of them. I do not say that it is an irrebuttable presumption, but it is a presumption nevertheless that reduces the effectiveness of appellate advocacy. Appellate advocacy is measured by effectiveness, not loquaciousness. (Footnote continued on next page...) 3 ~~IUIilifI-" ~"~>'~~I~-~~~". ," ,^',. -i'"'iliilllliililf!llir "......,~;<Il~.~ill/lIi;Iljli!iM1llll J'i~' cot.. ~,-~= r~ ~.~ ,L ~. ~ I " Licensee's first issue is whether the Department was required to receIve a certified record of the New York conviction in order to suspend his operating privileges.6 The basis for this argument is Licensee's construction of Section l532(b)(3), which states: The department shall suspend the operating privilege of any driver for 12 months upon receiving a certified record of the driver's conviction of ... substantially similar offenses reported to the department under Article III of section 1581 (relating to the Drivers License Compact) (continued...) R. Aldisert, "The Appellate Bar: Professional Competence and Professional Responsibility-A View From the Jaundiced Eye of One Appellate Judge," 11 Cap.U.1.Rev. 445, 458 (1982) (as quoted by 2 G. Ronald Darlington, et a!., Pennsylvania Appellate Practice 2d 9 2116:6 n.68 (2000)). 6 The certification requirements of official records for admissibility purposes are found in 42 Pa.C.S. 9 5328, which states: (a) Domestic record.--An official record kept within... any state ... when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by a judge of a court of record having jurisdiction in the governmental unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of the court, or by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties in the governmental unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of his office. 42 Pa.C.S. g5328(a). 4 .... .- " ,;, ' J .' .1 75 Pa.C.S. S l532(b)(3) (emphasis added). Licensee relies on this Court's pronouncement in Hoover v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 725 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), that the uncertified report of conviction from the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas to the Department did not satisfy the certification requirements of Section l532(c). We do not agree with Licensee's argument because to do so would require us to ignore our prior holdings concerning the admissibility of out-of-state documentation permitted under Section l550(dV See also Hoover, 725 A.2d at 1259 (noting distinction between admissibility of Pennsylvania documents as opposed to out-of-state court document~).. In Mackall v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 680 A.2d 31, 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), we determined that Section 1550(d) relaxed the certification requirements of out-of-state documents in Section 7 Section 1550( d) states: Out-of-State documentation.--In any proceeding under this section, documents received by the department from the courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government shall be admissible into evidence to support the department's case. In addition, the department may treat the received documents as documents of the department and use any of the methods of storage permitted under the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. ~ 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records), and may reproduce such documents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. ~ 6103 (relating to proof of official records). In addition, if the department receives information from courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government by means of electronic transmission, it may certify that it has received the information by means of electronic transmission and that certification shall be prima facie proof of the adjudication and facts contained in such an electronic transmission. 75 Pa.C.S. ~ 1550(d). 5 ~~ ~'IiiiiiI~I~~"~--'''''''~ --'~~I~_!ll.!Ut~~ n"_~~"~"'_~ ,",.L;.,r -~-- ".. ~. 5328(a). See also Koterba v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 736 A.2d 761, 766-67 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)( essentially reaffirming Mackall). Therefore, when the Department receives the out-of-state conviction report, by operation of Section 1550(d), the Department may certify the report and submit it to support its case. This procedure is sufficient to create a prima facie case of admissibility, such that the Licensee would have the burden of rebutting the correctness of the document under Section 1532. Mackall, 680 A.2d at 34. In the matter sub iudice, the Department did in fact certify and submit Licensee's record of conviction in accordance with Section l550( d). See Hearing Exhibit 1. Accordingly, we conclude that the Department's actions complied with the requirement of Section l532(b)(3). Licensee next devotes several arguments suggesting that Section 1586 of the Compact, which allows the Department to rely on incomplete reports of party-states, is an impermissible attempt to unilaterally modify the requirements of the Compact, under Section 1581. We have previously addressed these issues by stating: Ultimately, we concluded "without hesitation that the [Compact] is not the sort of interstate agreement for which the compact clause mandates congressional approval." Koterba v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 736 A.2d 761, 765 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Further, we concluded that "[n]either the sharing of information among states regarding serious motor vehicle offense convictions nor the regulation by each individual state of the driving privileges of its own citizens threatens the supremacy of the United States." Id. Moreover, as noted by DOT in its brief to this Court, the entire Compact is set forth in Section 1581 of the Code. The subsequent sections of the Code, including Section 1584, are simply interpretative and implementing provisions designed to guide DOT in the conduct of its 6 ~, ,~ ~~ duties under the Compact. Se~ Harrington v. Department of Transportati6n. Bureau bf!btiver Licehsing, _ Pa. _, _ A.2d _ (Pennsylvani~ Supreme Court, No. 209 M.D.App. Dkt.l999, filed December 22, 2000). The General Assembly was free to amend these provisions and we. cannot say that such amendments constitute impermissible unilateral amendments to the Compact. Zalewski v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 767 A.2d 19, 25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); see also Renna v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 762 A.2d 785, 788 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (dicta concernmg merits of impermissible unilateral modification argument). Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1586 did not unilaterally amend the Compact. 8 Licensee's third issue is whether a conviction in New York for driving while ability impaired is an offense substantially simil'V to an offense described in Article IV(a) and Pennsylvania's statute prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, as required by the Compact. Licensee contends, under the second-prong of the Petrovick test, that New York's DW AI statute is not substantially similar to Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact.9 Despite a well-reasoned dissent, this Court has recently determined that the statute in question is 8 Licensee also argues that Sections 1581 and 1586 cannot be read in Dan materia. We disagree based on the Zalewski Court's interpretation of Harrington v. Deoartrnent of Transoortation. Bureau of Driver Licensing. 563 Pa. 565, _' 763 A.2d 386, 393 (2000). See suora. 9 The two-prongs to be established are: (1) does Pennsylvania have an offense similar to Article IV of the Compact; and (2) does the foreign state have an offense that is substantially similar to the provisions of Article IV of the Compact. See Petrovick v. Deoartrnent of Transoortation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 559 Pa. 614, 620, 741 A.2d 1264, 1267(1999) 7 :N~!lI!!Iibiilid:iW!lItl1ili!ilt'- ".:'~J..:' ~MlJIb:!!Kl!~'iI~,~______~I~ substantially similar.lo See Squire v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensin~, _ A.2d _' (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2754 C.D. 1999, filed February 16,2001). We cannot ignore the plain language of Section 1586 mandating that New York's DW AI offense be treated as substantially similar to the DUI offense of Pennsylvania under Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact. We recognize that Petrovick held that New Yark's DW AI statute was not substantially similar to Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact, 559 Pa. at 623-24, 741 A.2d at 1269, but the Court's pronouncement did not reflect an amended Section 1586 of the Compact because the amendment was enacted after the case was heard. I I Commenting in its 10 We are bound by stare decisis to follow decisions of our own court until they are either overruled by the Supreme Court, or compelling reasons persuade us otherwise. County of Armstrong v. Workmen's Compensation Anneal Board (Ross and Borough of Kittanning), 473 A.2d 755, 757 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). Since neither of those circumstances has occurred here, we must reverse, 11 The department shall, for purposes of imposing a suspension or revocation under Article IV of the compact, treat reports of convictions received from party states that relate to driving, operating or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired by or under the influence of alcohol, intoxicating liquor, drugs, narcotics, controlled substances or other impairing or intoxicating substance as being substantially similar to section 3731 (relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance). The fact that the offense reported to the department by a party state may require a different degree of impairment of a person's ability to operate, drive or control a vehicle than that required to support a conviction for a violation of section 3731 shall not be a basis for determining that the party state's offense is not substantially similar to section 3731 for purposes of Article IV of the compact. 75 Pa.C.S. S 1586. 8 .~- analysis of the retroactive application of this amendment, the Court stated that "this amendment would likely affect the substantive rights of [licensees]." Id. at 625, 741 A.2d at 1269 (emphasis added). We have interpreted this statement as the Court's tacit recognition the amendment does. affect the substantive rights of licensees (i.e., obviates the substantial dissimilarity between the statutes for purposes of the Compact). See SquiFe, _ A.2d at _ (slip. op. at 3-4). Therefore, Petrovick is not controlling and the amendment must be applied in this circumstance. We conclude that under Section 1586, the New York DWAI statute is substantially similar to Article IV of the Compact. Next, Licensee argues that Section 1586 violates the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions because there is no rational relationship between the Section and the legitimate state interest.12 Preliminarily, we note that "since a driver's license is a privilege and not a fundamental right, legislation affecting it must be evaluated under a 'rational basis' analysis." Plowman v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 535 Pa. 314,318,635 A.2d 124,126 (1 993)(citations omitted). To wit: Any party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears a heavy burden of establishing the lack of a rational relationship between the statute and a legitimate state interest. This rational basis test mandates a two-step analysis[:] ... The first step is to consider whether the 12 Licensee also asserts that Section 1586 is overbroad, vague, violates the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, violates Article 1, Sections 1, 9, and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and fails to give adequate notice. However, Licensee has neither developed these arguments nor complied with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). We cannot substitute ourselves as Licensee's counsel and develop these issues on behalf of Licensee. See Raoid Pallet v. Unemolovrnent Comoensation Board of Review, 707 A.2d 636, 638 (pa. Cmwlth. 1998). 9 !'j 1iliiiiliil_~~l!iliIIlIl~ki!!jg\rtllill!'Iil.i&cl~~~.""-~' - ~,' -,' - '--"'"......." '.~'"I challenged statute seeks to promote any legitimate state interest or public value. The second prong of the analysis mandates an evaluation of whether the statute is reasonably related to accomplishing the articulated state interest or interests. Id. at 319, 635 A.2d at 126-27 (emphasis in the original)(citations omitted). Licensee concedes that the Compact serves a legitimate state interest, see Department of Transportation v. McCafferty, 563 Pa. 146, _, 758 A.2d 1155, 1161 (2000), however he contends that under the second prong of the analysis there is no rational relationship between Section 1586 and "the state interest of protecting our highways from drunk drivers." Appellant's Brief at 34. We do not agree with Licensee's characterization of the state interest under the Compact. In Occhibone v. Department of Transportation, 542 Pa. 588, 592, 669 A.2d 326, 328 (1995), the Court iterated that the Commonwealth had a compelling interest in protecting its citizens, and citizens of our sister states, from Pennsylvania-licensed "drunk drivers." In McCafferty, the Court extended this interest to "protecting citizens of the Commonwealth from Pennsylvania-licensed drivers who have been convicted while under the influence of alcohol on the highways of our sister states." 563 Pa. at _' 758 A.2d at 1161 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Court stated, "[t]he driver's licensing procedure represents an attempt to ensure that the use of Commonwealth highways will be afforded only to persons who can and will drive safely." Id. Therefore, by operating a motor vehicle in violation of New York law under N.Y. Vehicle & Traffic Law 9 1192(1), the Licensee has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the vehicle and traffic laws of Pennsylvania. See id. (citing Sheehy Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 173 A.2d 752, 755 (Pa. Super. 1961) ("The conviction is evidence of a state of mind. It indicates a lack of concern for the 10 n I ":l"j i I I I rules of the road ... the relationship between the safety of our highways and the control over our own licensed operators who have been convicted of motor vehicle violations.in other states is self-evident"). Synthesizing the hol<;lings of Occhibone and McCafferty, we conclude that the state interest being served is the protection , . of Pennsylvania citizens, and citizens of our sister states, from Pennsylvania- licensed drivers, whether convicted in the Commonwealth of DUI or in a party- state of driving impaired or under the influence. Next we consider whether there is a rational relationship between this , state interest and Section 1586. Although Licensee wishes to characterize Section 1586 as a "fishnet" to catch this type of conduct, we conclude that Section 1586 is reasonably related to the state interest. In fact, it is Section 1586 that enables the Commonwealth, through the Department, to deter Pennsylvania-licensed drivers from operating a motor vehicle in a party-state in derogation of that state's laws designed to protects its citizens.13 Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1586 is rationally related to the state interest. Next, Licensee contends that the Department violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution by imposing a longer 13 It is certainly not "absurd" or "irrational" to recognize that different states will allow for different levels of impairment, and the Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation should defer to the level of impairment found by New York's legislature to be unacceptable for driving on New York's roads. See Squire v.. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, _ A.2d _, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2754 C.D. 1999, filed February 16, 2001) (slip. op. at 4). 11 iiiUlijjl~idIH~rtt!ffil~I~f'k""""""""'i;iiIil!l!ii~~_'I;"J,,*,..il~~jl!ljml.&llllil- ~ "," 'e ',"-.," llI.tiIllli,: ,,,,.-" .'C-:' ~' . suspension than mandated by New York law for a conviction in New York. We have recently addressed this argument: [W]e emphasize that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, this Commonwealth must honor another state's determination of guilt or innocence. However, the civil consequences following conviction, which that state chooses to impose need not be given the same deference. Such consequences are, at best, a public policy decision of that state. Zalewski, 767 A.2d at 26. Accordingly, we reject Licensee's contention that the Full Faith and Credit Clause was violated when the Department imposed a one year suspension for his New York DW AI conviction. Finally, Licensee suggests that the Department's exhibits were admitted by the lower court in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 D.S.C. 99 2721-2725. The Act restricts a state's ability to disclose personal information about a driver, unless the driver consents to the release of such data. Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141, 144 (2000). However, this prohibition of nonconsensual disclosures is subject to a number of statutory exceptions, id. at 145, the most relevant of which for our purposes is: For use in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self- regulatory body. . . 18 U.S.C. 9 272l(b)(4).14 Consequently, we conclude that the Department's introduction of exhibits, which included personal information about Licensee, was not prohibited by the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. 14 Citation to this particular exception should not be construed to exclude other exceptions that may be' applicable for reasons of driver and public safety or execution of agency functions. See 18 U.S.C. !i 272l(b)(I), (2), (14). 12 ;.- - ,I, ~~ '."~l!l!'" Accordingly, we affirm the Order of the Court of Common Pleas denying Licensee's appeal. Judge Smith dissents. y jl JIM FLAHERTY, Seni 13 iI_W. UI.~~~~':MW""'I.,~~~&iI'i~~'~ ~- il!U ~=~ t J~ " ",..-' IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANTA Darry Singleton, Appellant v. No. 1756 C.D. 2000 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2001, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, at Docket No. 00-0366, dated June 30, 2000, denying the statutory appeal of Darry Singleton is hereby affirmed. . 0 . . c ';-c:'"' ""'\) (',: rn r.-::~ - -- ;?: ,-..on Z I'~ : i"--...) (/) ",,- C"\ -< ~;';"~ r-' r:.-:r )S . () - "":7 ~-'-'- , 5-"' C) rV ,''', c: " J :z: ~ =< ,~ p (1' :D -< . -~~ - .I File Copy Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Charles R. Hostutler Deputy Prothonotary/Chief Clerk June 20, 2001 P.O. Box 11730 H~rri.<;hllr9'. PA 1710R 717-255-1650 RE: Singleton v. D.O.T. NO.1756 CD 2000 Trial Court/Agency Dkt. Number: 2000-366 Civil Trial Court/Agency Name: ()tI..,()cllcllIU \JVUlll, 8\7\;;1ll vr 6VIIII"_' PlilllFS Intermediate Appellate Court Number: , ;I i 1 j J I :j i:J i '1 " TO: Annexed hereto pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2571 and 2572 is the entire record for the above matter. Contents of Original Record: Original Record Item Record Date of Remand of Record: Filed Date Description September 20, 2000 1 Enclosed is an additional copy of the certificate. Please acknowledge receipt by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed copy ~t"~ry 0, ffice or t,he Chief Clerk's office. C1~ \. ~k; Commonwealth Court Filing Office J~aJ;i,~ 0 c' c upE '- f;I[T-: .-.c_ ..._,..J.-' ~~~~: f',' C-, r-::c < .' -0 - Date ::..() - " --C' :r~c N C) Z ~ =< r.:- :~ ()'\ :;::J -< Printed Name ,,~ I "'jl ~ ~,-,,,,,,,,. 'f. .0"" ; ~:'.':.'. .'. , " ' , , 11)' CETIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYL VANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by P A R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: ~ g = DARRY SINGLETON -vs- ~,,() COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING 2000-366 CIVIL TERM 1756 CD 2000 cr: 0: The docurtlents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to ~ and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 9-8-00 ~ cfurtis R. ,othono Jane H. Sparling, Dpty. An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please si~n and date copy, thereby acknow1ed~ing receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title ,'--- "~_" "~c. I. o o CETIFICA TE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: DARRY SINGLETON -vs- COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING 2000-366 CIVIL TERM 1756 CD 2000 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to 124, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 9-8-00 . ~ aUrtis R. , othono Jane H. Sparling, Dpty. An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please si~n and date copy, thereby acknowled~in~ receipt of this record. Date Signature (k Title ~"__M<!_ lLlil , 1 .' j '11I1 " . .~ ,IUT ' "'~,~'"' ;"~J_' .,' "L 1........1$'1, f"1L 'HI""'r"~ o o Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the county of CUMBERLAND 1756 CD 2000 2000-366 CIVIL in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to No. Term. 19 is contained the following: COPY OF COMPLETE APPEARANCE DOCKET ENTRY DARRY SINGLETON -vs.- COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING SEE ATTACHED CERTIFIED DOCKET ENTRIES. , .'nf" "'4'4_ , I L ,~. '" -~'I~t~ . " "" p r' ,'"'. o o Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland } SS: I. Curtis R. Long . Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said County. do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full. true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein Darry Sinqleton In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have this Rt-h Plaintiff. and Comm of pennsvlvania Denartment of Transnortation Bureau of Driver Licensing Defendant _, as the same remains of record before the said Court at No. 2000-366 of Civi 1 Term. A.D. 19_. hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court day of . D., I!IlOO Prothonotary Ninth I, George E. Hoffer President Judge of the Judicial District. ~9sed of the County of Cumberland. do certify that 18 R. Long , by whom the annexed record. certificate and attestation were made and given. and who. in his own proper handwriting. thereunto subscribed his name and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing. and now is Prothonotary in and for said County of CUMBERLAND in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. and that the said record. certificate and attestation are in due form of law and mad e r 0 ficer, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland } ss: President Judge I, Curtis R. Lonq . Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Georqe E. Hoffer. P.J. by whom the foregoing attestation was made. and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was. at the time of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County. duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given. as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this B day of 5 ember A.D, :W~. Prothonotary .f1fI*!"f "~I#i._.~J:J jj J ill 'lL' JllJ[jj~I!Ii1fiM:!!~~~.w j 'jW;VW j( II - :r'i 'r i .. r lIIIU I"' l II TI 11 u~r ! o . m n :;> " 'T1 Z Z " 0 0 " ~ p p - ;!? 3 cr" 0 " 3 ~ ~ r " 0- r"l " ~ " r"l 0- ::: :!1 ." " .... 0- .... < "'l ... .... " r"l ~ ~ " " ~ ::c r"l ." n -I -I " 0 0 " " ;. ::c ~ ~ 0 0 3 3 0 -0 n 0 .. I 0 -0 -0 '" " I I " " ,. .:; L ~ , ~_.~~ ~~ ." 0.. , , -... PYS510 2000-00366 " L~,.", ~.~:." ',",,~ <.IJ~ ~" - ~,; Cumberland County prothono~"s Office ~" Civil Case Inquiry V' SINGLETON DARRY (vs) PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF Page Reference No..: Case Type.. ...: APPEAL - LICENSE SUSP Judgment... ....: .00 Judge Assigned: HESS KEVIN A Disposed Desc.: ------------ Case Comments ------------- Filed........ : Time......... : Execution Date Jury Trial.... Disposed Date. Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: 1/20/2000 2:05 0/00/0000 0/00/0000 1756 CD2000 ******************************************************************************* General Index Attorney Info SINGLETON DARRY 815 FAIRFIELD STREET MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING 1101 SOUTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG PA 17104 2516 APPELLANT HERSHEY DAVID E APPELLEE ******************************************************************************* * Date Entries ******************************************************************************* 2 - 54 1/20/2000 1 1/25/2000 55 - 75 6/3.0/2000 77 - 82 7/21/2000 76 7/25/2000 83 - 87 7/27/2000 88 8/08/2000 89 - 90 8/11/2000 91 - 118 8/14/2000 119 - 123 8/23/2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS LICENSE ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATED 1/25/00 - IN RE LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL - HEARING 4/7/00 9:30 AM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 1/25/00 -------~----------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATE 6/30/0.0 - IN RE APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS LICENSE - OPINION AND ORDER - DENIED - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 6130/0.0 PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR SUPERSEDEAS -----~------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/25/00 - IN RE PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR SUPERSEDEAS - GRANTED - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 7/25/00 NOTICE OF APPEAL ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATED 8/8/00 - IN RE APPEAL - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 8/8/00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING # 1756 CD 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------~ TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDING BY KEVIN A HESS J CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *******************************************************************************j * Escrow Information ; * Fees & Debits Bea Bal Pvmts/Adi End Ba1 ; ********************************~***************'******************************~ 35.00 35.00 .50 .50 5.00 5.00 5..0.0 5.00 30.00 30.00 -----------------------~ 75.50 75.50 .00 .00 .00 ..00 .00 ------------ .00 APPEAL LIC SUSP TAX ON APPEAL SETTLEMENT JCP FEE APPEAL ./ *******************************************************************************~ * End of Case Information ; *******************************************************************************i 124 Exhibits and Briefs TRUE COPY FROM RECORD ,In Testimony whereof. I here unto set my hand ~ the,~"of, sa,~. at. CarliSle, PI. if ,it I'-:~. ;)J-tH) , / . . ~ffhO ry ..""'. . ,~ 'M "__~b~ ~" " .1 " GJ 0,'" , ' DARRY SINGLETON, Petitioner v, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2<>vv - 3 {, {. t!.w~ I ~ NO, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL AND NOW, comes Petitioner, Darry Singleton, by and through his attorneys, Mancke, Wagner, Hershey & Tully, who make the following averments in support of this license suspension appeal: 1, Petitioner, Darry Singleton, is an adult individual and a Pennsylvania licensed driver with a residence address of 815 Fairfield Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,. 2. Respondent, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, has a mailing address of Riverfront Office Center, 1101 South Front Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17104-2516. 3. Petitioner received a notice of license suspension by way of letter dated December 28, 1999 from the Department of Transportation indicating that his Pennsylvania driving privileges are to be suspended on February 1, 2000 at 12:01 a.m. for a period of one (1) year for a violation of New Yorl< law which is allegedly equivalent to Section 3731 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ~, . o , 0' 4. Petitioner believes that said license suspension is illegal, invalid, unjust and improper for reasons which include, but are not limited to the following: a. Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. 91532(b)(3), as amended by Act 1998-151, requires that the Department of Transportation receive a certified record of the driver's conviction of a substantially similar offense reported to the Department under Article III of 91581 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. 91581, and said record received by Penn DOT was not certified. b. Article III of the Driver License Compact at 75 Pa.C.S. 91581 requires that the report made to PennDOT include the following information: i. Clearly identify the person convicted, as more specifically defined in the Administrative Procedures Manual of 1990 which is marked as Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; ii. Describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code, or ordinance violated; iii. Identify the court in which action was taken; iv. indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or that the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail bond or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith. v. Said report forwarded to PennDOT does not comply in full with the requirements of Article III as required above. c. The documents offered by Penn DOT must establish that they originated from the licensing authority of a party state. Said documents offered by PennDOT must indicate that they were generated by the licensing authority of the State of New York as required by Article III, 75 Pa.C.S. 91581. d. Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code, as amended by Act 151 of 1998 effective December 21, 1998, violates and contradicts the specific requirements of Article III of the Compact found at 75 Pa.C.S. 91581 and the Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions as follows: 2 3r .L~.~"" " " ... ~ , 0' i. Section 1584, as amended, allows the Department to suspend a drivers license when any information is omitted from the report required by Article 1/1 of the Compact in violation of Petitioner's due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 9, and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. ii. The 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution operates to extend the same protection against arbitrary state legislation affecting life, liberty, and property as is offered by the 5th Amendment. iii. A drivers license once issued is essential to the pursuit of a livelihood and the suspension of a license once issued thus involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensee which requires procedural due process and Petitioner is entitled to the proper constitutional notice as set forth in Article "' of the Compact, 75 Pa.C.S. ~1581. iv. Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code, as amended by Act 151 of 1998, further contradicts Article III and the Compact generally because there is no evidence that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators ("AAMVA") or NHTSA or the Executive Committee of the Driver License Compact Commission consented to the amendment of the Compact through the Compact administrator, Le. the Secretary of Transportation, in violation of the contractual principles of the Compact as set forth by our Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Commonwealth. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina, 550 Pa. 639, 708 A.2d 481 (1999) and Article VIII(1) of the Administrative Procedures Manual of 1990 at p.4. The Administrative Procedures Manual for the Driver License Compact is attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. e. Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code entitled Duties of the Department as added by Act 151 of 1998 violates Petitioner's equal protection rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 9, and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because it authorizes the Department to suspend Petitioner's license when the Department receives notice of convictions of statutes which prohibit anv 3 4- , ~ - '1 , CD , 0' degree of impairment or no impairment whatsoever while driving under Article IV of the Compact setforth at 75 Pa.C.S. 91581. Therefore, 91586 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and has no substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Further, the statute as written lacks any rational relationship to a legitimate govemmental purpose when the determination of whether to suspend is based solely on the location of the conduct. f. Section 1586 also violates procedural due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 9, and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because that section fails to give adequate notice as to the type of conduct occurring in a member state which would trigger the provisions of Article IV of the Driver License Compact against a Petitioner. 75 Pa.C.S. 91581, Article IV(a)(2). g. Section 1586 of the Compact as added by Act 151 of 1998 directly contradicts Article IV and the declaration of policy at Article l(b)(2) at 91581 of the Compact, 75 Pa.C.S. 91581, as allowing convictions under member state statutes which prohibit any degree of impairment or no impairment whatsoever while driving where as Article IV of the Compact and as authored by the AAMVA requires that the conduct in the member state establish that the licensee was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle. h. Section 1586 of the Compact as added by Act 151 of 1998 further contradicts the Compact generally because there is no evidence that the addition to the Compact was consented to by the AAMVA nor that the Compact administrator, i.e. Secretary of Transportation reached an agreement with the AAMVA or NHTSA or the Executive Committee of the Driver License Compact Commission regarding this change to the Compact in violation of the contractual provisions of the Compact as set forth by our Supreme Court in Pennsylvania in Sullivan v. Commonwealth of Pennsvlvania. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensina, 550 Pa. 639, 708 A.2d 481 (1998) and Article VIII(1) of the Administrative Procedures Manual of 1990 at p. 4, marked as exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. i. New York's statute, NY Vehicle & Traffic Law, Article 31, 91192(1) is not substantially similar to the Driver's License Compact at Article IV(a)(2). 4 0. ,~.... < o 0' j. The notice received by the Department of Transportation does not clearly identify the person convicted which minimum data requirements as set forth in the Driver License Compact Administrative Procedures Manual, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B" which requires name, address, sex, date of birth, driver license number, and any other identifying numbers such as the social security number. See 1[2.4.4.1 of the Compact at p. 15 of Exhibit "B". k. Both Sections 1584 and 1586 of the Vehicle Code as added by Act 151 of 1998 violate Article III of the bylaws of the Driver License Compact Commission at 1[5 which is to provide and promote a reasonable and uniform reporting system among member jurisdictions. See Driver License Compact Administrative Procedures Manual attached hereto as Exhibit "B" at p. 20. I. The action violates principles of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel and are in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the New York Constitution, the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Federal Constitution, and all related and applicable state Rules of Criminal Procedure; m. The action violates Petitioner's equal protection rights under Article I, Section I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the New York Constitution, and the 5th & 14th amendments of the Federal Constitution because the Department's action is arbitrary, unreasonable, and has no substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare for reasons, including but not limited to, the fact that the underlying prohibited activity occurred in a foreign jurisdiction and there is no rational basis for a conclusion that an alleged out of state drinking and driving conviction requires such harsh punitive civil sanctions; n. Notice to the Public originally contained in Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 45, November 5, 1994, p. 5609 indicated that only charges of drunk driving are reciprocal and the charges against Petitioner did not constitute drunk driving; o. Notification to the public conceming reciprocity as well as the driver license compact at 75 Pa. C.S. ~1581 et sea. and the Administrative Procedures Manual clearly indicate that driving a motor vehicle under the influence is limited to those charges which specifically are "driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or a narcotic to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle" of which conduct Petitioner was not guilty; 5 ~, - " - " , , 0 0' p. The Drivers License Compact at 75 Pa. C.S. 31581 et sea. is not being uniformly enforced in Pennsylvania insofar as Article 4(b) of the Compact is presently suspended. Therefore, said enforcement denies Petitioner's equal protection and due process rights under the Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and, and Federal Constitutions and has resulted in illegal delegation of authority in violation of law; q. Action of the Department of Transportation violates Article IV of the United States Constitution as ,applied to Pennsylvania through the 14th Amendment in refusing to give full faith and credit to New York which does not mandate a one (1) year suspension of driving privileges. r. The one year suspension is in violation of the Drivers License Compact and Administrative Pro~dures Manual in that Petitioner's Pennsylvania privileges will not be restored at the expiration of any suspension which may be imposed by New York; s. Pennsylvania lacks jurisdiction over acts occurring in New York; t. The alleged conviction is not for a similar charge; and u. The proposed suspension violates the Compact clause of the United States Constitution, US Const. Art. 1, 310 as follows: i. In 1958, Congress authorized the states to enter into a Compact for the purpose of promoting safe driving on their highways, P.L. No. 85-684, US Stat., Vol. 72, See 23 USCS 3313; {' \ I I I ii. The above-mentioned legislation was repealed in 1966, P.L. No. 89- 564, 3102(a), September 9, 1996,80 Stat. 734; ~ \\ ;~ ~{, iii. Pennsylvania did not enact the Driver License Compact until 1996; and \~, "~ 'I ~, \\ , ''\. ' N~ ! v ' iv. Because the Pennsylvania Driver License Compact was enacted after the repeal of the statute, it is null and void because it was enacted without congressional consent. 6 7/ .. to Q' v. The Department has violated the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution as applied to Petitioner through the Pennsylvania Constitution in that New York's law prohibits disclosure of personal information in DMV records. Additionally, the Federal Driver Privacy Protection Act of 1994, as amended, 18 USCS 32721 and following has also been violated for some or all of the following reasons: i. Federal law prohibits the release and use of certain personal information from state motor vehicle records; ii. The release of social security number and/or driver identification number qualifies as personal information; iiL The disclosure of personal information about any individual obtained by the Department does not qualify as a permissible use under the Federal Act because the phrase "driver safety" does not specifically indicate that personal information related to convictions would fall under the ambit of a permissible use under the federal law at 18 USCS !32721 (b); iv. The Department is not an authorized recipient of personal information pursuant to 18 USCS 32721 (c); and v. Neitl1erthe Department nor New York authorities have followed the mandate of 18 USCS 32721 (d) pertaining to waiver of procedures. WHEREFORE, Your Petitioner prays Your Honorable Court to schedule a hearing to determine the validity of the suspension outlined in Exhibit "A". Respectfully submitted, MANCKE, WAGNER, HERSHEY, & TULLY By d//c~t- David E. Hershey, Eir Attomey 1.0. No. 43092 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 (717) 234-7051 7 ? .'~""" , o o VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 34904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: / /17 /00 I ( ~! . ~~ Darry, ingleton Cj. ~.\"'-'W__... , o 0' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tammy L. Kelly, an employee of the law firm of Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document to the attorneys or parties of record in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on theJl1day of January, 2000, George Kabusk, Esquire PA Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 syJc:lr'fJl.., G '-h k1 ~ I JJ Tammy L. Ke . Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully ;0- ~< - '''" - " o 0' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Driver Licensing Harrisburg, PA 17123 DECEMBER 28, 1999 DARRY L SINGLETON 815 FAIRFIELD ST 993556101245185 001 12/21/1999 22606291 01/27/1972 MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 Dear Motorist: Section 1581 of the Vehic1e Code requires the Department to treat certain out of state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania. Therefore, as a result of the Department receiving notification from NEW YORK of your conviction on 11/01/1999 of an offense which occurred on 10/16/1999, which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pa. Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE, your driving privilege is being SUSPENDED for a period of 1 YEAR(S>, as mandated by Section 1532B of the Vehicle Code. The effective date of suspension is 02/01/2000, 12:01 a.m. In order to comply with this sanction yoU are required to return any current driver's license, learner's permit and/or temporary driver's license (camera card) in your possession no later than the effective date listed. If yOU cannot comply with the requirements stated above, you are required to submit a DL16LC Form or a sworn affidavit stating that you are aware of the sanction against your driving privi- lege. Failure to comply with this notice shall result in this Bureau referring this matter to the Pennsylvania State Police for prosecution under SECTION 1571(a)(4) of the Ve- hicle Code. Although the law mandates that your driving privilege is under suspension even if you do not surrender your license, credit will not begin until all current driver's license product(s), the DL16LC Form, or a letter acknowledging your sanction is received in this 8ureau. WHEN THE DEPARTMENT RECE IVES YOUR LICENSE OR ACKNOWLEDGE- MENT, WE WILL SEND YOU A RECEIPT. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS RECEIPT WITHIN 15 DAYS CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY. OTHERWISE, YOU WILL NOT BE GIVEN CREDIT TOWARD SERVING THIS SANCTION. '!.. EXHIBIT ~ ~ ~ ---B-- ~ 1/. -.1,. ,;""""" ". L o 0' 993556101245185 Please see the enclosed application for restoration fee formation. You will be notified of any outstanding restoration quirements approximately 30 days before the eligibility of the restoration of your driving privilege. You follow those instructions very carefully in order to your driving privilege restored. -- in- re- date must have APPEAL You have the right to appeal this action to the Court of Common Pleas (Civil Division) within 30 days of the mail date of this letter, DECEMBER 28, 1999. Zf you file an ap- peal in the County Court, the Court will give yoU a time- stamped certified copy of the appeal. Send this time-stamped certified copy of the appeal by certified mail to: PENNSYLVANZA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATZON OFFZCE OF CHZEF COUNSEL THZRD FLOOR, RZVERFRONT OFFZCE CENTER HARRZSBURG, PA. 17104-2516 Sincerely, ~~\~ Rebecca L. Bickley, Director Bureau of Drive~ Licensing SEND FEE/LICENSE/DL-16LC/TO: Department of Transportation Bureau of Driver Licensing P.O. Box 68693 Harrisburg, PA 17106-8693 INFORMATION (7:00 IN STATE OUT-OF-STATE TDD IN STATE TDD OUT-OF-STATE ) .2. AM TO 9:00 PM) 1-800-932-4600 717-391-6190 1-800-228-0676 717-391-6191 Guin.,I;:n= for MOllJr Vehicle Acfminis= THE DRIV'"ER UCENSE COMPACT Amn;m~:r.n:i:ve Pro::.edures Manual 1990 u.s. ~c:m:mct Qi7...~ NomocalEi;mny 7.::u5::'Saie:y rrif""Om;~tiCJ:l in c::Jw~u witt. :oe =:x .c:l-le r.-vnrnm_ or the Drive Uc=se Comt!al: Gmu:ai:::::on met ' AmCcm. -\~ti(JQ oiMotor V e::.tc:e A.dmim...~oa :-~ ~ < o ~ EXHIBIT 6 ATIONS IN r.dIS SERIES lL~~P:u= :J.c-e:- L973 ,;.iJ:XOr V~ oiL= = 10.000 Pooud:< nee:- :973 :u:::.::ting: 00. Mocor ~(eiJid.e 1:t.fe D~~ "be::" :973 : I,.v......nnr-Tnoa .:;:od L~ Sy=n See:zri:ry 'rJ :979 :diR~ Dtiv-e::s in 7n.ffic c..~ 979 ::--~cfac:: eve::: !mo;zi:rme:x ~= ~9~O' "'~"J~ 7.mc::: .J(ive::;-A_~1e:n Sl.a.a:::D.ct 'J L931. -~... -',....- ~ ;-~....... ,-........:'l'c: '-:'"".lr-",;<o... ,-, ~Tcr-:r~ '"=< . ~~7 '0 .- -'....''-~ ----:"" -"'~.'::'- -- -,......... ...-: ~.':" - .' :;o:t;imiz:: :aw ~:::ror.::::ne::::.t :::::JrtS Jg:llD.St ':"'-:::0: J..",:",:e:;: ma. otner ~:.."':ou.s :.s.":!i.i::: :===ae:=.. ~~=cus oae::sc:: .:::c::: :;.s: d...-:= .:...--:.nng.. ':~c.e. :l:m:b.u:ti::~. ::::kic:s :::rti.n~.. :::c- .;..-e; :10 ~e: :e::ous -."he::. -::-rnmineri. :.::. ;::Qt: ate=: ;u:::cic.on :n:m 7CC::: c::m.m.i.tted. in r.te. :i;:",'e:-': aome .:t:U:e- ::::n :Or T...-:tdic ...l~ob.to!S' .be:' .93: ,~.-".~S~::n:lR.e""~~ ~ c;: ~ -:-::= Jri-/e:- ~~::se C..::myac:- ':.::ri1me:n:ca ::::le.-::c=.......:;; I=n.~srz or :::e ::..::n:uac: .';""-'-''':r:.rcr. -;r:::s :.:::::::g:r:.e:.. :.-::m ~= jw:::dj'-ca ~t :.:: :~-::,-. :0 t;:c: C':,-=o::J.c:. ~ ~=ti;(e C..:::::.::::::ee r)f =~ C..:n::IC'IISS10n :.. ._,....~ --... .;-,.......;.....ll... ~....... :-....e;-~..:J.; .-.... ..F-;__ --:mitt- ,,..... -:~~~-- ...::: .::~:~ ~ -::::;: ....7:_-. ~ "':.- ~_ ...--- ~U....Uc::ClCns ~. _ .......m~.._ ;rctnot::~ ..... ?O:e:::=', e=: ,......a ~~~~~::I~~~~:-::.;[~~ ~~~Vr~; .~.-~~ ~~~=~~J~ ~c:uiOD ?:-;,~. .mri C~ ~ .?!3.os :9~': x= "~~"~OO:; ~ '~:-. '....:j; -:::= =icr.m.;tC::::: ;re:::e:::= it :.:::s .';'d:~!:!"/e ?:'::a:=r= ~d<lIlu:ti. ~:.;:=:u::cs -..:net: =: ~'ncnsi~; ~::ili;:::;ec. J~-e:-.J:CDS ::z:= -;i:=.e :.:.-re: ::..;,...:.......e ':.:t::U?,:lC"_ ':; C-:m~ C-pe=tions !Yf.:mn:ti =e:- _ :?~5 i;vI::':: ;36 J=xri= =<i P.roi>lcn Drini>:r Dri7= 86 lJd.:?~".~ T '...-......~ $1== j6 s:rs=fu!:Y~~ =L939 ,.... :::iDg S r-a:= 990 , _', '......'.. ,.7':';::~:-=" ::'S:-:-~:..-~. i~&:-."f-.._- _..' . Aci:u.owjed",~ :7lis 9Uciic::riaa ~ :he :=nit or ~ jair%! ~:for: ::-!::?7e:::t ':I:= =-ec:Irive C~mmnre:: 'Jf.ne:river r..:~_.. .:Jmo:u: :::":r.:Imiss:ion:ti r.m ar .:""'':''..:.'AVA .:;.nci2't!:...:.~,A ';f'e ~:o ~~ ~~ 1:eC,J~a :Ile::1oe: ~aa ro "Z~-=Oltri., .!O~~ :!ie:r ::::!: lIld ~{fom :n cr:c:::- rftew?i:c.d ~u:wca 00, \.t.e ~/i::e:: :ci='....'...a:llive ;:rcc:dures Jr.:e:::ea. ~.....=.. '7:2 i71e::J:0e..'": crr:::. :d..::oc =::::l'r.'-.::e: ot:he ~oartt c:md.I:C"'..og: :bis t1"O!e!:. 7,11:::: .:'lmC.:c:-.r-...ce :,~cr:aa .~..::ti::oay ? :.e:L"T"-=:o .. ~;cn - -- ..:cmz 4. :;c:::; ~ie-;v ': JO: :if.:tt'Sc:::.::::: ::='OIS Table or Conte::lIs "z- ?:c:= Ad:no~ i (.0. Gc:z:::L T~nr'P L_ .?-:n::cse :-..::c' :-rr-re:- ~ C.Jmu:u= Y-e:nt~ or cr:e ,:.;mp:u:: :-~0IlS 5 Lj ~.~ l.a. ?,:,> for CJmpiCDc: ~..-:""~oi~Ii=e , "';'9?lic::riC1! Sur-...::Itle:" ar!...;c::::se .:.-=:d:1vit Ji")ton~ '/-::-~r""!'1on of Sc:ms Yi: RfC L:S C:..'""'.::X:: o::"co -Sii:til. .>fOt 3e. r :----e:i , , ---- . . , ":' ' ;: ;i<oC1==:::CO md :..-..n~e of?.:-"'-..""ttts >cuc= :a 2::cr ~-r.scic::c.:::. Ji~~::c::: :0 :2~.~. ~t!~ :-:'...,....~cc: :-:-i:: ~~a_~~_.e= .. - . - - - . _____ ~.c:c _ -r1~T"'--C. ..:..c:::cn [7900. ?,.e~{ Ji~;(Itti;c::tiott :~...:. ':e:e::::ri.:I.:1rian aiP=cr lec:mt :..:-=..:. .?..::::mi -=--, Uuon Nocuic:uian ~..:-fa =....;~..,~'.?..eC..."'Id. :lITre: .=:s--..cry R.e=ni -:;.L z..::.=- ?m::::xoi~ J3.!:1 7""~tted ~~ti1 oi~or:' :ac:.man oi?=or Ssmr,r 7".:md.i.0e::3 =::::uiin; Co=-'..iiotian -" .:.3 ; ~ . __-A O' - .....:..J. '"-= .- " ~ o . - --':.J. ;,- ill Table or Conre:ll:S (Continued) .:::=. , , " ?~;;ons af C~::.~nc:::oa:t CJavtc=ccr ? -:-OOIC: ~""':"''"e:i. 7".:m~I;rT"~ ?"JIiIl at :~~:1or: !JJ.c.C..:=.~t !.:. ~J. La. C~'r'J.II= . , C~C:: ?.=uir.:::t 7vb= .s~~ 5h:ill. b-: '=e:1C"'- !.5 ~ ~ .. L6 -:;:~::d. ?-.:::S:OI:lti.c::z ~DR ~oc..::=ri.Qa ~0...~ 7::meili:=s ':::luu:::t ::ri Y~ci~ t6 5.]. ?xms Us::ri :c...~ ;..::. ?~r::::zts :cr ~;~-..:.ti :-~=cn :;.~.~. ...:...=d.:tYit :f>'m:!.-~~...:-: 'Se :.~..:, 4 _ ,-_' _...,.. . . .'_'_ .~""Oi1UUl.J.C.....:.~''::~ _____, ;.~_~. =::!::r"...::~?:=-"See~.: ;.~.~. :.::c.'.'1c:cn ?:.=~rr (Sc:~ :.':'.; ;_..:.~. Suceme: ::.;..:=c..'"':.o;v-....:::?'.~~.....re:=~.::! fS~ :'i.; 3 ~ ..:. ?-:r:::~c :-Jr 3e::::==c:c :-...--....c:;;"~=ca ~...::..:. ':ri:7e!' .=!s;:c=:-~ ?~rd J .:':. ':':C"I1c::.CC ?~=ar: ~.~_ -;v!~'1/a:.::::.~OI:ttic.c= :9 ~? :9 ~. O. ~~b'e: Lio::::::se C:n:p.c: C.::~on 3 :~2.';;o'S :a )'..P?5:1"'C(GS: .~ Yfodci L~i4r:C!I 3.~occ:~iCJ,.,~~~ou C. :efulirions J."=:n:: =. C:c:pac: ~cr: :? :;1 ::9 :-, _-f;1 -~~i ....0,1 ~I '~j ,<, "~ Jurinued) DRI'" 1:..:<. UCENSE COMP.,j..CT ADMINlSTR..Jdl "IE PRCC-.c.DlKES ;vL.i...'fUAL ~~".... ~ c.J, G::NER..Uo INFGR..%\TION [..:.~ :: ;Zequlred I' ::J. ~J. ::-':e 'Jur::c~ 'Ji .:bis ";'d..ui::I.stnriv~ ?:uc=dl.ll"e:' :l'!:mu:t! :.s ;0 '.('0'""":6 iliormaa.cn :0 .:J:re crte:nc-e:= Qi ct:e !J-r:o/e:' L...:..--..P CJmp:IC: 7mc::. ~~J.IlCS :.I-pOtl me ::-..me=.::. ~":lrions ;:n:lIltIti- ~ :niOIm:u:IOtl pre:e::m:c .mama ;mJvtde p::lce:- uoifo.o:ticy mloag' j:Le .ne:nt:e:- juosciccas ?rQen ~"''''~~n~~ inicml::tC.ca -.vim awe:' :ne=be= ':0. .::mvtc::cDS. :ec:::ros. !.ic=~. ';IITjtild..~'7r.1is.. md oct=:" -i:;,['J. ~~...:::::::: ~o .:b.e i.ic:-"~n~ ;rroe=. C.c.i..fcr:ority ~t.ouid ~::::se :tdminL<"t..'"Zi~If: ~..z :.:a::.'ISte=t ":11m :.t.: ':on~::;t ...-cie:: .:or.u:tS :t.e basic :~: ~d:1ia ,:t~ 19:I'e=::ze.."lt rnar ~:ICl dn~Ie::-_ .J.3uctIW"ide. i:1.ve cniy ODe iri.....e:' ~=e illd <Jne d..."'i'le:' ::c:::rri. .i ~ ~ :~ue C:e~:.:::-:: [6 : r:lllC OS ~:::lm=~::i t6 :.2. The D1:i=!.i= ~ ..0.="- " 1 RNDINGS A.IID DEC:.A_<";:;:ON OF?CLIC"- l;wc, .'" ~e ?~l Stace:; ==a. :tuc ~1~3Icn '.> --- -.-...... !J :-..=e :::..{e::-f ,,! :::e.:': ............~ :::d ::::;b:w~ys :s :::r.:;.ce:::=iIy =;:~e::l JY ~ :.:e~: ':( .:::;m~i.i;;,n~ ~r."I =~::;:ce ~~ws :nri :c:::::i :r:::;"'--= :ei:lOl:~ :~ me :;~e=:::r:on Ji :::local" -:e:::.c:.:=- ::~su~ ,S~~ :_. .7r'w?~=:~.:'~~:::=':'i: ,.s~e :3 :9 .j j '/~c!:.uca at" ~Cl .! ::Xw .J:;: ')r::;.........~ := ::":."ic~=c: :.t:iC :.:.:- ::ciatCr ::=g:;:~e::: :=. ':::::duc: -;;m::::: ~ iieiy :0 .,a...,....,.,~e=:.:: :tie:q .:{ ?e=~a:;: :.=.:::. ;rop-"_=::l: ~m~:3~:;C :.:cc.: :9 :? :9 , - . - -.- .'. -- . .:: ..:e '::=r.=U:m~ ::t :~ 'J! : ..l.~=e ~o '=.'-0: :s ?re:1:.c:e.c. '~ccn c:=mcii~c: ~"Hn :::t'7f'S :cd :m:i~JIl~ ~i.:l=2 :0 z: :~~::lc.cn :Ji ~o(cr -:~.::J.C=:_ il ~i::.:..c=e~'e:' :'.:r~c.:.c:.at!. :l:: ':e.=:c:: :: :c~[e:i. ..':m..-::~:;::;cc _ :ws :0 :~ ~ ~:: ;oiic:r ,:f ::::c= 1i:.t:: ?~! :::u:e.:: :0: 29 31 33 ;9 ":lJ ?:-omcre :::m~1i2.l:c::?V'id:t ~ Ia.ws.. oniin:u:::.=..:.c.ci :.c.."':UI'lis....~ve 7-tie:' :cd. ~.ll:lr.lOCS ::::m.ag :0 :be o~ccc. at ::name .,etic=: oy ~ ~[lJa in ~ct: or ;.te ~~=aiccc: -;;1:.::::::Ie ape:=rc:: d:rre :no[or~r";-- :"1 -Y.,?Jjl ".:",~ -~ .._-* -",*-, 'if I '~ ':~ ,~I .~~ -. ,~""'''=': ~"",,, '-. 'b) ~fak.: me ::::::oroci recoci:riOII ai::c:::t::c to '..:...~ "_ met ~.:i;ibili{'! dIe:-..ic~ alOte i~: met -:quicbLe by c::-=~ ~ ove::tiI -:ornpli:wc:: -:rim. mocor --:e:tic= :;lWS,. ;]p'1'Tr-o...,-.- md .:c..."11inistr4Ii---.re: :uie::s Jnd .:e;'.!t:J.c!ons z= ::::nditioa '!' ~_ -i"'r co- :iIe c:mtinU::!.Itc= ar~.I3C~ or JOY' II=e Jv :=cc -Ji -:vme :te UC:::l..<"C: ts :llIEtr.o:ri::eri or:~.:o ~ !..:::l:Qror -:ciri.c.e in my af ~;:a.."t7 ~ .-l.R:IJ"r-"'IT DEENInONS-As u~ed. En ~ c:lm;:':lC: (1) "S'c:tte-';lIe:.x:rs J.mre~ :e:rirorrora~an af:b: :-aite:i S't:u:es. d:Ie Disc::c:. of CJiumnU.. % ~ Wm.m.oxr;;_i,,,, ot ?'.:e:to a.ico~ ~:1 -..-:ome St'.:Ire" :nems .:=e a:m: -:;rrno E!.'u' ~ JCCl :za:s ~ 9Qwe:- :o.su:spe=::i ,]r :e"/OKe ~ '~e 'Jr :::e ~ ':I"';:e::::u.t ;0 'T~e..""':lre. J. mOlor -tOC::' ::n -C.:nvic:ion' ille:!:!3 J. c:mvic:::oo :JC:JTf ,:::C'e:::se ~ co ~e ~e ,rrope=rica aiJ .:noccr--:~:::cie -:::i:::ic::: :s~tue:ib:-I' ~e :a.;r,. ~umC:oai otcioacce. <;r 1ci.m~"/e :-.ue :Jr ~Z'..:i::uicIl.. ',r J :-crie:~ of 7.ci. ;o.ad. ::r ':itte:' =:::ty ~e; :0 ;e=m: :;Jpe:II"'..IIC: ~y :t ~"::cn ~-e:i "';-Q b3ving: :=:nmitted my :mc:: ofe""...S'e. :r:d ':rime =nvtc:an :r :ar.f"~ :: ~ :0 ce ;e~Qhed. :0 i!:e !.i-.-.in; :urlror..r:/. }.R71r- '" ill 32,...'~ OF CJ~C::Ot:f-i1::: :ic:=-~;. =::!ar~:r"'.: ;~'l .it:.te ::::.u ~cr.: === .:.:::rnc::.aa ar : :~on .r::r.: :nca::e: :-:...-:; :;:;Ice Jc::=:r-..n:g ~i.tin:rs ;;r..sc:.c::oc m =~ ..::.................; :::"..:J:oC:f :'-f =~ :::cme ;r.:,e ar =e J.c::::-e~. Sue:: ::::;ar: ;::I:li.i :::::u:.? ::::'='::"7 ~e ;-e:=:::a ::;::.1'!c:ec.: .::e:::c:tie ::e -nci<!c.oa .n:e==:m:; =e ~cn in" =~ :::::.."'ttre. ::::-C.e. Jr ,:Jrr:....~n~ .~oi:lC.c::: :ce=a.tr :.::: =ur:: == ~cic:: :c::::~ ~:!S ::.ke::: ~c:.te -=rae:te= :1 ~te:l or ~tj 'J.. :et ~tit"! ~ ~::::l :!I' :b.~ '::c:nc.on 71:tS 1 ~[ 'Jr :::: :or.:=:t!..."': :i::cl. ~ct!U.. := -:!:!.e:" :e:::..~t"r: md. ~::!i1 :::c:.::de m'f roec:ti. '::"'fT;l'!2:: =x:Ide: ~ =c::ccn Xe-"":wie:. . - . .:.~ ~ .....::. ';~~ . 1. :e-::og::J.ucn -:l :':ce:lse= :::: ,i.-:'(~ led )Ie iu.s~ :.no ~::~r;J,Ciie 7'1 :::~:c.:::.ag rhe ,j meror -:e~Ic~~ :.:l"?{~. ,jrd.iru.==. ll1a d. re;'.!1:luo.r~ 12 .:~ndic.ca J~C::~:lC :0 me:: '1C .:ny :iC::::$e Q:' :e~c:: 'Jf -:.-i1ia en or ~e::711t:e::. .,.. (Tpe:-:.te :!. :::cccr :r:',' :It:!.(es. .u:::;.cz::-r ..::.:-EC.'T GF CJN""lICTION- (I) 7Zle ~c:~mg .luthorir:' ~ ,tie tIcme SI::I.(e.. ,:or' me fTUIP'as<=: 'J { ~~-e:'.smo. ~'Icc::aon. Jr ::mu=t.G.cn of 1te rr~ to ooe::ue :l ~Q(or -:e.t:ic:::. +-:iJ gI"/e :=c.:::m:c ~.....- :0 me =:::dt:u:: ='=C'Orte:l. JUC'.::uu. to ,.;..r!IC::: ~ :s ~t ~ouid if me:. c::ruit:c: ~ ac=.:......::a. :.::1 i.tc oome :::;re.. ::x ::::c: ~e oi c:iavtc:iaos fur-: ;RUe..::: II .:..1 c::; r:::rp ac::: ~aJ .YI'-'UlSi.::tu~[e=?r =--:;;g~c homiCrie :::!'.ritir:I~ from I1:.e. :l'!Je:-....n.oa or l .:T.otof -te:llc.:.;:; ~=i(or:r ,-:.r ~as:~:;:aQ oJ!:te -"'-::ired. :.:;11llI:.0l:l. Jr :.::.e ':Jmmcc..;;.~.:i:.:. or (b) Cri-nng-:!. :nocor"Ie:UC:: o:;rciIe:mde:':te umaenc:: or ~c::;b.oiic :e.'~~~~ or J. ~tic:o J. ~ -:rttiCl~rl...-.;:::.: dri.,e: :nc:.p:ti:lie a{ ;.:Ji.e.~y dri-r..ag 2 =r.ocor "l'e:nc::::;. ~ SGae ::Jf"ljc::J; ::;t$ :ssued mu ::~ :.r."ie 'oke :.r:e :!se ~: :.:e :.:c:.ze -;r;~ ~o (c; .J...IJ.y :e.:.OIT! :n me comm:is:tioa Q{ ~C:: 1. :::roror ~c:: :s :IS~:Jr :::;nV1C::::QQ .J(' 1.C:' ::cIe:::.:s:e :-e:.:l~e-::: ':0 me <Jtor .:~=cie ~'c.:c:: :s prci:l1t!:~:: ;: SQte ce. 'J!" :rG....nlt'...:sL-:lC.re ::lie Jr :-:-;-.:i.:1[ion~ oad. 'Jr :otl:e::- =~-:-.:r:ty .:e;:cs:.::-:i :0 ;-er:oa ,==a.c;<;:c '.:.'1t.'1. Ja.,u::.g: ::::::miaed. rOle.:::. :.:aVlc::.ac ::r :'or:e:.:t::'e -.:;: ~qllire~ ~~ing :ucr.:ori;:~:. :'d) ?-til!!.""'e: :0 ~..ct7 ~ :=:ae: rid :n ;he e"re::t or :: enocor .~ic:e :rc.::::ie::t: :.esmtir.;.:!l:.::.e 1elti:Lor:e=;on:zi :n!llrr at ~_. :not1!e" .~J -------., ..;.s ;:0 'Jt!:~ ':=lrr!c:ioos~ :::'Or""e:i :;tm"ioIant :0 ..:u-tic::: ilI. :.t:: ';a~-'7 -umcric-! :... 'ne '~'cme .,..~ -:.::::ti.l J"'''' .....C ~..-:ec. '0 / .~... =':,.~.':' ~~:: .:._.....vi,........~v .~;:;~~.;...,(-...:: ::cm-"e s.:~[: - -, /' _ __...__........ _... -::'~U ____.... _... ............ _.. .... ...~~ \" ~ - I 4:~ .;c~~::::::; .:::::i.or:C"! ..~ . ---~ ~.. .. ..~~! .:f :ne ::l--;':s Ji : ?~"l :::u:e '10 ~cc ~:tIviC:.:: :'ot' 'Jue:-.ses or .."'toiaccllS c.e::cminated ;r '1===~ :.n =rec:....y = ~oras ~'9iQ:"e~:n !t:cai..nsico "J.) ;,::;,ose ~ife::S~ ::r -rloiarlons <Jr' l ~uc~::':>'-'::l1i7 :-.z:::::~ ::..i..l.'1:..-::. ma :ze ~ws cri zyc:::. ;,:r;:r ~::.e: ;nm ====m === ?roV!~CCS :s :=='Y Je :e~ . r-r m =~:;: :!UC .::.:.i.i :::l::C: :D.d ~::ec: :: ;l.:~ :.w :t:lS .4"'t:~ 3.1: e..::: ill ~~o1~~\~:~~~l~~~~oC~~~::~.~; ~~:e ::: :n:.l..J...!. ::::::..:::.r :::e.::::uz:. :=e ::-e:::cc 'Q J~~~:=:::::~ :=e .:e-':::CQ :jr:.=e :::.!'..:(~. .~::c:; :=.e .:::.:::: :.= -;;r~c= :c:::::: ~.1.S : f ;:!.niSl ::r :.::::_ r..:~~t~J~ -;;r:.::; ~=::~ JT :~ .:-:r:::::.i:': :: ::.:.:. :ljce-::- -===:- ,"-,::::CZ"T :;:ec:::li ---....---- _h___....J :-::.:!.c.~ :..:l ::::--=:C:::CQ. ..1...??!..:CL-:ONS ?JR_"1EW"::c:::?1~~:coa :rollC-c.OD: for: :i::=-e :0 ~./e. :::~ i=-.J:; =:1:cr::q :!l .l ?~r ::r:ze s~ .:..::::ce::=..:..:: .~..';:e~::- :.."':e :il:'?Uc::I:.t.::lS ~'/e:" :e~c.. :r--:= ~ :oic~ :i~ -l :io::e :a ~~~: ~~;~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~. i~,."~;!w:~:~l;e~: ,.-... -,r:;piic:.m :i; :-.=:: JP!'ii=[ =s :.~d s.:c J: ~c:=:::e.. jm; ::t:e ~e tt:zs Oe:-= ~~ J; :=QD. :n -;;rcoie 11":11?m. 'J! 1 Tioiation mci.:..i. mc ...\.hol:'e=oa ~-e::od C2s ~[ ~e:::u.o:L[e:i. r:j' ._~~~ ':,:~I' -;.?:~ '~J ....;.~i ;'$;~ I' .t:i!i :.:p " ;.,....;, -:Ce ::!!Jciia.::~ h:1S .1e:!d .:::Ie., .1 :ic::::-..:e. =ur 'he .:::tme ~ ~~:1 ;::~/o.ke~ QV :-:-~oo. ~ --::,,'o.oie J[,::Z ;~~ 1r:l ori:ot;:aoo:ca i.i .iuc::. ,::-;:"oc=.:ca b..:1s =0'( :~::;:t:catec.. ~=r ::t:.:IC lite:- :.-::e ~~:;'I:r::non or ,J!'.e ole=:'" ~rn .~ 2Zte :.t::e lc..~ -:r..s ~.:cke:l.. IUC.'1 Je:=ao ;:;.:;.y ;ak: :oolicacn :.or -: ::e"'.V ic:::;e :i ;-ermiIIed b:r ~J.w. :::: ~Ci~.!!.~ mtIIcr:r:r :nay :-efus'e :0 i:ssue ::. :ic.::::se (Q my :UC .:~i.ic:mt if. li::~=- ::r.re:ti.g:o.oon.. :r:e j~=s-..:lZ :ncocrr -:.e:::::ru.r::~ :uat ~r. ~ aor ':-e ::tie :0 .O-~( :0 .:::u~~ ~e:s:cn tl:e ?r.:n1~:;e of i::.",.;og ~ :nCtcr-,etic:.e '10. tC.e ;uciic :ig:::W17S- ':::, :::e 1PPllC--::!t :s d:!e ::cide:- ?i ~ ::Lc:=..""e :0 tirive ~ed JY lnothe:- ;Jarr:r zrJ.te :l!:d. c:::..--z---=.uy :::. :orc: '.l!l1e::s d:le :pFuc->..nr rurre::c.e= ~C:: lic::::::e.. ..uarr ~ "/!. A.P!?!lc..-\BlL.T? OF 0 t..c:..r-"<. !.-~ WS-~=t :s ~=o~i7 ~uird :'Y :ro"T.!l:OC"..s :;i ~s :::Jmc:i.c:., :ottting c=r.wr..e::. :te.....:....n sQ:ul ~e - . . ,.- ::::r:Su:lC::: :0 ~::e::: :1:l: :::.gm o;r :n.:r ?:JIr:r =-='>:1: ,0 =-99JY ::rr 1r :ts ,J{r~ :.:i.WS :::.:r.:ng :0 ac:::=.:;~ ,0 a....:.,.o: :0 In:r :--e:::OJl or '="'''''C%mS"..J.m::. =or'o :r....a:.id.:l:e -Jr :;re./e::t :DY dt:.y~=- :.;,r___... .!~-me::::t Jr ~rne:' =:~e::::::..;e :!:':.."1:s::::e::t :e:we::: :.;;r:1:t7 ;-...=.te :cd. =c::;::trr"! =e.. .~....?:::(""" ':'''!7! C::::MPAC" ADMINTSI:V..7GR..U..-o I1'i, -;O:::;.A.'fGE OF :NFJR-\{'~7ION- -:::: ::e.:a J{ "..-:e: :ic::-..sm;g :uU::cr:t~, if ~=c= ~.::r::-' :;-~e ..-tiT :'::e ::e :c..-:u.u.:::::\:':.:or ,)i =.;.: =:;r:oc::c:: :--:r ::IS ;;:=:e- ::::: :;.c..'7:1;:I~==tCr:. :c:::;:n~ . cz.::u~r. .l~:til ::r/e :.":~ ;:ow.e:- :0 ;~.;~~~~~~~~~~.::c~:~~~ ;:-cc~...ure: ::r 'Ze :::=:.ng: :--=~ 1a....unrs-..::z;:or"{ ~=..~ ::u'r? i~t~ ;t:ll! il~;:. :0 ,te , . .zcmlm::r.;.cor o;f ~c:: : (::e:, 7aT:'/ :r:ue :r;,:r :;::rot=n:J.ctcc. '~r :cc.;:>:e:z.ts ::-:-....scailbi:, :=-==:U::' :0 :':lc.iit:tte ~ :.ur.c.I:r:.:::::r.con )l :.=lS ::.:mpac_ ..uc:;r " 7!lI err.~:~ Im'O FORe:::;...\lID -:nTIDJRA W AL- : 1) 7,Z ..:o.c:rp::.c:: .:tail ~-:te=- :Ore forc: md. bec::me ::~W!. ~ ~o :lJ:1 ::::t:J.te 711!e:: :t::UIs ~C?;::1:te ~e ::no ~;;". .- '- " "," '- ;-;;C.~ l ~jc~::.:::e. 'jut ,!,:::: .:;::J.me ~:lS :-;::~:1 'r:.G:~ .Jr:r::. ;~. J(: ':1ci...t!on.:aa:i :e:::7!..O.:l!e~ ::::-::c::;;-~ :....':3.( :i..ae:- :=:: :"C:il "..i.":e :'::ue ::":e .:c:;:~::;~ ';j;lS :eoflJicea. ~~~:ic:mon :'cr 3. ,:ew :ic~::~e if :.C:;:~~~ ::'u tz:;.or:r:! :nJ.Y :-ef:.:!se :0 '.ZZ"<le "2. ~c.:::( :1" :J.:1:e:- ::1Ve.::ug:mono :.t:e .:7:Il!:e$. :~ac.:t 'Ntll ;';.Q( be s,:lie .:0 J::!!lr :e~~ or :.::L.-':'IJC;;: 1 :::Qtor '/e:tice ao \1:e :-, .':"''1:r 'l:='::l :;;:7.'e ::::::~y .:.riccr:-:=t .:.""'Ctr:: ;nls Cj'm~:!C: T! ,,"",:,~c:.::l; :. ;,...une =-=;x:::u:ng :ne :hL-ne. :;U[ ::0 ;;-...t;..'1 ':Iim.c.:~:-:=.r;:ti :r.:u1 ~.;: ~!-fe::: '.!=ul .; :nontns :f.:e::- :::e ~=n./e be::a of :=e .1,rltnar:.....!ng :;::.u: .J=:S ~.fe:1 .::cc.c: 'JC 1:e 71cc...--=.w::ti ill :-1.:e ~~~C'.:u-;'= .:::=as .or :uI otte:- ?~! :;;<::u.~ ~o -:=-tu":ctc.wci !hail life::: :..-:c: 'r:tiidit"; 'Jr ~ric:::.CIijt"' 0:" :::e uc:::::s'"..::g :ucr:cr:::;::=; . ' 'J! ;;;::.:e:: :-e:::t::.:mng =~I :0 ,he ~mC""-C. af::;.y ::=art "i -:=onor.c::.cn ':lc::.:r:::n.g JGor:o UJ:e ":;1c!:~....L' - AlC7c:=..:;':-C de: J! .1 ~,::<:.::se :0 .i..".,,:: lS:iuea. ao,r .::.:::;e-::tiy ~ :'or~ '.lo1~s: :ne J.P9i.ic:.cr: CGNSI:RUC::CN ..\ND ~lE?..A3II.lJ. :'" -7'his ==---:::,' ;';' ~ :lce:-...ily ':::ns:..-.;ed. 10 :s ~o ~~l:-=U~ :.!:e 'ur.!~e:; =~~i. ~~ ?rOVTSlCns vi ::'11S ..:::m-pac: ~~ :;e ::e-fe::lCie: md ;{ ~y ?,ar-...se. .::.::use~ ':~:::tIe::c::~ J!" :;roVts:.Cfi ar :::is :::m-c:::.c: :s cteC=..-e:: ~o ae ,:::mu-...r:r ':0 me -.::;csutlluon or my 9=n~f ~ue or oi:te :::~tea .s~z.ce~ .J(:ne =Ppllc:oiii'ir 'Gt::'"!:Oi ~Q .zoy save..~e::::(~ zge:c:'. ::;e...-.otl. Jr ::rc-.:m$:::mc: :s :eid :n-I':liic.i.. ctle .r':!.lidit"'! ~i:he:: :=:I:rit:6:: oi:..":is ~9:tC:' :.c.u =e :J.~!1iic:Oiii~? {b.~i :~ m~"'. bOo,rC="':-: :sr"--=:::;:'o. :~""SC[1_ c:r :::..~.:..-ns':.:.ac:: ~L:~ ;loe :e :.::=-=...-:1 tb.~or_ ..l ':zus c::mo...,-- ~.:::.::u! ~e ~eiri ::::::t:7.r:r ,0 t.L1e: -:::n....muucn a i Uly :;::::~ :;-......-:7 !r~;.~ ~;~ :omooc: :n:::! ",,,,:un on :ill! :0= ::::a .::e-..:: '" <D :e=l';";'" =e:: u.,," :"'1. fuiI .:orc:: :.co. ~:fe::: .!S ~::r ~.!le $:.:lte llIe-=:~ :s:o :.:!. SC'.re:=-....oie :natte:=_ ;l::::r- " 'II L~ ?i1'S-:::~=::::t .:.s ~~=re.::si.,r .~~:::i~ ~oc.::lng' :':::ct:!.lce::::. :::::-e:n sc:tir ':=e l!J.y "?"J:i:'i ;:.:.re :0 :ppty .1C~" <)f:~ .Jti:e:- ~ :0 my ~-e:::on 1(" :::;:~rnstJllC:o ::or-:o - ::c:::::se !~~e:TIe=: Jr Jrhe:r :::c~e==.c.~/p. :~e :.-:d. :cr.p~r ':=.:J.~e. c-:c.....=:"TTIr ~~.~or::.b::Dm~:Sui~::r=..-:./':~ rtJ9t]: R,"-'ill ~<: --,CiANGE OF .':'.1:0:zm::;. .:...lz<= .':"'-:==m: .';.-.::::-..s:.s :..:ri':C:=l::z. -. .- -' IS:'::::: :r _.:m:;:;:.:z.:. :c=.::o ~a'll~ .:.: lcc:aa ;; ::,;:"~cr:":~ ':'~. ~=.c.:: ;~-:'I ::.:!ce ::=.::1.1 =e :.:::::;;:.c: :'.:::- :::..: :~::~, :-::e mt:.:..:. .:r.::1.U =:l:J"!~ :::e :;OW~: :0 :cc. ~r~,;e: ;=:;::~c.~:::~ :'::r '--:e ~:;:~-:~;e .s: ::::-::::lC:. .....e::::.w:...-: :-:.:.w~ ?:::;:::!.:l :Ji=OLS .".=ci:!-.:. ',"--:-0" _.;u~:..-:::. :4::io< :..t3..;.-:...~:..-~ :A~~ou:: >fu:::e::c:: ~/!is-:::::C=.! ~ie~-r~:.::. Yew:;:::::e:r ~fojr-= :.~:(::. ~~;.:n..,~:.~ _ _....UG.: _a.A....t.. 'i~~Cc.t ~'~"~ :':<!:,:"-J :Y1e."::.::= :=':'0 ;:: ;:.:r.~! ji.::.::: :::.::ul ::::=.!.S.i:. :;:; ...... :e: ,:;;:U-:-! ::t.:.;;e :ny :~:ar.n=t:.on ':r ~~::~.:::r:.: :-::- :'.:c:llc~.~':: :r:: !~'nL"'is-=c.ClJ :.(on(.:::a y~w =~"TI.C~:-":"'~ ::~.w ':":r'r.. :: lC:.::c:o.=:. ~1JUt!l ':.:.rolir..:. ~..:'(~ 7'''-~amg!.cn ? -=::c.e ~i-::.=.:i .................- __0__"'-- ,..,-:~t '/:~i:l '''-:.:zm:::. .'~':'-Ij!!uc.; ,7:c.E vnr iITEDRA W AL- ':nto force l!1U be::::me ~:fec:he 1$ ~c ;tce:: =.t"':e $:!,.-rne :.CtO (:'''rl''. "'J ~,- --'~,~;;t ~~ ~l ::~t :- f :0,,", I' ;:.. '~ < "" ''':,.~ l...:.. DeDnirioa:: ~e de:"imticns J-ppe:r..n; ::.: ...:..ric: IT or~ ::fIe Qm~;:c :re ,~ ,:t'iIou~i:!ouc me ?mc=iare:! :1.mu:a mci -:vill ~"':I:zm :s a~ ::x ilI:zl: s-edon. ~ Jeidiuoz:L :te :c.ilovr~ 1e.:!citica:: :..."'C :0 be: '!I}9lleC.: L.~.~. '"'";Vtchd.r~;w:Il":nems fut:::: iic:::=e::'s~r.-n!e;e'~~..o.te::.. illomr ':ecic:e m ~ '-'o""Ic!ldr:lwn ::em ~nz: ~e=aa 00" :I.=~ (ice:::sing :::.ucnoriry. :::e -mthdr:Ivr.ti ~ be crie ==-.:ic ~i J. sustle~on. ;:'roc:uioa.. Jr .:=o.c::ll.anca.. , , , LA.:. "C.Jmme..~Ji Dm,.~:"l r..;~e" ;nems ~ [ic:::s: ~d crv! Slate or :oriswcion. ill .1c=ord.:mc:: 7I'ictJ. {i:e s~ ~m~fro-i. i.!: J.9 (3?:rrr: 333. '-0 m :carririuai to oJ9e:::te z,-j"'~aia ~mme=:U .re:uc:e. :.":'..2. '::a=rd.ous ."d:Ire::-..br. i1T~~:my ZOIbsc:u:!c:: 'Jt"ar.ue=:i -:vhic.::t J:iS be::::! ae'!e:m1ce:i by ~.te ~~::::Irf at ~e tlmte:! S'~re:: Je;J:I.tllIle:::rr ar 7...-:m..'"';Jor-IdLoQ to be ~:wie or ::n;l'csing :::I :.:nre::sanabie dsk:o i:e:.ith.. :;:JJ:e~?:m1 ~e::"_ :-.:is ~ ~o :nciudes ~:tt::l:'l:!ou:: "7r~..e.. - - . L..:....:.. ':(on~c:r:cn''':ne::::as:n:u:: doc:me::r ~ ~...-1 scr =::-m cae: ;ur::sdic:ion ~o motile:' ::::corr.ng ID:mc.: ~'nII~ ::e i::rcm::::mca j( :ne ":IttCtac:wai. Ji:ne -:::.ytn.g ;n'/~ ~r :tze :=:~r....ca:: '1!:t.~ ?ri"'lie~~. ~..:...5. ..../!OiaucD.'.:s '.!:eC ::l..l.-.r::c.:: 7J{:::e C~:::9:Ic:.. ==z :::~ :::mmi:~ion ar:n a~~ :=l::ted. :0 :r:e ~e cr :t:e~on 'l(:' ::tOtc::- ."p.!-,Jc!e. ~...,=::: if :ne= ::tS ,;e-o.-::: :0 '::::;I::"."!C::Cn. ..:.. n:~e::s;cn :; :--e::son 'Ji -! '1:()i.:ltiOQ i:=.c:-::c.e~ l ~-e=ca :.or :=ti:.:..~ :0 ~e::r::t :~UI! 'Jr :::;mGi? '~irh ~ ::::t::>: JIt!e:" 'Jr ~..e::s:cc::. :-::r 'ri:ci.:l~~ :n. .mOlit:~ ::c~e::t ~";V. ,1 '-:;%j -- 5 '.'"",,' :.J. ?:tx:.::dtm::> fer CJcrIPi.ianc:::: :...:.. ':=:COC::f)iJ.~ :-::c.:~ :..r Jr:.=~ :::mO::lC: :...~ '..!se~ :..l::t..i :.r:.o ,,:,,t.:,l ~:':1.:"un :;..:; 'le=.ne~:= ':;::l( :rlg' .ie.6:..:.~c=-= :....e :0 be :.~!"ii~::: :.":'.:..':'.9Fiic:::1:ca ~:;.~~~:_;~-~;, ~~~~~~i!e ~~:~~;~,e l ;c..~w::u '.:.:.=. :-e: ::~e ;e~H }{J. :.ac.eil:auoc. - -,., , . :-..J. .z.:..~uc:.uoo. ::r:::. ~ ~~ JC :':../e~r ::;e=.:c ;;,roo ~:z:=:.= ~ :=~~~ ~i : d.="~::' ic::ze :.n a~.ce::' :0 .=:=re J. :=:.::rd far ~a.t ,=::I':''''1(~U:U. ...n Jrt:e:- :0 :ue.re:::t ;J.c:::::;"..:re :JV :=lC~ iz:ta one ~-.... ...... lcallctiaa :on=. =:cuia Cl.aui.a ti:te :aiio~:lz .)[" !imii:1r :~;:;:;::.- .. - ......~--5-. :"~ce:l.$e ::-:.e~:. iice:"..s'e :.ssUe:::!. ::v :1 m:mc: ~l rn :::e ':;,.Jl1d:u~ ::ccr:!..i..::.ed. in 'iciu::i.l ~o oge::.~e :. ci:lSS' 'j{ ~ ?" ;.-rjU i>::!.'te _in ;":Jf.:.. ?os..~cc c. -z<::ae:- :our- .:::ccro{ ~ -::tiia. a..""i-.e:- J.c:......se :sz.oI~ cy ::IS or my 'Jme:" ~;;te: :r.e:::.ns .:ill:r :7.::::s;::mce ~r ::;.lCe::=1 lY ,he sec~~,. -j{ ,he i~o"'.!ted. S'c:w::: .:l ::0 je -::::p-"!.tl;::, -;r :mDo~.o.=.g.:.= ;:;.r"er:r, :.nd ;r:;=e:7'(, ihl.! :e::n :isu ':f-:!~", :vi1e..~ ,,:;,~:r :SZ-.re:i7 '-: ate oi :.-:...-n-..r:cat" 7'o--:;e 'Jr -=~ 'J( :It._e-! ::; 'c.re:" :.ic........a. :'u.:::lcer? - ,. ,... '-- .-.:J.:re :'ou ::.3.Cl.: ';"""':""re:' !.IC""-=:e. ;--e::uu or~.:.~~ ~ O'C'e=ce ~ :n~{ct" ':~c.:e ~-e:::d.e:1. r/cke~ ar :::""l~~ :;r :0. :,ggtic::ti.cc ::Jr ~ ~r~"'''e ~ :..:::. = '"\,,'11;.- '::or -:~ewce~~ :::.J.!:.;, aoc:::me-=~ ::!S be~~ .:~~r _~~rn Joe eng :...t:lycce ~:::::'/l.aZ ~r:~ :nror.-:::acn :.ni ?n'n1.eg~ ::. :!1e re~:onucc. 'J!:.:.e 7"~:=:', J<1S' :rcur:J:c::=se.;e:::u.:: '1t';r:"'rue? ~ =ore:iar~"c:.!r :'~9tic:.llaa :ar:z. :i.C"'..=e .........;~:.c. ti:::s ~::u.e 'Jr~e:"HiIe.."'e: . - . - - . --, ___ ~u~~ ~r -:.::::~e ..:......-..:c:e --/ :r.':..::.e '_Jrr!.C.::r.C"'_ ::::e;:.;.-:: ::::: :.te~ :0 ,ne '.::e :r ::gei:.c.on .Jr :. ::cmr ::: .:0 '.::nv;,c=:::"_ ..;, .ms?e.=.sicc :v : J. ::~'C-e.=..s..GC :0:: :':l.!iu!"e :0 :'t't:'e::.: :..::. Jrce.: :.r ~;,;!~~.::::::co ::Jr o,-~Oi2t:..-::Z :.rl ::.r. :~?iic:n[ .:;.=ci :~ ~ :0 ~,J.c:::ri:: ~:~ :.::::i ill "ilia. ::i.=-re=- ..ic......,...... ~oIe~ :0 ~ ::;piic:..=r. ':y :::!."! .:me: =:-~ :.:...:. o":'.i.e.c.;:!:/tr; :l:-"oc.-~~u...""e :.~~ S'=aa 3..:..l.) .... _~ :;Jpiic:.::t :.:;.s :0 lc::::se :c mr:::::c:~:" 'J'r =:.;::= ,1l:i,r ::e:ste ::;s ;:eve:' :eid l.:..r:.-;e:- ~ic::::s::. ::ir :.c-e: ::Ct ::ow ::lve: 1 iic::!Se == ~~~~~ ~~~;:~~ .~~ ~~~;;;;~~~~-o~;~~~-:i::~ti(~~~o:::c:~-~~:~ ::::::;:e =.::s .:e"re:- ':-ee:: lce~~:=.:JJ.Y ~!..:.C.:ci~:=- Jr:lU:!;::-..;tS:<:: 'lC~ :~c. .:=::,: .l i--...... :0 su=:=:::e:. j I ;:~.:I ." ....;. T j ';,-' .~~ J "\.....1 .~I 0tis ::trnct=:,it !couid emU!!: .:.:n~::I;~ ~itic..'1. :d'e::::riiie: (he timaion.. 1 b.e~cring :ce::urrmg ct::r.e: ~::r-..;:aicion iz-oLIng J. ic:::se... the: ;;r:ar ~ur..S'd.ic=an ~ "limO :I:e ~Lic:nr 1:1:::; :no~ :ne i.~re of d'ze 19PUc:ac... ..:..::a d:e ~-ig:o:attL.re 1i :cre- :="...;uniae:- :'~g ~ o:tte :19Puc::.r;;t',5: :;:::e:ne~r JI1C. .l ==~e:ne:u: at 7l~~ <:ooc:::n:m.g: Je:I-:iti~ :c:r :l::.idrJg ::.:s<: --::-......,~ ~r:s ~-:= ~ODSIiniir-' ,;{::= i::.roxng Jun.::.:.ic::on co coad:.:c: :.!rf :l::rtt= :=qt:::7 7r :trre=ti--::oa Jnar:o (tIe :::::;-rJ::nc: of 'l!.ic::::::e. T'.:le:::mn~ "TIri-~C1an a:::.., t1e:rr ~-ze .:::vutic=.."'!c = !.iC""..::se b;..--e:: '..'1:XJtI me:r :nv~.2:caa.. :1C~ :-;zis' :eau=e::t "1,rlJuid :lOt ce =-:llcie co d:1ose :~lJS aceie:' ::! "'te::c ;J[ :.;e 71Qcm :!:e -:.~ ~.:..;~ 7./'ouid h::,';e ~/e:" he:d =:r~ :...:.....!._ 'Je-:ii!c::rion of Sl.:l.t"'~ t~.90n :!9piic:::::::,ol! :.or:I d..T~ ':':c::::::S'e.. dle ~:::Ig ;'urisciic:::att st'~ -=e~ Nl.m c~ jurisriiC"..:ccs :0 OCt=in tile: ~~ or." cne .:;:;:rii:=:r'i i..-rivUlg ?r.t"llIe;,=_ A~ J. !IJim=:um~ J. ceO:: :nus;: :-c _:ione ~m :t:e ::ISt junsdic::an .Ji ~;mce. 70 ~ ,:..-:re::r ?as=cte:r..c1 ~c::.L :::= -.:::e:::c snclJici;:e :c==moib;._~ ~e::"..mnic::ir'". 7't:J. J. :eiec:mmU!"..:=.:icns :!et?,fJn::: ~c:s ::rr...:::,;.~ .X" .:,._:.:....'trr.:.~\lE:: :..::..:. :/DKC=US C':e--~ ::-:e mnz :t..:=aic::on s:;z:u =:d: "7'itb: che Y:::t:cmu Crt-Ie:" ?.e=e: ~~fCR;:o tle!e:mir.e:f::1 J.voiiCl1[::::1S J.e::."l re=Ori.~d 1l.:he :rc-.R C-I :-:!:ca:e: ~i1:::~dic:c..... ':~"TII.l{ci..":eC~i-r -:r ::::!rned!:.te.i'1 :..."!e:- ::;:e .'fDR =e::..::::.:r == :;;gti=:s =PP{j'1og ~r: .:::mme:'C:=l' ,I.-:"Ie:- ':..........,... " .:.,--..... -"'......~ 7.18 '-", ""l:C;" .:vt1l1. :-... ,-...---.gtcu.::e i~~~~~~i~~~~~~~.~~.:;~i5e;~~~~~t ~;;~:~~~~ ::::nrne:-c.:l :::'r~:- :.:c:::s:e -;:: =r -=c.t:e~ :::.::e. :[ :.-::: =:== ~ :-.:;t .Jcr:e :c ::e :':'-::e 'lr.:ic=e :=ic:=an. ;r ::=:t1 :e ::cne 'Vra;::: ;0 1:1..,: :;{ :::e ~C1Jtic:.:co: .';~F~ri:!.'e !T1e=~~..t~~ :.:~ ~ :0 ;1:lC:: :0 ;;';:g~::~~;:;~~ !:.~~;.~~~~~~;~~~:..:~::~~:r:; jt ~;:e.."1c.~ :"!:'It)~C. Jr "7oI1u:.~-::';on :::;: :nome:" ~'''::::c.:.~Cf'_ ':f :.:e .=r:..::,S' =-= :=ctic::~ :. .:::mn:~..:i :.rc..":e ~ ~ :=..,-:;:e;: :0 m 19p1ic=:::. ~prc!Jr!=-te :=~['l":; m::ti1 be :~ ':0 :e:c..%re :.':::.;.[ iic::::..""'e. ..ant! :r-~ :s:::a1Ilg !::!...."C :::qc.i 1:ie Ce:lr.n~cuse oi:::e ::e'N =tUS~ ~ is=:""C 1:= :-'""':V li~ :n :::c::::rti::nc '1Iirb. me: forme::- [i~::se 2:I :c=::.cti.::a~ '.vim u:e :!J~ iic:::::::e "";--~""""ma ::.::i~ IJC 'Jo.tll a.e"N ~~in:lticos :lIe :;:.ye:::.., 1 _f. 1 . --':"-':1 ;s:! <:.1 -:'''71 ...) ~~- I : :;..ng'...!:J.;-= vr....tc:: ~de:-:r:tlez :.'1e :>'leu:u.um. -..:cic::cn :.<;.1<.JJng :t lke:-:!e, ;;:e :Jnor :~'91ic:..c.:: :-:::.<; .-no'/eu. :r::e J17n::l[Ure (Ji:t'..e: 1i :.he e:::':"'71!r..e: 1[te~ung: :o-.:.he :::ue:ne::~: 'Jr ';:,r<".r..m~ ,==nc::nmg ::.te:nem:;, ~;::.:> ;r.:e :~S''Dons~ciji[''r or:.-:: c: lnY :::....-:e: :r:qwry Jr invesi:I~:mQn ~:'.se. :-:-:e :S::Ulng ;unsaic:Ion m:ry ae:Iy '.lOon r.t:e:: :n"e:mg~Clcn" ~fOTE; T"nis :oiic::bLe :0 ,:nose :-e::;cas :l.Ca~ r 3 .,~~ ~!ie":e= ~1J!..!id ~::..ie tleve::" ::eid J. "[i~ -;v-c:c 2c.ziI ~(Q( 3~ :i_.....e:!. -::".:e :":c':=='; :ullloriq :a := ~~c:::icc -;.rhe:: d::e: :uuuc:.nca :z ". -:n::ce :Om :.::: ::::i~e :!. :ir'..-........ ~o dn;-.re. :0 t>:.e lpP.iU;::;.o.i :~". =-.:...:5'~4_ :-.:e :''99'Jic::nt': ::..-:viIJg ;;ri".-,je~ ~ s..zsoe::ci.e'd GI" :e,'/I'JXe= :..:: ~f!_oie 'JT ~ ;::..-t ::s ::t :cult 'J! J 'riolman 'Jr oc.~ of :.b:e ~-ailc~!.Dg. Suo 'r"aUtions :I..."e :tOt limited. co i.hcse :.me:::.. ~1f:msi<lU~M.!e:':lr"'~;ii~r :zcnrtiCde:=iring from = Jpe-....uc:J. .:i l m.oror '1e:::::..c:.e. Jrrri:zg- ..-......-tre .:n.ilt."e:"..c:: <J("..J..ic::r.ciiDrug5" (D(,;lj4 ~ jc~:'..se. :::e :ss<.ling ]uGsdic:ion.rii:<ill S :0 oae:-...:..=. :lle :~.ltUS oi :he :caiic::a'; :,:n;:.:..:::-:k ~::u.s;: be doce ~1~ ~e Zt ..:.._ ..~......__~ ...cs..~ote J.nd ~r.lC"":c:u. :.rre:e :ed de::::-::n:.c:'Jly. '11:), .1 : suc..~ :1.S :-ILzrS 'Jf ..J........:.....;.yf>l AJ.\fE. ~oa:-r =. ~hiCl ~ .nero", -:dri6:: :.:s: '!">"-t :'~~rll:; :.=e !r-"P" or:::t zc:::de::r or :3iiu:r: ~a SiCa ::II:::c' =de:=- -lid.::lol::' ;-e::cc=i. ~tL.ry ~ or _,....i ...........:..._r. :.~_.5..:. :::e .:;Jpiic::.nr'; '::c:::se t:=s:e::: s:..---ce::deC... :--r :e::.zc::.. iI ,,::;tIoie :-:;r":.:l ?3I!. Ji l. 'r.cianoQ aoi.:::c:::r. ~cn'pe.."1ca. ==.s ::Ct ::-'n'Tte::. .:::e-::::.: '.....H:: :ne .\i;1Q<Jn:li Or::i.~/e:' ::":n :;:~iic~t ,"as ,Je~:1 :-e~orred ~o -:~e 5imult.:.::eC!..!S1? ar ~7!m.eci~teiy :r.:e:" ::.t :.s :'99t~I;r:g :0:_: ::omme~:U .J.r;:le:' :c ::l~ce .~':.:.':: i!'~e ':-:':::':-_"'1,:~cUS'e .mmc:-::::..:. ~ n"Ie:- :"':'C~::S'e .ssu::mc: " -'. :e :! :ne :=::,!!c:...-::r. ~~ ::;ee:! :ss_u~ l ::..-::v 1G:e:- :~::..,e, .r nc :::ed: :s :"loe ~!.ic:ncr:. :: :i'::..:l ::e 'Jcr:e .....1t."lln;U ::~Jr:ace :::e::::~.:..l5m:i s:lJ..!I ':e :n ;i:lc:o :-:.:"...."l.e:::: ::..::::~:" --,c~~e :: :::e ~uitS' of :::e :;::9i.i:::...;~'; jc:::'j'::~ ::::.s- :ee:l _-,:wn :c :"::':~..:."':e:" ;:rn:::ci::.:cn. =-~.5..;. -:-.:e :ppiic=':':: ~ :e a=s Je= :I'"ked.. tlv ::=00. i::. -:-Jr,cie ~:'.:.= ,j:IIt. Ji ~ "l"J'C1.:iCO,D JDd.:<Ie: ;::..roc:tiou F=cd ~.:s :cr :e=..Ir:..:t~ ~"!:::::.:::t :=:: :"'''re:':i:e ==c.cn of Jne ::"!:::.:: ..:....=4 :t~ ~ :.:e fc:==e "':<7 ::...o~ ;:Ie::. ?e~ca :Il::lY ::::l:!e :;'~9'uc::.c.cc. :~r :. ::::",11 ":'__1;; :! ;;::.:::nu:e::i J? :r:: :.:0.'70$ ~i :.t:: ;:<:.::e :;: -:.-::::.=: :ie :;;ii=on ts ;:e:::~ =::a..e. :. .:::mn:e::-:::l :..;,:::~::S'~ j;:s :::ee.":! .:s...-.:~ :. :.5...:.., -:-..:e :":~..:::g :l:t=omr 'ie~==~ ,0'3L :.mC.e:" ~::= !.:l~::- ,;.::cicr -::;:.:.OlL:Ons 'Ji :..:~ :=uing ~i1....zc.::::::n_ :=::. ::'O01;::='='[ ::.:: ,:Oloin:."li.l'1 '.,lJi~ ':~=~ :nd.~'.e:c :':''I,:l'5. Suc::.!.'(ici::==.r ::1~'1 '-::99!:.o :'::r :;. I..:c::"'...!l: :.:: ~ :"::::1:: ::-....me -=:cs,;,s.;e::r ~Ir..~' :~e :aws ' :~-:~i~~~~~~~:~ ,~~~~~e~:~g~;~~c:~~~n~~=~~~c~~: =e :~-:z::ic=::n :.n '::n:I:.c=. :..=-e rl'lI1g ;="nie~'! J:iS :-e---=. ;-..4~::.c.::::':::::.:l)lc=:'. -::..:cns ::::l.:i ':e '.:..,lo::e:1 ':0 :e-:-..::,: :n:lt 'e :..r.:u ~.r:e <::.e:'..:"..J..,~r.CU$~ .1{ :.-:e :.ew ,:.::e :.::1. =.c:::::c.:".::c: '.V!tn :;:e :-arme:" =: ::JG"n:::: ...:.:::::!~ ::=.s:3~r:c':t:cn '.u::le:;s -}r "'~:1. dl ~~< .._~ .~~,."" ~"'ft.::I' :E -::z,i ~ .,~j .....", .-.!&I' .~ ~I ? :.~.s..;. :b: !ic:=;- :!nd:i.orit7 ::t:.:.y :::~ .:0 =:::: :l1c=se ~o::l' :n:t.:uciic:m:.r.: 'r.-:.r/esti~QI!.;::c:r,:s J.~r.e-;;r acme: Jrr/e: 1'"tOtj" ...-.._ ot matte:" ~ :te ~c:::::lS:I!~ :ud:toa! ,-ie~e:: ~:t-:::ill ~ot cres::l.l..:e ~o -z::mc ~ ~e.:aC"C'.tic:ac = ;n.nle;e to ~Ie ctt is:; panile .......~.i =nd J.igt:-;rr.I;~ :his :::~ ;D:tV ~tir.:-o-m U!eWC'iicar's,~ ~cr-r: ~........: c::nt:tioII;'~tiataic.cs... .~cidcias.. ;:::.e::ic::.i. 3iic::.:o~ J.rJilJar: :ocd::::l:S -:;rQCz ~clIict a:z.ve~l:t::!:tz .l~r ~on. ,_-eo,ocric.c.. or :!.-~=oa. iJ:ld tl:e 'rici.:u:ic~.. =aci::cns mdicr ~c::ie::cs Cc:::m::l Zt 1.i:e jumaic:.cn. at ~ ~-= ':':c:::::m1; .:umont"'! . :1..5.0. ~ ~ca tiJ:a.iI be !ft-e:-:tily ~eri b,. :!II ~ :uctor:c:r ro :s ::0 ;t-re ~e ~e:o;:. .:= :ad. ~,.- :0 1J:Ae ,?Itlmotlonaf~ ~"f. :..:. XOOiic::rioo m:tJ:....:-...,,_ a[~ :.:.~. .'iaac= :a ?::ar ':u::::c.tidan a{~edc=== ==CoO: :!.;~ng ..1rmaic:cn <:";..,,,ii aoar! .!Jl .:ti:=- ~~c==:a "'Vc:c.: :to:: ~iJcii=t.:s ...__......!l.y ~c-a~ :-.::s:::.:y ~'icr:: ::: ,:ne ~i :::VQ ~"'!'S~ '~:':'e:':n3Slu.:lily.,r ~i~_~dy. ?~'""C!=-:r = ~..t:.0<I. :i :'::QU4"""!' ~ea. to ~e:::t ==:s::titUi. .ji:. ~::n:... :ne ~::~ ja:-.s:e..::r m Ji::a:-ftt...:lu:tO::-e:um~ :0 Ie :Ct::le:' =te..~:: !.S ,'Ju~ec.::t:':"~ = :.:..~..;. :':'':'..:.:If=I::u:ll:-..~~ca ,..:.il ,.:=,-..e::c::::sc -:.. ti:::i.:l.'/"[t;; :;;:t...._-e..~ ':'v = :=>:ric::.::t ~r.e:: .1~l~/tII~ :or'Z. ~-:/~,:,:ic:-.se ':.:1 z. :~":"~:a...~::::. ~:'D.:=il:~ ~:::","::-:-.!:o:te =~c:::: = .=-..:~ ~ ~--e. .== J.~ :nx..l je: :::-..:=~ JY :.5.. ?~~ ;~(i~ ~r -::-' 'JlI!C" :::e:::::s ~ri ::;:y :.e :c=.:mci1s:e::. ;=r :::t:lt.UJe ~-<-. ons.. ,:,.,--''''"!ui:uica ill:!.,! :": :.:t J ~cc:i z..c.c.g .:iz:c::= 'Jr:.=. l :::::!:""'"2.~ :Oc::.llCtl. ;ut:n.::o .:::::e :iIcuia ::::: .....-.:::1W:illCIl ::.~_.l ace ::ie::c:r :-:tonm. -:-::e ~rorne:i :ic::::...---e:. zn::i1 ':e =::::!c~~ :.,. : (en:: .':!.':":"~ ~c::::: ~~ 4le =u:r.e :.-:a. :;.ri.d..~ ::' ::ie . ~ur:sci::::on :e:uc:::ng 'J1e :.:c::::se :::a ::I.:i,y ':~nc:..n ~ ;t.:m:::tc:::t ~~ ~...os:::nu:::.cc. at:be ~==-....zg: ~m ~c ~:: :e.w ;.u::tSttic::ca. :a "'I -:-:;:;: ~ -~ ..:~l _~.Ii ~:;;'j ,~'(- ,'~'. ""-" . ,.:3, -,-:f-:a- ; :mtb.Gr::r:1 :71'::' :,,::-:.:.s.e: :0 :.=.::.:e l :':c::=se :0 . :.:J.'/~U5:1G.a!1. ~:::= :.:::: 1 ~":~W 1f ~e 'J( :.notte= :::':He. :.ne ja:~.....-::~ :utb<:icr:r_ r li..:JC :-..e .::.:z..:e >:J 's:;:-...:.e.: :0 :.:.~ ],~'9llc:.n( ~ .r..: ;;UOllC ::..-e:~ :.cC .1J=~.:1'J:!. :-,;:is m ~l:e J.p9uc:.=.::c"; '~-:';'=:-_==~C:7 ~~rc. ~~c=::c.s. .7.l:~C=..I. :":'cic:.!c=~ mdfo~ ::i J,:r/e :e~ui~ec :.a J. ~::~=: ~~on. :on h.~ :=e 'Iioiauc('~. :::::::.:.:..:cr..:: mdJc[" :..ce jw=sci:::=c.c. .J{ :=e -:::...~.::: :"::::::::m::~ :':'~..2. ~__...cic T,..,n..-r1"TT~Qn. . - .:a :ie~ .J! :n:mu:tiI7 i.r.:l:"~aic:g iic::::"~ or :n:nd:IVtrs., .I. ;ur..:a.ic-"':OQ may ~__owc:lily acarI j:z=:; qre"f1ous jur...::dic;oa 1c:te :s..~ of:l iic::::se :md ~c::t .:r:msmis::>iOrI .')i ,:tIe ~~Qlg iIrlC" :ll.."":CI7 ;:e::::rd.. Suci e-"~=mmc :!criiic=ncn sh:tiI :=c:.::d.e'ilic: foUowin; :nrarn:1:1tion: ;l;Irl:Ie- ~-c:ae fJi ~aac::. :b::r'/e:" ~c:ze :1umee:::. ;e.~ j;ue or birJ] lad ~ !e-"::"'~~("'f :umc.e= ~ii ~nui:;;oieJ, :s ~ :IS;:n .J:aiccor :brtr::m::::1ls.s:Ion af ::.: dI:'-/e:'" r..orl :C::::ml :m. d:te sate to ~c tlle. ;:er'....;}.m 7.ltil je~[teri.. Gail :e ~cO:::llI:-' -:=('~;:;",~e~ ::;:' m =..ri.ag ~e gre.::[e~:: .:o~ :na :::::-::: :0 ':=.: r s:u:e::y. ::":".!...:. ..:"esrroc:ioa A~c:rs ~ oi~-rris .;;,itie ~ ~:;:troaid.z .:.::zie ire :=mmed..o me ;:=w.n~ jur..saic:::::oa. :I1e..~ zrr 17e ~cns ogQe..'1 mey .ti:.auict ::-e ~..:oyed ~ sbrcdding: or c:mmg ;"",rh_ ttx:m be::Ig ~:ume::i.. :-.::.is c::J. oc::;::r '?Jtcl cwo iua:;dic::wos ~ve :::1[1::::= mra m ~:n= co descoy aae ..motile:"':i lic:::::..ooes ~ ~ ::::-..::::::iag ::be:n co me :Onnc::':cue oiIic::::L.~ aielon of '?~.:lde=ce bail ':1Orif:i' :ul '~r..=e:- :u..-...sc...:::::ccs: :.:t ~c:c:: :.:...:...:.. ..:..F.rri~yic: . -'. . .c~=s~ ..~ :n:l~1 :e'~c;:= :..-: ~ce or JiC :ec::"Onlc:.:ly, ?~~:L.""C.!e::= -;f ::= =eUIC.a 'Jr 1S;ni~..:ti "t":;: :e-:::::d" :r:e .::..~=c~ St :-e :e~r=e::i :0 :1:: :'ar:::e-::::::.:e.. e:::.=::;=: ..:..Eda~rirs of =o.a....!l~ in ~c=::ra.mce 'MidI S'~a. :"..::...3_ =-~"f :zice::t!=?i3C:'Ji~!i~ :.:....:... Ac;:aa w. ~oa .?...:::::pc \liXocmc::a.ca. ~s.s:i.CC =-.:.=-.:._ ~ere::::o.in:uiO[l af?:::or ?...e:::rd. ,i..'::ciJ.vrtS ;u::-e=ce-:ec. :,,, ::.c ::=~ii=t :'Ie: ~c~.:"'..:e ::1 : .-::e":"l .1..:.....=::.:==Ci:I ::~ :e ::ca :..::.:.t :=..::e~ ''::'0: :~c~:'..:e. "~r:::e::: :::rr ~~?a "..._~~ j-cm m~tt:c:" jurizaic::on :. ~~(!e:e:l aIrle:' ~=~ .:und:lm JI" ::'__utlLC :=:UeS"'... :=e . '=c:.c::cn~.ttill d.I::::::::lu:e :i J. dri-re:- ::.storr n:-..:;ni' ~.:"::!t: ,"or :::e =ci."nC:::ti. ~ ~ 1..__.a. .::;nc:.::::c:;: .:i::rorr :s ~oc=r.ec.. :=.:! ~:::.::tu $3.il. :e = :0 :te ~~c:co :::...IIl 7.;wc= :::e :c~=::::.:oa ~ :=:'.~ l' l..:=nl '.::'ot:::nS::O dI::"re:- :=mr::I", ;:: -=~~:.oc ~.::e::r::a..l:n~ ~--:::on:. ::owe~te::,_ ;ome =c:.uoa or :-=r 'Jr:::= ~ '1I:a :te :::"'~=c: IJr :. .ec.:m ~ :e :::umed. 2""CU= ~i_"':"'...ar.c ~ -"'l"1',,-j~. :=e =:.=:.:.:ti. ~:ricn c::u.i.d. be .1 r...:::; ::lme!':::m m :r:di.-nriu:ti. :e-=~ ,;ict:f.c::::cn ot =m oi 1 :=C"':~::lUSt ;:-0:: ::e::.: :0 ~:: ~:;~~ ~ ~ttu.a.::D ,i:iy:;:i ~.:-t :of ~ue::... . -- - - .- ~':! '-;:' ~',';;. .....-;s::.:!! ~~:-."l::::: :: -::r :t=e:- '.:mUJ~[e~ ::r- :::l.1.1.c:;:~e ::--=--:::~s::cc:s. ,. ..- .. ~ :. ;CC.:.l :.:;;u..:.=.:? J!'::'~ :=:.= :. ::::::...-,,~..~ s.ucu.:.c. :r:e :.-=:::-...:..71UZ::.t:.::;: ~;:;;:::::: ;c.e ,. .. , '::'Ur.':::C ..:.c~:'...:e:: ;;:':':..1. :e ::'c:::::':"l.:=~~ =~; ::.ce:; :"':e :'::!!::e .:.r:a. ~cc..;= :r" :=e: :-:e ice:,..:e ~c :":i.ay ::~:.:.:.= ~ .::~~~e::':: ""! -:Jr :::e .':;-"::~'::'Z ~::::;::: :: :...:e ::::7 ....' --.......,.',... l' - ..-,~'. '..,- . "; ~ li LO "~g; -.... :.::.::.:.. ~=E\i S:my :::~an ~foanCItiart Uoan ~:ur ~m .mcrt~ :Ur.sdic:ion of.I !:l:otUlc:r:iaa.. J. ]unsdicaQ' siI:ul ~ :,n[Q .rrs :=:Jm me :'tm'Il: oi ,be .umaicoa ':Vue:=: me ;-e:::ca. ::s- crow !ic:zed. ::md. d:r.e date or ~"1Cr! ai tile :J.oc:uioa.. ~. Yo ~--tin~.?.:-...::m .. r.Tpoc .___~~\ :=-em moc:e:-~3:r".....-aic::an of:I l1onccticn.:md ~ ~e'" 'Jt :::"'.is:m; ';t:c:;rc.:: :::oiC:.~ jJ:u. 1 :e=rri fat:D:lI ::e:=:m -iaeS' :IOC ~~ ~:e::ror..: ~ :::e ~e:::[ to ttte ..... ~~~jum.aic::on crute JO "r:c:JrtI ~"'cisis. ~..:.i.s:n.:rv;,e :n J. lann M fomJ:U: ~ r.ie:Jre:i by :.he se::d.in;.lur..sd!c::ca.. ':~e :n:ill be ~ded ~ at ,-".iietiJe:- :::e ~ ":r-~ ::t :n:ao::i or ~=cic famr.. ~. IJttn::o IESr:ari R=r1 ~Cl :ur..sdic:::oQ =h:tU ;n:Ucr::ii:: :.:ci.riCu:l! :e=ttis .:br:tme ~ ~o '.1mom it a:ts :.s:oued. J. UII"1e:' :ic=....-e: -:i :ny kInti :11is "'e;.....,I.d..: :is .~c:::hen :n :2.':". sncui<i :::.:1f'.:::= ~mc. :::romt:moa. :n:mc.e=. ~ :ae::!rir{ :he ;e::oa ~o ?,room. :te ic:=::...ore -;I:]S is::1ei z 7d.:IS :n.iorrnauon c...-nc:.."'nia:g 1nve:" :::.ca.oilit!.e:: :Jr ?rcoi~ Ac:::::df:::t :nvoi'leme:::c :nci c::nvtc::ons :~i::-....ec oue:e: shottid. :Usa he 1. g:u: 'Jt rue J. ~rc.. ..;.aditionai d:1c. .:::c::. zs- ::Iecic:i. ::crann:Ucn. ':::mmumcccns. .:ocnac:. or -:t:.e: :::tt'le.~t or ~ ~fcrrnaG:(m. .11~y ':;e : p:ut ~r':.1tS :e-:::::rn 3S :e::~ JY tt:e :s:uxa.g ~~-cic::on. ::1.1S ~::oro :nay je :n .:n.anu:zi 1r:z: ::::cn:::~ ::smort .1S ':1ic=.r:ed by ~-:e jUI"".:.:aioon :n:rir:tJ.UUr.~ ~ ~:::<:.. :-::;.~. ?.,r.n or"'?=--=rri ~rti.ie =::c: ltc"".sa!c::an ;.I:l.,- (~~~ :=:::,~:::::rcis' :n -::ro::re-re:' :br.:: !7r ::smeD ttte.i ':e:I.1.'"e~ :::"'_:un:',:,:::, i ~red -:.rne:: ::t:mtr.Iil7 ~ttm2 :. .tr:'re:- .'m:tot"r :-:::=:ti :0' ~att:e.:.- ~T'!""'''''''C:::o[t.. :-.:..i..s .:t=t:l ~Ill :.::c.uae ~~ :1:1me :Jr ~ :::::::e ~e"'rTi"7:tlc -:i.tc .!net ide::rif..=.c.cn Jr:=e 3ure:t:. Cine:. ':e:r..r::::e::t.. ~r ::i~on =:a.cs;bie :cr :n:rint:lImn:r '..:e ~te :isi-c:r-r ~:rd.. :ora C:~ .,....~,1 ~ ~ me. :il ::u:cr::Itl.c!:Q,n ~oaid be mn'Ce~ :::: ~ ~..,.Ti....;.. latlll!!aze.. Sc:mri=rti :cbre.....r:ricns ::::ill be :n :...-_~~~ 7,.-rm ANSI ~~"b =r:mci::..-os. V!'!.e:. cle:::....;:roz.c ~Qn :::' ~ms ~ ?.t=,:t:e ..l~'-fSZ J-:O 'l3,[:I, ~e:ne::rs a O'ICcosca .:r::=:d:::Ie::rs -::rmc c:tL.""timte d'ze C'wdri.,re:mt7~rd. ,...~;l:-e~ ~Se.s==on3"':"=.or imII:tt.) -' ~-:..' ,--_..-..::.' +-':,! m :-/oJanc:::.acr! _.:_......'Zu. :-::.:...~!~~ :- ,;ur.:cic::cn :J(' J. aor.:.::.=:.ticn~ o ~[:: ~-::.:Jrci .:te ':1ame: .: {\.1e .::-on :s i10W iic::::sed u:c ,:t!e -i:!t~ 1f :::e ~ ~.,me:i.=:uI J.e := 1.c::::rt::.cc:: ~!tO. X.e:.:.r~ .re.::tioa at' ~ ..:.._i.2~t~i.':'. :-~~ri~-;:: .:,:r :.=:..e:= ~-=ro. ds.~cq_ ~~. :"':=gu::: ':;f.-:::~--r:" ro J::~ ::--=....-;;ur:~ ;bill :......:...de m ='Yir7 ..'- ~ 7Itt:i:o: re:z :,e-....I:: ::nme:::::te.:y :4__ 'i'...~ ~ .~(e ~r:" ~~ :f:c= :re::::: o{his::ory := ::or :!.r~ie..:.:l :v"';-"'ie:.l:!..:. :;",..~;I ::e T'~...i.tre::..:f~... 1:0. :~r:l ;=cd :CCs,=...t:=. ~ ::e::.::;; ::-.ay :e :.cc.~~ :m ~.ne. miI::.ir:rum :me :::::C-<1 is ~ :-''= :cr s;:==~ .:::::nvic;:oa: md ::ree ye"'....r.;: reI' ci acb:~ ::;aV!c:~ :.c:l tar ':lc:::de=c:~ S oe::5'ed curic".ions =""""e .71~:=u;.c.re:.-:r :::::i;~ 7C~CC.~ -?L"'L.. .:::-y.o= ::t.=r~g~ bit.:rra. :-"'"0.. ~ure ~o s;:.oo :-"aa :--ae= :uc.. UX1 mv :e:anv :II -::true a :Uctor ';~.Ic:e :.: ~~ 'Nbc:: ::::mputi:t; :t:~ ~e ~-e::cd r-cr::--O..."'OT1itting :Son ;..,.iQ'r.;:~;:on IJG .:=avrc::ca.! :ar niiic =~!ed :motmacwn en :.:rrn.c::c.~ :cr ~c :e::u.eu oce::::e::.. :be =c-nc:::aa d.:lte :ti:ttil.. be ;se:i. ; :m."::cictioc 'Ji J nou=:::.Juon. ~ -l :nc.ic:.tes :1:i.<:!.t 1. .rec:rc. :ar ,:nat :-e::an '1 .'-;... ~~.... '0 "-p """'.............-...07 ;......""';..;0..00 ' ~... ~.--~~,' ''":- '.............--:...'-'''::1 .~.-:-- -... :n;;Zy -;e :n .1 :OIrn or ::an.:IC 1$ .:.eS'L.~ I. :Otic ::.,all be :;rovidec. ~:pro..:.~ :'Jt 1 m<:!..Cu::.1. or :iec::romc :'C:m1, !di~-'idu::1l rec::rd.:s e'or :::.ose ?e:::o["l..5 :0 e Qt :,n", :Cna.. This ~~=rti. .!S I oa.s.c :'nior.;;];:;.oon SU..e:::~.:::!I ::; ::~':::':::e '.V:lS ;:szued JS ';.rei.!. JS 'uoili..:es .:Jr Jrcbie:ns. .":"'c=ce=( ::if.c: ::J[fe:::s~ ::nouic ilia ce 1. ;tr:. Jr :.:::: ~ ::1ecic=.l i.nr"o.rm.::~oo. -::' :::n"'.re:!le:1C 'Jf :-ecUl..~ :n.ior::l,zticn ired :::'Y ~ne :$...-..nng ;u:-....:cic::.ci:.. :-..::s Jm::.~~ :isi1icn 1S' cic::.:.re~ by '-"" ~...:., ':'-;c::s:on at ?::c;- ~.,r? t. -:--:e :~cc::c::t .........=r.!"r :lc:::::=s.u:; :::~ :::ci.I'!!iuai:w:1lL '~ldtin t.t!.irt-r .w._' w,. __, ". ._... -...:........ ~...,..,.__ __.... w,' '"""'- "'....or -!P ~'e: . ,.:..>.!~.. .--...."'':" - -- ......'"-.. -.....-! ,_........j -,- /.... _..~ "":': --:-.... , ,.=!o~--==n ~:n :t'e ;:::;;r ::=:::: ==:0 ;~ ~ :cr:n:tr =r-Ornau.:::_ ,:...!:..., '1:: ;~::v~ en =JJ.vtc::::.cs ,:ir :::.=c =~ =c=2ts'. ~e:::;.ccs .1r :::"fcc:::::-....s "::o"1u:i::r. :=e ~ ::::: ye::c- --.f ~e ai~:i :=:.ee: '::e~ ~::r::.. .:::=..-=: '7!tL: ~:::c:cn .:..1~~ .:'.1! ;ju:e:"~ :=:.,.~ =.I:t? :r :':lay =c-t .:-e =c:.::.~ :: ~ ~'N :::",,-=:rri :.t ,=e :JPu.cc 'Jc'::<::e :-=:-......cz .::r7~'--Cn.. --. - ,. -..:..::. ~-=:::.:.::.= e:J :'':e:!' :"'ec:::-:::.s in ~G:':e':~:' :'::::: ~'1 , ~s ~~~lre:i -....hen :n:!.o-:u~? ore. :0 :..co u:e:: ;unsai-=::.an. :-.:..:.s a.:.~ ~e :e:::.::..:..:::.z ~..;..:e '1.:1[:1 :r::.c :::e:u:::::.=:::. ~::tr. :r ':;l:'~:::n ==~c=i:;!e :':: ~:::I".:... ":'JQ ::::-ce::: 1.h:uJ. :-e 'Jse::. .z::.:i ill 1 tte: ~~g!.i!;:t: :~goJ.:l_g'!. 5~:.nc:..~ .:::C~ ~tt.n ..:..........:::.J. D-:..C' .:::.aa::-...s. t ~::;::I"""-= ::l!!:-e:;: ;;i::.c~~ :':::::- A....'[~: ':-2D ~:lce.:::e=!S' ~i::.c= c::~r!J[e :,:"':e :::;cn .~::! j:":':-.......-::e.."":C. :l~::s:~ -:r- :::::::::m_:.-:e :.cr.:ne::::.:e ':c __-:~~::: :=cte:i ~= J-! ::..::::.c.:.::.;; ::: ::::::~ :0 r!:e =--ew ...::=,:e ~i ~...-...~-...ta::.::.:::ir.':f:'=:!S'. . - ~.- , -... -~-...'..... _...- ----- ill '~e 'Jzed.. .- - . - ' ":;;:~e ~:!c=::c ;.__ ::r :"~1Y ~:::. :=..,...:::me:: .::.....::: ;::e .~;-~c:::::n :c lo..cm::e::" :::ail have .: .::::~e::' -~"",;'1; :0 .:s ~o ::.==r==:: '':::: ::::::i::; ;t:r...sdic::or-... :-~ .:....r,;..-; --"rJ :ct -:wy :==.c.r:t' :=,e ~u:-...!::::c::ca :y ~e Jue sn:ul ~S'c :;:nt:u!1 ,::::: :amc (Ji ::-..e ':.::;-r=e::t '::- ~'=C? :::=;:cr~cie :br .::=:::J.C:.CZ ==-..zCC1-:'-"':~ =~:=~ -:-~::.:1=:::e ::--...::r.:. ";q<lS' ,:r-..::ree. -..,;1 -::::::e:"~ 'l?art "~i:=:: :..--.i"g:Jr!.oail :e :c.c.:ll~ .!S J. ;a...'""t oi:=.:: =-::::rc. ~I:S:e:::. lZ ~ .. . ~-...... :-~! ,:~~2j :.:::.-:1 ,~ :...2.7.Q:tific::.rion C~i!c::.oO[] moue:: aniv ~ m:l:cu::ri.Iy rr-..nsmitted:e=rd.::. ,:".1::7 :e---::rn m.muaily rr.ms>11iCred ':...m 'Jne .:ur:::cticaa ,:0 :mote:=-::i:ill ~ c::::--=~ in Some :na.ac.e:,,-.;,.7e:s .::.~c::.cica :r:.=:r:e:.:z ct:e ::r.::t at J. JI-:r-'ne :""I19I1C.t,J,t :t.e 'tile":.t.e :crnl?tas 7"...o:ce::i.. :.t1maga 2. :!lCGe:" ~ imprint. .:.II OI'!.;in:U ~?:mm: oi:t:e ~oai:u:r: "f ...__~...s -'Ji aJe ~::ciIIg jurisdic::cn... ~~ of :.he ~e::.:. .-;i -=e it.tC:dic::::o. :r ~ my ~dIe:'me:ms in c=mmOIl ~:lge.. ?toe::. ~mr:tg' ~=:a -::e-.""jcily, mdle::a.c::riOll ::::ce::-..,."ill ~ !!2.:i:o as to 're::i:r '-l. n<-'"lT~on ~m J. ~e!ltiing ju::::ci.c::.an.. 1.1. ~aiGJlmC:iaa :'~.,l. C.:nvic-"...oa3..e;ooIts J-:,..!!..r.~ - ..... ':ul ." - . .:= .~C::01I s;; ~::orr ::::c= C:IrVTC::CD '1.r :. :e::rou .::;:>!t% mote:::, ;ur..sciic:::on <::-c:::-.:iI:ng ~Hhin itS' aoucci:0~ ~o f.1le :.cme l~cic=an at ttle 1c:::se=. :"J.':'" :1me:me:::s - .... '.' . ==C :tr.'"IIS'CllCCa s-nau ~OIt ~= =:rvte:':cn :0 ,:>:e :orne ~'ur:~c:.--:cn ai :rd:. G.c=~ 'Vtu::.."1 ==e=~ '.l:.,!s ~ ___../!I:; :. :::porr. 'J!. 1!e :=lTltc=on =em ~ :::::ur... :.....:....:. :"Jr=1 of?e~or: -:-.."e. :::::::. d ~e ;:;or.: :i ,:::::-,"!-::::n :n::.y -:~ ::;'~.f 'J::::e: :.::ilc-.:,.-c:;: :...:.,.;.~_ ..:.. ='l':-' ,-:c.':b.e :ts=== ,Ji =u:: :':-=:-:::. :-1, :.r: :...:..,~-=- A '::::9;' ,"Ji:t:e =--==:: ::=cn .:::=~"!::~ :...:t; ciz;=::::::c=... .., :'''':',';.2. A!X;?:Ipe:-:cc::me=:.. :::!~e::c =e::~... Jr~.:~c:.c :...-:.......smSSi.cn ':I.lnlC c:nr.."..... == ::lu:.t..'nu."D. 'l::I.:l ~c.o::: :..= :e!:::ca.:....!..~. :".i,~, :.;c. C:nre::t ="r":' ::::on!e::t:1 iurisdic::ioa ..i"--il c--...Iiy :ri....."r.r 1Ie ......::0..'" :s :r. ~Qrt .J! c:nvic:ion :met :tie::ni"r :ne :uriscic::on d:w is me !cu:rc 'Ji lle .~rt. If ci:e :=OIt :s ad1e:- "::::m m. aYw....::c:: of ~ :e-"'-::r.i. ill ,iaQ demcrs :nusimeet wallc:.::lie .~\fsr-u-~Q :"~.:ac. .:or ~.:C::. c.:U"Itc:ion.:bil.: . . . --~i ~: ". .- ;..'~. 1 ..r.....nsmiu:ed =ec::JrCs. ...:......1y : junsaic::on CO ,morhe:- :nail.,~ :c:.tioa :;::lY .je :.0. ~e :.orm Qr : ~3.S ;;r-Ilte:::.. :r...rough J.. :ubte:- { :ne ::-...:..s::oaian 0 i :-::::::a'ds 0 ( :e ~e:::i J r .:ne 'urisdic:.:on. JC j.t V:~e:J ~mI(ring ~c=rcS' ' ill be ~e:1 ':::0 .1S ':0 '/e:::f:r 00. :"~.~,L Ce=..."'i-f :de::tif, ~e ,Je::;ca wcvTc:ed. Mi::::....nam. d::I :=:.;,uiIeme."!cs :re.. ::::me. lridre::::;,. za.~:i:1te oi~.n.. ,iIiVe::" Uc=se !lumV"..:~ ma :I!'f r/:w:wie ~tin~ m:m~ .wc.JS' m~ s=n~y rurmoea :"';!'.J..2.. ~e=_:be d:ze 'rioUtiaa.. Dae: stIatI inCrCe :f:e Se:::IOll of ~....e ~w.a1te. :=c:e or ::rci..r!:znce .rTot:r.cec. .:iaag 7im. ~ c:::mmOQ 2:2!isb. iJ..C.7'!::Iz~ -ie:x::l::tion of:he ~ife:!Se =mi c:ried m ".. lC:;rci:1n~ ':.;rim ~~NS D-W. ~':',~.J. ~de:::r:r:t!e c..-ur:..i.!J. ~iric x::oa -:r.IS r.::tic.e:::.. :..~,..:..~.. S9e::=:r :rcra :ncam .:ad.day 'JiC'om me ~.m:te ~aVtClOn. lV1c::cn ar .l ;e:=on =~m '-S :JOUD.a.:.::~~ ~o cbe :::ome ::':',~..i. ~cllc:re 71tre:"....e:":I ~ie:: at ~jrrorllot g!riicr '::r.IS' ~:He==d. or :te: :::n.ltc::cn 7I'aS J. =:me or tl1e forre:rtII: or ~.w. ')ond. or ott:= :.e.::::r:r-,{: :c.d. i:C:lde :Ir'f .:.~' . -i ~nrl;ngs ~ i:I .::::ruu:::=.on '-=::~.N'Id"'_ :''':','':',5. .:ca:.c:.:e -::r.e"'..!:e:"7::e .ric~CII .~c::mc:it:.-'"':i::o:.:. ::::;m..&le:---=:, =c[or.~ ii :'11C1cn .:0 ii:~ home -;::: '':.:1'/S :llie:- :e::::.......ln:; :l :.:.....:.,:-. :'-:aic.:.:e 7ttre-.r.:e= =e ":\Oi:U:ZOIl ~~ c:rm:utted. it.: :::!:occr " , ':e~Ce ::.c:!~=~ ===--cicus ::!..:.:.te:'""...-.is.. '.=:::r.....-:~ ?~:u..~ " r i ~ ~ " C.::::r~ :::::r J.e: 1J:..: .)c :::-e :ctlcwU!z: GC .;r:.c~'1.;:g .:.:r:a :::is~csiGoc. ~i() 'uI"'..=aic:aa.;;t:u1. :="o..le: : :i:::/e:- :;~_l;; ~o :''1Y ~e:=-...:: ~:i=ttEe:: :n -:-,-;.:; :c' :''":e ::lru;:!1CJ:Z ;jut!:r.~ j.e~C.:.t '.:nul :t:e :.:smr:u~: ;r:=sc.:c::aa :'::~:'1l':~ 1 .::.e:::.r:-..cc.: ::-em ,:r:e: ;:u%":scic::an .;,rru.c::. Cl:la. tre"TtcuSY ;.;nr.c..-::.wn ;ne '1::.,:=; ;;n....je~~ t 1 ::;ur. :!:-::::c.. :=e:::'~ :::e-::i::..::m, Jr ~.!.ec.==J:.lC il!'..unur.:;: J..::a.J. ::e::c::bed :"'1 :..:.:..:.... ..:...n:r -=--.:..e: '7Ol'i:!o. .:t :::= ::::1e 'Ji!f=Puc:.aon .:::c~ ",1.;:n: ;;lS .}r ::e:- 'l.7/~=g ;-r::::ni.e:;e ~ ::= ?I'!!.tUIr:r.',vn ~ :. :::uit iJ{ J. :::':=c "Ioi::.ucn J;.... :"'1ot!:~ ~~..:=::::cc.. ::d "::Inose ~.nie;: :us .:cr :e:::: -===cr:c.. m:r :de::I.I.f! :be ~'9or.: :.s 1 nsaiCCD mat is :he $Ource of ::.i:::Sti:""'"....c: of ;:;:UI"t :e::::rd.. ill ";51-;]-20 standards. ~:ICl for :..:...:.:.. .~7 'i.7/e:-~;:Orred ~/" =e :-f<w~n:Ii DrrJf::' :te;!s::e:z n:nng ~ or ::.!::- ':L.T/mg ?:r"'le~ :me::Idy ";IJ:d'.ar.:t7IU oy momer lur.s::c:cn :s .1 :=:ail. oJ! 1 ;nee. 7iotarioa.. .A --::....,~ . -... '''''''~....;;.:.;; ,-~ ,,~ ,'~~ .~ iI.~ '- _.' . .~~: . i5 '. :":.1...1. .4JJ:vfuJ.'7e:-for-:vttcm .:~c::ticn i:::: 1:'ee:: ;.~_;-re::!. =:m mocne: :rra:s6icwu 2S :::ut!ined La S=cn :...:....:.. ,md :..: .Ji ::s i1I~. :.ndic::riJIg ti:l:1I: '!:-e ~e;e or me ~.::IS be:: ":;"Ithdr.lwn ~ .1 ~t or :t <I:I:ffi.c .notanoa. - ". :"';...:.~. .J...av :iIr1e:"'~tro. z :t.e dme ai .maiic:ricn.. ==..."'CiJ~ ~ :s de!~:m~ :0 ,je' and.e:' ~oa. fci-=ware ~ ::msrr :.":::: ,;udgIne::lf ot :!. c:::mt 1I:J.vUlg c::rti jumdic::oa over =:amis or :moilitf :!.I"'4mg 'Jut ai J.a JC:........., invoivmg :1 macer ...,.......ce. ~...:.. ~llen 5tze:: Silailll:sue C=u-..nc: . I ~...:...:. ,-\ .i\arc shail isme J: ci~ .:-cr.l ce:an '::'rtose i.:i."m~ *riie~ ~ ~ ":.rttt;acwu ::r:d. -:llno aD fca~:i~ :.n ..te,::wi ii::e ~nme=s lil~e:!Ie::t ~ :nc.:~c1ing payrtte."lt ar .-."~r-:c:1[ of =Or.uIOJi: ~ :..;.:..:... II:''1e :;Jie ~ :ar-:::mim:r:ei ~ ;lr:!Ie '~1lI:lg ?U'n.ie;e :s :he f:rilur.: 'Jt me ~.......u. to c:::m~tc::::::- otle ~r ::Icre 'Ji:he :te=:n :::.:..J...::=.:=ue S'~ 1s::ace:!. :--c:.:f :.<:= ;=00 ~rce:tS .:t:lris6::or: ,-ide:l;c 'Jr =m~:J1e:iOll or ~ ::e.~ ::-Om. :!Oe :ic.:::sm~ mttc:t::r:n. me ::e"'i'SQte oi ==ae:::::::.. :...;~. ~e ~c:::::ure =:":"':"::;;piie:::o ~ :oilo~~; ::=--~te.:ne::t ~ T!5IOa. .bow~e Or' :-e::::a tt:e ...~_~ :e:::::. ?~e:!le~ ::.::::001 'Jr ::-,!.~"nrT~ :Ae::ti.=. :1c=O.oi oJr .:;~ ~r:llu;:c.CD'. :...:.:....:.., .=:..~=!:cn: A..-r::re ~~;r::at:e ::::ui..~:o ==.: .:;e:::-....;::c: if :It ~.,:ti~on ~~.::ned i:1 :l:e ::~ :te -:i ~::tie::c:: ~ ~rc.r;Cerl. in .:..:..:..:. ;mic::te:: ::at == ~~=CrI ~ =c:: ;:t :0 ..1:ive ~-=e:y, F~2lli~ :..s.~. ~;i:R )font;r--cn is 3.e::;~..i :ur'.:s:cic:icc:: :tiIaiI :auiy dIe NlJR 'JC~ ill1c:::::e ."itba.cwais .r: J, ~<Iit 'Ji~c 'rioianoas Qt"JD.v"ri.-i ar~:U. ri...-:t!ilia.e: J~srz..-"er.sioos ar~foc:tian:u:iiC:n:c :e::mr.1Eioas. {.~c:::t:n. 3J:1d. :e--...::sicas of ;mor~n =00::. ", j n:::;j ,5 =-.i'::' ~.lIIIa= ;cnco :::..:: :~e~ .:"eC1:::' ...~::. in Sc:c-..:c::. :.l.":' ma =.: -:r' Le;e or ;-..::.c.::. ':1..,-r;e::J:lS :;:::1. lanoo. ~fori:Jiorion oi~d:!ttr.twai l]'[" ~_~~~~ i::tc-~ to ~ :mR7Iltttitt.ift=::td:1:~~:t.e1:l:rriug~=~ar =<m:d.. :;l J.?!,1.i::='~CD. iU:c~o~e~ -:r : far :'::Uiu~ ::J S'~s~r :::e )cic::ioa j.r~: ::..c.ai.a~ ': i 'lQiV1.O~ :.. ;";!Qtor 're:t!le.:e. 1..i1. Wnn:::: oi~'otic= ; I ., I I :-!gancriom ~ ~-:.ttis::c::ian.s:tcW: c::main;t:1 ,:tIe fuilowtng: . !.5.1.1. TI1e ee:rr:ae::rir7 "i ~ dtIve::-::voVlei. ~~ ljm; :lot.!.imited. co ct-e fi:ilowm2::::une..sc::.~oi~~ ~~...maii;l~3:.:aC::ti..:c:::ri:q~ ._ (or J. :e:::cn ':rJ'nose 1 Ed. ~c.o :'0 Lo.c.go::: ~i:r~ :=. r:Ite::ne.:::.t :eq:.ure:ne.:::.r.s. J!~ :estor=.cca :.e~. :.5"::":" 7'JledacetJime",~ !.5...J~. The date ai.1CI3i ~crior:raf~ ~ tt=t date=. :d -;:;ritt.c...""":.71al 'jr:he :-e:son :0 ::::rn01e::: Gee ... ; sb:1i.l :..$:-....:: :l -c~~-r-..c.~ :: ::::= or ::::~cietioo or" '..':e '1le :1e"'o :-;::.te Jr" ~s-;:ce==~. :'.i.3.~. ..;. == :a=::mctioa af:be:=un :or .~......L :ncmiio; 'JlIt ,::or:!.imiI=i :0 Ulc: coda m.ii=.::y :::::rc~ ~ Orr:::z:f:e :.'lDR'~ ~~mciem lJ~ ?.,i.'"::Zr!~.~ ;een :.~i.em.err::ed ay:.~ S~. ~-e ,;"""'; o~:':::-= 1.c2r.::e !l1i:f4n:::ci. t're!:=or: /ar :ui-~ :ia::e ~ '.!1r.:.~.:i.:.=::Ja.i.. ac: wii!. ::0 ::.on:;er ~e ~ ::z ~..e ~.me. :.iez ~o =e ~::.:lo?"'tC~ :.r::e ~cee: 3.0..?lrm: (!,edMr~~~ 3.':. :"JIIICtrs for~:um:ti. 7....~cu Lu:::.aoc. :e :--eCUl-~':. :': '..$.sue :. ~..:..:.. ~":'.i.5:!:J:rit 'Ji:raa.-:~ '.~e ~.:: :_..;,~r.n_ -........1 :.::: :!:e :.:e-:-.. :~~.te 'Jt ::.t~ :.r:!::i.C :::~ :~':::':'Q::: ;.i":" ~.::m.smzc:ti.'Ji::----!:S=:...:..!..':"~ !S~c .~~ iJ ..?m:4CJ ;.":..l. G=::-...::::.c: ~ ~'!= :-;.} !$.am;uc: .~-pe:aix:l- ~l :e:::=e ':.Il(::::'--:'wals :3 :. .....e::::.tat .:iis:lcili'::es ]~':'.J..L:::-c:::x::::ll: ;r::lncns . ~:==-;::lte::::e:-:,=~, c~ e::aIcamT~ ~..-....-:L oi:r.~z:ic::=c ~~~:::.:::ziic::Cr. r----::u:cQ1=~ ~l"fPto1Y~ie:D:::t.~'"-r ~c:d1.JDri :Dnn !em=. , J 1 ..;. de::n::mc= in :my :Dmz .:i:maid be ~ in cD::.;me way:e lc:;cU ..-..........:.... "Ji 1.i.ic=::e :: ll'e::m:::i. :-.ae Dtmiz:man. to 1c:=se ~ dIrll::."::imuiti.uso ~ dze IJ:W !i~J~aic::cu ;o~y de:::fc ~'Z-:m:tD ;cwt3:iicc..'"'e ~'=a :be;=m:n7"ll<;.......;;......~ mmeiti::~,jtk . ~ !i:mn m:ty:i::: z~ aJamlpiee.:i.-e ~1itW'J.1m :s-c:irc:::dtactle!X7Iic=:.=:ta;~[O~~ <ii;UJijicy. _A ~~~ ~~~" ~' ..... ' - , ~~ = ~o .I:'r~ ,:$;" .,"" L. '.'~ ~ ,- .J ~.i...,;"': ?.,rm C.::;.mem: -::-:e dcir ::i~-cc:: :ann!s .:e::::zrzd 5Jr ~u~g mci momitting iniomxarioa :.or JOdI Ju~diC::.ons~ :t .::m be :::!Sliy c:lmoie::::l by Oanri. 'Jr ~Ote:i ~o ::. ?C ;rcgr...m... Some :~c:.~ may pre!e:":o r;,pe U%e.'TI. :-.:e d::1r:t .:=.resories provide J. de::::.iied sumtJWI""!"d:be fJ'c::=oa"; driving ::CJro. md if mspe.."1ae:1 or ;:e"roiced... ";l:i:lat :s ileeae::.:. :cr ~:..cst:t[e.:ne::t.. ~ 1 ~ 2..2..:"JIT: .2...!.. ;.2.~~. P:lI"po!e: To ~...!tlre c:msis1::e::c:r :nu unifor::1ir:r .!lJloag ;unsdic::r.ons ,0 ae::e=.me if 'J.1i('~'" ~ :utlIori=a :cr ~ ~w :_aae:lt. U.ai.,re:s::ti!ISl: or dris form c::ul s"....noiir' ~e Zo-~ain,2' ?,roc~ C:Jmpie!~d. by ::ancired.s at .r..ze ~::o:glo~ =onwtae: ::_":...3.~. ;?roc:d.ure: , j i , , .":'JwaYS ::eaui..-e!he dri./e:,,:o ~de:' ~ d...wj;o/e:'~ lic:=:-~ ar !.C:::::lC ani'; r.t~ :t!aced. .::e:u-...ace.:or:=.. :r:!. SQte :C:::::Jrs :ooo'e ~e:ir:mc::s. me ;i:mte: :nlcllruWoil .ti::.owd be ~:::::rc~ bv :r.!: ci.Ie: on the form md be:::nne 1.?~ oJi jre SCle'; ~rcii :"=t!1le c:~c:::s J.1c::::se ~-Ce:. ::Joa::<.re ',-ocr::c:Jros :.c.a. Je~te :l ~oric: ~a r..b.e ;lre-rious ~;:~e 'Ji ==rti :i 1 :::::mge :"'i. :esiUe:lc:r :ad. !.ic=:s:e ~r.:J.ms. ;.nves:,l2:iue ~d ::ommc.."lic:te: ce:we:::: ~u~...::cidoas :':r my '.:0 ::-::::ra"- :e:;:o~es. ':.:o...icon .?~~::Ort ~S'::= 2...i.l ::S:.nl'pie ..:..\=-;:~.J - ?-=:-=::~; , _ ...:......-tic:e ]I :e~<U...'":S .::=c:: ,!ur...:.::.:=cn. ,,0 :e:;cr: :=a'I1C"'..IoGS. :~c. .n:e:::.5:ed. crv tt:~ ':.:.:=:;;:.c: ;lS :::=:::...; m ..,;.:.........e :e......r'"'lr..."'..;II:"" :"'cucies. -----, ....... --:0 5-...... . . ::ie.c.ut"'r of ::::e ae:son ,:::nnc:::a... . ?e~c:::?tia.a c (1:e 'llci.:uoIL. . :oe!1uty Q( :t:e -::oW't.. . AJJ:{ s~eCti .B.o.di.ngs~ ;.L~': .Ytmy d:lC:t ~ie:ne.::ts cooai.ced.:.::. .'mollS sme=:' ~nvic:ioa reO'oltS :Ire =mmoa :!Cd i( :s =:zC::1l d1at ::::lICS' .::e:iousiy conStde:- ~ dIe :mOUIlt of :monn.moo. ~-':".lOgcd wme is umIe::::=s:Ir7 :md usi::g 1 .:onn sue:: .:oS ,r=:::bed. by ;:b:: C.Jmc:>.c:.. Use of .1 ..:;w.odard coaviciaa. ~~o!t .::m reduc:: !acor :e:;uire:d [0 ~a::c: oniy c:itic::i ,:a..ioanation to 'e"'f inte 1 r,mem. :0 id.::ti.t, ;1 caW!. ~e. :::c.. ;:cd to e:tSUIe ~ c::mvic:lOu is zpombie :mde: tt:e wmpac:.. ! i I I ! , f ! J , ., i I I ---! [8 ~:'!... ::e:lr.J...Qc:: :'Or:i7! :.s .iesu::.ned :'cr n:H..:oa Eor jocb. :u:ri:d.iC::lOCS. ad: :;r :dJ.~te:d :0 3. ~ ,.~!:':= :0 ~~/c-e :ne:~. ,.Je j:H:l nm3..J..-:! Q(:ne ;:;e::::-on'.:; an'.,eg :'::::. ?Inat :.s 3e:~(l.ed. tor I I I 1.1.':. St;;rce:rr.e:u :t7v-tctdr:w-..iJR~=,=re:ne~ J:S~ .:.,;.) ;-.2.. ?1l1I1:It :or ~=om.c :~-wo l;""-:OC. ::.':'.L :In.7e:- .2s:arr .i=::! 3.':":'" CJavicoa ~=ort }..:..;. w'i.cr:ar=w-abIb=or:::tiacs :.:.e=-c:: ::eel '.lOlfcr:nit:r :mcc.g .=.::..:e :.s ::.uu::.an:::ec for :1 G.e,;,../ :IT.1 =::..n ':::lm9iii:r :be ::ic:ee~:15 ]i :r:.te ~:nplOyees ;J.J.uc[],#':c!e. :.:=:::::c.e=. ~~79a:lte :'our ;,,~,:::;ros ,aus .::..3.te 'Jr" ~:::=ni 'J( .1 c:::;].,C.ge I ! ! ! !i ! , ! -e::c.e= ::..~e d....-i~re:' ~ iic~:Jse ~r - .. ;e ~':Jr.n. ~.i::l 2;:ate lC=::?~ :;:;:ucn ..:::h?uid :::e :"e.:::orded J;' :e 3 ;m or ,ne s::=.re ::; re::.or.:s. :......~-::: ;uczaic::cns :or:.o:, ':10 :-'.: r:7i. :?~:::; .....l::~::.:.c::Oc. ,:0 :-e::on: == _':w.~':'c: :..::: .:e-::::ss:::"'7 ::J .:.:..::ed.:..:J. .,~cus ~::~I~' :..::d. ~! :s ::-:.::c:3.i. :.::.:.C st.:lre:: :e :.mount oJ [ nior.::::.anoa :"'1d :.1sm; :l [arm. sua ~ ~C 1 .s-t:t.ada..rtt c:;ayic:ioa :0 -:::;:U":!C: Jaiy c::itiof :0 icie::urj .1 c:;U.l'.... stJ.te. ~:c. :-;crrabie: '.LCde:- ~e C.Jm9<lc:" i I I T I ~1 ~1 ~ , '0 ,. ".J Bvi.."", ai:!lc jJri-,= L.:= C-= CJ~Ol:)~ - ARJ:r' ." I S~C=: mc.J. .led:.:. .":'..m.e:: jy ,be <,i:fi.c.e::- .::~ile:::; ,..2dE 7"'".:.e :1.::une r;l ::.is ,:Jrz:.===cion snill ':;~ .~ :r:-re:- :"':=::::se wmczc: ':::..:mm.isS:10C~ .:::~:!rte= ~::-:~::i w ~ --=.e '':.:m::.r''l~C!L ' .'-=r' ." IT .'AEMBSSliIP ~c:czc: ':~aItl'i': ~:::pirir.: .....!::;p:cr: ;:;:-Pl.:tC:;: La. <Jn1~ :,,:=r :S- :7-:e :":1e."':1oe:=:::o ar (be ':..:mmisricn.:i:::iiI c.1~..zi: :;{"-':t: C~rttO:iC '~-'''';-''-tC- :r :"... ,-i=--...... ,:-m ~....- -,.........;..-....... ---';.,;c:;;'" ....._, '-.~~.~.H:.... _~.:.:"":..~.,;.._:.:...:.:-_.;...I.'" _~w..........._-............ '""'~t:-.: :0 "..e :-In ie. __.:S'e __...,.,~:ac:.. .~r- -=:IT 3c:c:ZCI: .":'.d..'1'lir-..:.- ?'..1Rpr~ ..:e :Ur:ioses ::r 7.'ric::: :.=:: C,;~""""'--c.:.s Jr:r-.;.!J.~:'::o. :cr~~:::=::: ;;:::u.L;;e ;e:-;-e::;::,te:::.. l::: - {: :', ~o :ct.!,;.:::.::~= :':e ;:=:TS;;:Cr'S :;{ ~ :: ,::-:>::", :.i C..::n'9:;;'c. ::e~::::;?:::- ~:e:::-.::: :-J :s :=.~ _":w;;=": .; ~c:~cr. '_.:m:nl::: ::~~~~~~~~~~~f~~~~j~V.~:;;'~;;g ::~a.:~::~~~~~~~~~_... -:~~~::; ;:::~:c.a '_.:mrrll.:':: :,rcmm;:l:": ~:;:. ,0 ::::::::-:::::e:::::::. ~e:.:r=;=.::s:o :.:e '::.:::::;;=::::.: ==, .;:~ ~::~:::: :::= :O!e::-..;':e=. ;Q4...I.::~ :=.c ':e::.::::z: ::::mmJ:~~ '-:cr:"::m:H.':' '..:, ~ :0 ::;uciis::.. ,~:tit![z=. .:=c. j",'7:e:::c. =- ;;;-e:=..-:c:-..:: .=.:z.:U:i.L :o["::e ....:.,C!;l1,..::~ _.::m9ac:: Sc:~:icn ~ C.Jmmis:: '> " :';i ~o ~ruvlce :....::d ,~rcmct::,.1 --=~cn~i~ :!"",c '':''''''l!.fo::::. ::;;octUl~ s:.rs;:e:::: wcc.~ ::::'~:::ce:" ;u;--=c.tC"..;o~ [ I I j r I , r i I 1 :!:;:oc.ai ' (OJ .0 ?romore :::cse:- ~;j.:IC:.! :-e.".lI'e:::::: :.e::;oe:- ;u.J..........:c:::crrs :ar ~~C:::::ul~e at :nr.or.:Izrion .:u:C. .=oiuuon or' ~Qt~ ~moie:::.s:: (I) m e..~:md c.:::.~ C~mq~c:'.:; me.--nce=:;J: (31 {Q ~s: .:cn-?;JI"C:C?:'CD:?; ,1n1:=dic=c::s wtaI :n:r...c::; :e!~ :.0 :tre C~mg:Ic:" X.C:lci:lg 'JO[""-~"1g =e::lte=::l~ ~~ (9) ~c de.:I~'e :;. Sc~:::...-::r .:cr j:e c..--=:~2.c:... ..- " :0 .' ....~ ~~~? .,.:-:::~~- .,. .....- A.a:TIn"'= 1.V ornC3S ,ve::- :"'~C~::se ':Jrno",c: ml~.:;~on. S~c::::alJ __ :1Ie 'Jec::s ai :.be ':.:mmISSIon ::!3iI C::tC::t :;{:: ctt:W:n.:l!l :.cd. J. -rice "':"~irm:m.. ~::C::. .::.e::::::-a. bv ~he C.:m.m.i..ssIaa me:nbe=mo.. .::..cd .l ::;r==rauve or" ~-C al ~ !our ~;ians:IS dl'"nnl"':i by tile - .':'.,ne~C::n ...\~cc:arion ,)i~.4o{Ct" ~r~cie ,.:...am.iI::isuatCJ:!_ ~::o e:ec:ee. ':,v cte C:mmIS::on :nemoe::: .ji me ~ec:r:e :e2ians. ue:se ~ ':Jrnc:::). .:iC02' -:Jim:.he mm,.......;.,..re ::'ast'c::air.IIan -Qf ,:.he C::mmission.. .:.::;ile=~/eiy ,-;.. il ,=m~o~e :te C.Jnimis:sion'.: ~"'.::c:ti.'Te ~m.miae. ~SIsr ::;{ ,:~";e ':.:moac: sa..ic:.:cn .,.....n.ic:l is ::a:::/ S~::::::on 2.. 7"'..1=:e omc:::; d:::ill ::.:cfd aiik: :or;;va 7e:!IS '7.f"im me :::iI1l'II1aI1. .lOci le;i.oa i :mi .:te;:OD ill ;e;re:=e::t:lUve:: nvtO~ te::ns ~~~!r...r::g ~ e.,e:J, :~...r.:.. m ~ 'i"lC:: C:timI:1rL ma Re;:an [1 met ~.::;p.on 0-F :e;~:u:i:ves ::rru:g: :~~ ~u:!:Ig in oari. :-'e:rs. ,.;ny ~;l;1~:=te::!.t cine=:: st::ill. ::e:-/e :t:: =tillIle::' oi me :.:m::::;1in::i :e:m... :.:t ']Ii1e:- :0 tmpie.."1l00[ :Dis ...e--:::'On.. ,:nose o.rn.~:: se:-:mg :n c:ie:lCt1r :,,:,,.;r ~ 98: :!J:J.y <:.":~ jIe ':rlo-:~.;r :e:m :imitatioa.. S::con;. Gt=~-= <,t":::.e C:r.:.:r-..is:>>cn mail.:-e C.::mp-...c: ..:"c.."':linis:::![c.c. ;:.c.l=e~ ':='1 ~-:;r ';:"G..:.C:: ,. /O].::::;r -= 'T =CNOFOFE<3S :: ':"";;:.e:'1se '=.:mp:lc. .:-=:::;cn ~ec--..:ca. J{ 'J.ec~ ===.il ::e :t ::: :c.U::U :ne:::"-I:; '1E i:e :.:mC'..:.s:noc. lITi.;:::.:s:::...-.:.r:CG :':'C ::n ::' :.=J.$ '':Jmc:lc:: ~~-::=:oa:. :::e -::..-::zirm:ul.:cc. '.-;:c;: .:':".a:m.:m :::r.~ :-,e -:-,~e:i;.y:=e '_.:mrruss:cn iil-:::r:ce:= :n m:::=~ :! :"'1 :n.::!Ua1 :::;e~~2. :iQmmaaclJ.S ;br ::.."::Iirman ~a. ',.~c:: '-"'~1,"w.n.=:aiI ~ ::X:4.e =:.r 1- ':~mmu:e: .l;Jpomred. by :::e -:uq:OtOg: ::::ur=-uc.. Addiaon:ll ::ormnat:ocs :na? ':e ::%~ ~...m ".>:te :leer -::y :ny Ccmpoic: .':'_Uo":lII1:.S<:r:.tOr" 1r UI:' o::l,.....':""'~. :.,td-:~.":!~c=: J,G.Cr'...$ ::::"''1tl~ .:or 'Jrn{crm ::;crung S~=cn~. ~.::-gjoa:Ii ~-:,l.~e. r-ri.;ei.::l:li.I:e .:cmin::ued by C.:rr..missiaa .::Ie...~be..'"':: or:,ne :=:::e:::,.re ~'2ict!S ma. e:e:::ed. :v :egiCml wmm~on :ne:nbe::= S :.nenctme: :.t m mauai :n~a;.. ice:- ~;ur::s,Jic:::cns :cr :i ?ro biems: r J "tt!l mz,tte:s :e~::lting :0 Lt:e~:'::':': ~ '-........ "' ,,:- " .-\Z:J'rr " 7I V AC.'u"fCES S~aa .. 7:1e '.ole:: ~:m ,-:-~ii :ill JtI'f --r.:c::.ti:C7 :n tlIe erne: -Ji ......."'=!:lI:l.. :-~ ~~c..:ci..-'e C.JmlID.r--~~ .,~..il .:te:J..%= J.'::-"""':lT-:ic: C=....T-...... m S'e:"'re x.e ~:n::mde:" -:i ~ '.!I:!.e:::cired. -=- 7"o::e;;t:'";1 ~c:::: ~;""'r::ua. s.tl.:ill be =em J. region ou:e::: tb:ta tb:u or....=:: '~:u:L.. S'~=ca =. :a O:',e::[ 'J{ .r.i.c::nC7 :a :t:: orEe: 'Jf :ez:ct::ti .__~~.,~.. :he ..=:tinn:m .mall :oilowiDg 'c::;tl..<<11uuoa -:vim i:e C..::mmIssian :tte~t-e...-s of :.tr.e :e;:oo.. J.~OlD( m lc-"....ng ~/e ~m d:1:tt :c;ioa ~o se:-/e u:= :e--uinc!.er Ot ':t:e ~.ired. ~ r f I I I ! i . I I I ! , I . i I i ! A=r- " 'IlI OffiC3.S" DG1JES Sc:.::=ca L ::te :::::lirmaa stIail be:.:::: CJmmi:ssiOQ': =c:.f~~ri.'e .Ji=c:= .:nc. .::nil =.r=-/ -JUt :he foliowing duties: ::11 c=.il. .u:d ;r:::ide.:;:~ ill..nee"''':::~ of ~ C.:z:miZoa: J I c:.l .:na ;re::~ae..lot ill :r.=~c~ oi:ne ,:,,-=,::,"re C~.c:::::.:.~:~.: . '.' '. 'c; =:e::lte. lppOtrzr..:::a ?fl7r.ce :::L.~OD;:o.:u =mIIUl!e::::: .i1 '.::nsJir ~!t..::I ~~ca:li ::e:::ce::! ~erore ~c:=:u.'-:!g :!:t~ ~;:cr.::.!. :-e;)t'e~e::r:.c.."es: ~o ~-..!S~; '..:.c::.nc.::::: . ~: :.:e:-re :s ,:;t=:-...ti ~pOJCe::::lZ!l :.or:t:e C...m:::lCcn. ~~.:::' :t:e ':...:r:;,rr'...::lOD .:: }~c:::i_ :ne::::::~ !.o~a ::::me..."'::::.=. :.:::a .:.;:;:.:.t:c:. =u=~:or: :;;e::,:u.: j(:'::~ '__.:nnm:t:::.Cl:: ::; .r.::d~ :::e S~::.ri::t:": -:;Q!:!: ~ .;."':J;1?'Por.::i == ':._-~-:==: i i ! i , i , . ! I I I r i I 1. I f i -J I ! . J,' :Je::orm :s:tC:' otr:e:" ~ut:e::' ~ -;;;'J.:' Oe mt!:or:--' :.cC. ~::c::-ccc.:.t.e: ma. a) ;ro..riae :t~ ':.::mrnis::;cn :n :::u:m.u :e;:or: :=::c:::.i.c.; :.:= !c-..:.r.c= .u::.a ~-e~!;".:./e: :lS :"~";~:m- -. , 'II S'ec:on Z. :b: 'ne:: =.3irm::!2 ~t:ili ==~ i"tc: ==--.,"" :a. di:;::::::qiag: bi.:i:ducie. ::E.S my '..ac.::.:::c). :0 ,be '1{fi~ ar ;'1::ill the=. ':e~<eo::: 1 .::.ew '..ic:: '.::r;:e:;~!-,l~~ ~!:rm. :::: ::ew 'flC~ .:::m ltl.:u. 'Jc':t.e ..:.:::u...~an. S'~!::ian 3. -:"".ae: :e;!oa.:ti ~Fre::~c.c.''',= ~ .:t:riI:cin: u~-::;-[Q. ~e.'UiJe:::i: or d:ICr ._"'[;........;..../e :::riocs. ;i:=lir<;.(~ ~""C:i./e ,::::mmunic.ricns -:vitti ..:ne::n .:nct ins-..:~ :nax .:.t.e :t:{~ :zr:d. -nc",;;,:!: of ::zioa:1f me::J.b~ ~ I::.OWQ .:oei c:::c.=de~ lS :be '=:'-::--_:trte cjmmiue:: .::md.uc=::; ::rasm~ :In te=.:tii or :he C.:~oa.. f::ce or::: g:on:ti .-:;::,=e~e:J.c:;,u'/O::. '::0.0 '.;r!m :.r:e '':.JmmISSlon :Jg ~?rese:1r:;.uve :.-cm :n:u ~~lIed :e:::n. Saoo J.., The Cairn:IZIl. "Tic: ~:m. =ez!;on:ti ~-ri7~ md. c.."1e :mmeci:ae oast .........rmom zr::ail c:::::cose -~ ~...==.:.tI-1C C'~r":'"'rr........ OJ! :tu:: :Jr:rte:- r '.......'"<"e C.:lmp:I.C: Dmca.~an.. . '.fIT ARnr- ~ -rm ltJl1ES =..;EC'_JTIVE CJMMITI:EE :..Jr:::mi~Slon .,; .:::ie~' ~:::::c::,.:ti./e ~ .ji :.te '_.:mmlS:lCc.: , I , I ! , i , I I I . t i I I ! I I I 1 Sedan L :-.ae =:e__...., e C.::mmi~ ....,..,.il :-e :t!:e ~~=ti:'"Ie =C<t7 Ji :!lis C.Jrnzms:ion. A...3' sue.::... :~ '::'-::C"':::::Ie -:.:::m.rn.u:~ ~ ci...-::.:z:ct rope:-nse the '1it"'l';~. =mmlc:e::e~:.=d. ;uiJlic:ricc:: i)I:z:e C:JIIUIIi:::ri.oa: ;nnmoce :=: ao~eO:Ie:: ==.d. ~e.:"'ri..."'e ~tu:_.e.:::t 'Ji :IS:1mci.s. 77J:e s.~C'..:ti:ve C:mnuttc:: ;:za.., :CCO(.:tOe ::tie:: :u:a. :-e::ui:u:icns :'or d:e ::::cc:iuc: ., c.::s i;US"...c= lS' 7.::tir ,:e C:e=.d 1oorcori::m:. 5o~c::ii"! ~ 1:: :::'-:e=:~.~..e C.::m:;::::t= ;::::ill c:r=7 o;::ct ct::c :ciloWm~ 'i:.:ri~: ' . ~ J.uues: '.! J{ :he =:::=-:::Ju.{~ ::Jmm.Lt!e~: ::e:::::.cn :0 :11 ::::rn;":1it[e~.::;; :: :e!'cre ':~pClIJ.o.r1';' :me:::n :.:;.c:es: ':3.) c=cdz...c:be ~.ne::::z Ji:te ':.:.:u!ussicn. ~~e=1 oo:e:--Z!:?t of :t.e CJmm..::ztca: '.- ::::: ~':rr:r::~$3,Or.. ~'e?.re$e:!c ::. .:=n{e:~.:::e.$. .:.r:c :::nauc:: ':0) '::.::=nn~ ;~=e~ ;ciic:e=: ::.::-~g ~~ct: ::~..re::x 1!::::U: :ne::"..lCgs. :uc:: p-ohc::= :0 :e ;UC!e:: := ,--.:m::::=::::.c: ':::::xr..=c:.~c. .:.t :u; ::iC.t m.cuai. :n~~g: : .;;1;;;;ar: :.r :::.e '_'::::!T'':s=':'oc: Ie; 1IIU'''''''l..I........ =~c~.es:::d. =Ct:=.~ :';;r ':/CIC ~t!..... of::': C.:~cn. a:%3.y ~e ~=-e::ce:::: :1.::!....:-e :.t:.tr:,::n=e:1.:--:.o:. ~ d.1 Ge.ru:e d:e duces .:cc :::.ur=.c:::.=: ~e -::::Cj~e::::::uan ~i =-e :::=:::r...::r.r. :::r:!:.e C.:r.o-."ZlCr:: :r:u:ti ~=cr: :::C.C~:=..:...c.2 :.is . - (e; :!ltOori= ~c.uc:::c.ca .:::;r. ::=0. ~:?: 'Jc: g:--=:u. '-"'''-=.-.::z=.. ~ JIld. ill au:!e:' .,i.=e:: :l :.s:~.z:.c:: :.::a ':::o~-I:ca. .=tic 19P~ce sour= J '1 ._'............ , ~ " CE1-:::noioY:II ::.:citGI':t1D.Ir'..iIy ~o .:::tiit m:.~::f ._....~~(S :aId ::'",=?c::ai~ or .:::aas- ar :at: W.tlItIll:Z.oa.. .rue lWIicC'r":o 9'rovl~ '::::pte$ or:ce :e;mrc :0 tile S~~:lCl ~~"/e: ,- --m......ue:: :ne:noe.."'S: (9) .:c: =s ;:~...rr!mi.I~ :c m!J'ie:ne:n::ii ,~oiud.acs leU :e-;::Jmme.::u.Uuoc:s: :.dopted, o:y dIe C..:.m.m.:sOll J!. ic: =~U!l;s- Sc::-jon z.. T".a.e 2:.-:e::-.:C"Ie CJmmiae: ,-",,~~if =e::. ~t!es. ':J:C= ~C:! c:ie:zd:u- ;e--..r. -::.tm Oa:e:" :neeriIIgs ;l( zuc::: ames =reI p-i= 1S ~'te ,..;...,~.;r.n:m m:J.Y dUec_ ~e::e :Il~ting:s; ma.i..l ::e c.eid. in :c::::ro.::c.c: 7.r"im 11e :oiIawmg :utes: -, - ! I . I i I r i ! j (a) me c.::::timI:m ,.....-rf1 give ~ie ~ocic; ~f:ill. ==:-m-g:; .:::ild: (b) J. :n:J.iont'f Qi ~:u::nbe:'s:tWI =cs-....~e:r. :Juorul:: :"=r:tIe .:r;:......s.:.c:::on oi"crus-~ ~ st::ul. .:ct if:::sea ~Q c::nsuc.:..::;e ::. quor".!m~ '. c ~ 'taring mall :e by rnc::noe=: :-1 =:....::t: :n .:ire::J::::e ::;,~e=:r:::: g: ::Q .:iJse.~t ~e.."!1ce:, =:':"7 ]':IrC.C:;::lCe :II. ci....--=ca u:It .n:;-f =c:: 'rore: ::.cd. '-oj} :ne.:n:D'~:S :r::::! -:me Jy:n::Ii Gr:ei~?ane -:oare:-...::::=: :f11e ''::::~~.:lIl tle:~:':TIinc=: =~ m ~.Ie :nus:: :e :=ci.,e:::. '7iimcu: .:e:.;.y be,:,;e=::l. :ne::-..:ngs:: ::!-.;:..~ :mi c::um:u::.:g: '::.iiots ~I ::= :::: =::':""':!l.:m'~ :e::Fons;.i::.i:.~y i'lr:n-...t .'Ji~ .:c'C::""::::'::'!... :..f:iO ':.:..~e~ :,~... :!:e ::::'aL.-:"'-:'" .~-::c..::: =C $Ef-"c:"':"'" .1...?..!A:- :::.~ 5~~I:.r--=.t ~ ;-e::ar:::I ~/!r:"~!:./o::c.c. ,i:_.. ---; '::.:OU:::S :::.:- :r:e ':.=:mmJzz::.aa.. ..;.s :.ua:On=:::l by :r:e ':.:n:m1S:.on.:::e ~~~:::...-::~ ~ili ==nc.uc. ::Juone ju...~P""'" ::otIe:: :..c.;l :::tai~t:'~ ~:l[~ ;-:-e=~ :.z:c. ,~t..-:bute :n.J.te::::Us ~u. inior.:::J.aacn:. :co. ;~:u'e :no ci.!:"'-:::t:.te :l: :.nnU::ll. :e::Ort 'Jc. :t:e: '=.:mrn~ca'-:: ~'?"!a~ ::e-'..I : .IC:::"IlCO:::. :tlSU:e::::. 1r:C .:1a:..ac::u scc"oJ::. ::-:.: ~~_~.:ui:'l;a.::ci ~'"'::%:e ~(Ce.... ::::le.: ::: :nay ::r: ~:.rleu tr:' :::e ,~.tIlIIl1S:no.o. Or::S: =::::-::-.:c-r': C'=:::::.::;"'L.m~ ~r ::"-:.:::J......-n::Jl.. J i i i t j I ( :-1 l i :uuit ill :.:::::::ur...::; ,:'{ ~~:;::~::r:; ~~~~~~~~~~:~~ ~:~~~l~~e~rr;...:::e ,;_Z-:=<=-=: X CC~CN ~G:; ,;lte :0 :.moie::-:e:1t .:i.l :-escluc..:cr-s :.::mm.u:.:::...oc. :.t ;r::: :~ee~D:;::;. S'~c::-:on . ~... <:.;mrn~cn ':.u:til ,:.:nauc:::z. ~~i:r:..'1IIuai r:':ee!rng ~iUc..'1 mav ':~ ::::. ::mnmc:::on '7I1tb. :t:e lCUlu=l ime..~U(J~ c:;~::c= :if :t:e .-'l.me:!c:::l .~=oc::ccc. 'J! ::t'1otcr v~.:::.ce ,..I....r.J.I::I.ll:..n!a~ tt.:IUy ::::miuc: .Jrhe:- :::e::::n.gs.. :f ::~!Jro1?r::lte" ,:J<ll..l me::::; :.!t :~:LSt '::nce =:1C-= ;.Ie:.: :Imes ::..-:c pi.:.c::s :.s :.r::e 3':lail. :-e .:e.:.!:. :.:l ..:c:::::rc.:::..ac:: ~u.b. Se=io.a':' 7':::: 5~::::e~r ":--~I' -:.oc:! -:.:.c:: ::1e:Ice.; 'um:cicaa ar":..i.e ::me :rIel 9'i.:.~ 'Jr :ll me::c;:gs or" :he CJmm1s:noa ~ ~e::st::::''"'q' C:f}) :i4y:> :n :c.v~c::_ r..::I.g ~ ::'.:=i :n:uL o'.:r.oie :1ctic:: ]{ ill :ne-e:mg: S::::~:ion;. 7::e :'cilcwm-g :-..:ie= ~~~"'e--:J -'orzg: ;:::nsuwte .:J. ..:.uorum :'or :r:: Ot .:e :.Jsea. ,0 .::::r.,smu(e :1 , , I i I i , I I i i i , i J , I i I i ; , ! 1 J I .1 ~:! ~C:: ~e~ce:' J~=c::on ,.:b:m ~./e 'J~e "ace :0 ce =t .e:tte:- ::y :.:1e l.-~mp::lc: _';'a..'nlO..1St..-::.~cr :JI"'::':':: ..1e:::g.c.e: .:.:om :ne ~.:une jur:sriic:icn: ,e~e::tt: 1.,'1 ~re:;l.:.te .:-!:~~~e::::n;- :S~S.31CO cut ::1~:! =Ct 'Jl)te: l.:,"1Cl '.'0) 'J.I'ne::e."~= == .:-..:::jec: :0 :;e .""ocee. ::-e~ ~Q :II:1nc:i lS=e...""Srne:-xcs or :.ue::: ;Jr :;r.::e::CI:1c=t::: :0 !nc ::.:mmis:mm'.: :jyiaws.. :-;.ro-...hirCs of :ne::!ce:' jUI:!'c..:.c=Ol"'~ z~ =::.::::=tu1e .: ~UO~ , :e.:e;:none :.::nle~::::e ::" :::e : :::: .:-:::zoi'le:: '.;rlL.'1cut ,:ei::! ,:t: :::li1CLS ==::.:.1 :e ,:t:e - " ::lec;-e,:::r:..:.r.., ,.:: so ::":~:::e:1 ::::f , ',. , .. ' . c: '."'f!e::e~ie:- .'7:.ICTe:::: ~,::J :::e ';c(ec :zre Jtne:' :-:1:..'1 :n 111 J wo~. z ~i.wpte ;n~iori9. -:r" :ne~ce:- ~:.:r-.zcic::cns :;;:;;zi! c::CSt:lI.,lte J. t.{UQ-r=n::cd. :.ct1 ::: ,~cr..:~ ::~.r"ng :e:= ;:'r..':e..""':C.. z. ;::::.pie ::za;or:q "J'l]tc:s :e~"'1'/e '1n :.n:r ::.:"....e. -r '..:...:.. '.lA::- ,";"'~.:::c...E X:: :::1.: 'f~ :.cd ::ec:;-:::::::....!. ?_~P..L:A.:1iE'17~.;,.Z-:: ?.?..C-C:2JU"RE - - '_.;mmlSZ':Cl:. :...-:e :=':::e:::r:::~ ~~e~i~~;:~[ f~~~~;~;~l.~"~f~ i~~:':~=oi~ 1~:~~~:~~~~;~e =-~e~,,:u./l~ ',_Jm::-::::~e. Jr -:::.-:e:- ==mm.:.::e:::. ::: ~""l:u?-:e '.::.~~: ~::"e=:l.re :.::c. ,:1 ~r,e;::l..~ .:.:::. .!i!.z:bu:e :.= '~CUS ::~::r' J ::::::.:~:..:es. ::us.::e~:. :.:1 'mae.:::::.!':e :::t.:-:e:- '':'L:!:;e::: :.: - - '::.:: ..::.;:e-::::.:::..::~ '_';mm.a~e::: :, ."_,,__C2 :GI ;;;Rms - ~ .., - .. '.' , ' .. . "RO,:::as :or ::!,e~:::cn ar:ue '_':ri'..n-...I.S'Z~Cn.=...u.!. :-e ~~.,"l:'::. .7iJm :1ue:::., :~:So Jr orne: :':'t~::ue :::cu.r-.....:::= :s .:lutt:o~ :y ~he '2:I!UIlusio.a .met. ;ti...-e:-::::ed by me ~~=::::ti.'e C..:mmme:e.. .-"' - ,< '- .u:r:rr7"" Xill AMENDMENTS TO 3YI....... 7lS :::e :rvi~'WS :nay oe mte::ded 1[ mv mnuzi ~nce.."e."1C: 'Jf u.<:e c:nmrissicn prCv'id.ea ~~t.. :ll!:.~1 (90) .~~,s ?::or:Q the .,....-....,.t :::::ttie=.....:.c: 'Ji ~e CJIIIm..izsiOIL. ...ritte::. c.ouz :]{ 1te :Ircoose~ Jme::amenc Ol'" :un~:ldme:::tt. md .:b.e :e.-:: :.=-~i. .w: ':iiea. ~n.."! :t:e ~::on.. ~e 'T!~ C:;Unn:m. .:od me !c;;-__..=.n.:lt. Sue:: ~~o.re:! lIIIe.::c:tmClt or mIc::cimc:!!S .mail C~ mon:urte:: ~v .ne 2C:":'_.:lr::l.t :.c ';;rr.,:mg co dIe ~e::nbe:' jurisd.ic::cns :;.t ~~ n..-o:; (601 daYS' ;no(".:o mv mao:ll c"nfe:-~c: oi ctre CJGmussioa.. Should..:Ie =.-;:e:::rive C~.n:z::Utte: de::e::nine: ~ mc::t .unedme::: :Ir :me::rime::.t$ :;:OUSt toe re::oived .,vub.ouc de:::lY j-c:;ve::::: mOu.u. c.::c..""e::..-:c::: of ctIe C.:rnmiss:oc. ,:te me:::zoe..'"S or :::: C.:mmI.$S':ca ;nay "'Toce b:r .-:]m bailoe. "I'"'.ae ballotS. m:::::' u ~.u[ :s m.cca:c-~ ::zy me ~e.~~:r ::l'" ~..he. .=..~ri"re C;;mnucr.~~ ~~..H :e :ici :s ~ ~~"'t at:.!:e -;:e:::l:o.=.ct. ::'!:"""...::rds of i:.C;e CJmmlS:):;.oo.. AR::J:c:.E:rr,.- ~. I I I -".- ! ?at: i 7,rm I :11<1:, I SO~ :lC':': " ::::c.: I :::.c::::: I I I SUg' I II --." ~ I ~ I ~~:::. leG .:..:e ( , ~?--=- I j l ... ! ",-.. , :::'Ct: , ! ,.......- 1 '::!![C i :;e:: I :='7 I J ;:e~~: i ,- I :::e . I ::1:' " , ; ;e:::: II I .:::::~:: 'Ii I I ....." , - I '-0._ .... :.c:::::;t.: I , ~:t?e:-'_ 1 .:;uC:: ~ ~=Dne I ~:npic DrssoLmcN .Ca.:r;:: ~te.::l.r:t:e .:.:m....T......;:on ~ d:.:;oi'/e!1.. '..:.:::.."'Ce:::aed. =a. ~ciJiig3red. ::..:=c:is ?I!j.l1ded by :::=::lce: :::.-...:.c.ic::cns ;'~aU :.e :-=-..:::::e=. .:0 ':::.e..-:r. :c. :ot"Ocoma.c. :0 ~e.::" ::=::c:.OUo.cr=. ,:...;;.., :e:n.,..........z ~.-....,. ~m .......-..,.ou'-- ....:7 '-e ~.'P'" '0' 'on "l_'::~ :"'r=' ..........l.~ ....."'. ~...~... ....--.....UJ. 'oJ ~ __, _,~ ...:-._....... ..""",,"_ :q-..:.d=UCD r;r- -;rp,,~.r=t1COS :~:;.";.n; llIT'..s ::::: JOrec::ye:: ::..-::::= ~o :'-:c~e: 1r" ~ne CJi.lmI~C<l.. 1S .:e:::::uce:::. ::: ::.: ~":.::::"'''l'::;e ':.:.-::..m!~:: lr ::.z: 1Ine. :5 Il:I (I'lL-\. ";,-S ..i"pPCM)IX A li. c::m ie:::::1c:: 'J c" :..:.:.e :"!s ;n:::r :0 .:he ::..c.nual JUc::: 'J!" ~e 9rC90se:1 :i1ereo{, :lIe iie~ 7.l'Hn ''::e :C:-e::U::.L Sue::: ?r09o~e:: ~lt::e-:1 '::, :tIe S'-=~:-e::u::Zl( ..0. :it ;l:X/ "om o]~~s ;mor:o 1. Si1cuid :be ~~e-;:::G"'e ::::.t or :..me::.amc:.::.ts ~USt :e )Qie::-e::.c~ or :r:e ssioo ,-.::~y ''It]ce ,jy :n.~.d :lIIlC':::' JY ~ne ':;;::::-e~:U:':'( JC' S : ~::lr.: Jr':r:.e ;:e::;l.:lCe:::: MOOd. Enabling L-~on -:-.::e ;lUI"9o~e 'li :te ~~:J.biin~ :c: :s :0 :it tile c..~:Ic. :eto ,ne ~-=---=; ntte:n 0 ," ;.:tw in u:e ':ut:'Y 5 Clte:~ ~::![:ar dIe := ot ti!~ CJmtr.lc:.. ::.rr..ic::. ::::::cuid be ~Ce:itic::.i it ill Z~[~ ':ne ~m3.2'= of:te ~ikz :c:. :n.o..., 1;e '/;med. by ~~C:: e::!:1C"'..:Dg ~~e :0 it.:-cr own l:r.w 1I:d :-aile:.- Some :rro.,"isioa sh.culd be ::lac!.!: (or::iI .n:ute::::: c::v,=-~:n 1:e :nace:. :tc: J[tu::: :1.rovisicns ~~y Oe .ldcied. :i "b.e'1 !te ::e::rieri.. ~iate..'"I:U :::::c.:osed. in br:!ci:::~ snouid :.:e ~;:i:zc:=J. by spec::5.c !.:n;u:tge ~Q ~c::=mpiisn dJe de...~e:i ~cse. Su~g=tf:d L.:;isi<ltico. !:::t.!e :.i:touid :::mIOc:I ~ SLZte ~'"=Ie:csf )N S-=::::on :.. :-.Je 017"',/"'::" ~.--.~ C~r.::O':::tc: :s he:=c.r ~~ :me [Zrl ma e::ce::d ~o ?r[~ .:il oCC:~ ;~r..zaic::CIIS' !e;tiiy :awm~ ~...=. .:.:: :he farm .::.:oS"'..;m~y :l3 ':OllCWS: :v ;JR-.rV~R ':'::c.?!S C:"MP.:::'.C :..:ne::;- e::Zc.e~ :.co::. :r..saic::cns m:ll1. j.e ~'e::::::e:c ,,$, ,;....:J,v :--em..P!""'....z i::r:c.: :JrcG.t :r ::::J.r:::'ci~ ; :me. :;o!ec::.'re:s 5~::ni;:: :a :-r :;:e =--~e~::c':~ '=Jrr:ml:':~~ , I I i ! i : , 1 , i , i i I I I j f I : ..:.., !t.is ;oi~[ :r:se:': .-=-e ~~c: ~.... :i :!:~ Err-Ie:' :':'~:!!e ,::.:mt'!T-1C: :.:: ;.;::: :crr'..a :..c: ~~:::GC: ~._ Jr :'::!S" :t!.::na::.t.. ~=.e :e..-:: 1! :te ,-.::m;:IC: ~.:cuid ::.e ~::::lc:~:i :.= :d~c=.!. :;c;'=;~ :y ill ::ifrto~ ~=..~ S=-:::rca:. ,":'....s ::.!eC;:1 :1:::e .:.:rr:;;=c:. ::.e :e::tt -jC::"'-T..n;- :u,",,:or.ry. ....u~ :-::':::::c:: :-: '..t:::..:.: -SGlle. .:==.tl :-=.=-....:1:':'':e ~a::une 'Ji ~Fri:tte St:.:e :;~~c:,.!. 3J.1a ::~;.e:::c:r! ~ ~=:o.:te Z9PtcpC=le mu:oriti~ :i :::? Jtr.e: ~~7 .:~:e :tI'! :n.:.:-=:auan .Jr ioc.:m~rs: :e::soc:tiJiy .:e~::r: :0 ::cili!:lte:!:e :c.::.:.:l!!t.-:IIon 'Jfm:.c.:e: JI. ;:7, .:mci ~t :: '-", !'mc"'c: ,';:-""'-,..i"'lCCS ~~' ......-.--~ :r.,v f'7A"""'--:t.e ;:""=I.Si:Iic2-~ ;.~~ ;;c..~' ,;:i~dz;;:' ;:3.c::e::;~ ;;;;;~;~ ;0 '~';"'~i1oufu~;~ .'l1:Jce ;; ~e:::,.lt -:~rr;:~i.i;mc: -:,,~im :ue :::~::::r.:.c. ~e ~tr"":' Ji:::e C.;......gac:..~ ::........,..... -: --e l-~.....O-.- -r<.....,.......-tc..--........... :,.,....~... ~-~e ~ITT ~~ ~_..-.:..... _. ".. _"""U'. -:_ __.. '__'''_ .. :'.......:....... .~.....u. _""_ , ._ ~~ ':le '_Jmoac: ;;n:ul ::ct .';e -:::.:::.tl~ ~c :.!l"l :acuaOl::!:.ll c:mIce~QCIl'::':: :c:::.:;unc ~i ::'lS .:e:""f!c:: :s s-~c..--: lc...;Ums"'':'~or. Jut ti::ill ce ::::c.t!.eu :0 ~~.e..-zse= :nc:.u:re':: .:.-: ~OD~::cn ~Tm .~s ~ties .lea :c::ucr-.:i]Jii~~ lS sue:: ~ar:i:!m.~...1cI"'. ::1 (~ .S';une ;;:::.c.ne:' ::s :or ~=es :r:.c::....-ei :n .:~nnec.cn ~m :r..y :Jtnl::' -:'::1::= "Jr :-:...~ormbilic.=: oi:= Jmc: or '=:pioym= ., ". S~=O[l.i. .~.s :Ised m me C..Jmc::tc:. ;vim ~_-:..._~ :0 LItis ':-.:~te.. .:t:.e ~::n ..~~c-/e tle:::a'" !.a..ill a:e:.-n me Gove:=cr. .s~oa5. ..:.uJ.y -:::rorr J[":aIy 'Jtt:e:"1g-"..ncy -::r::::s Se:ue.:r 1 .axoai-tuion ~~Qi. ~iJiCl i1:ts jm:::;diC"joa ::: -:::ice JrI'f :.c:::::a !US'pe=riiog~ :e./Okin~. cr adler-...-u;e timicmg ! ::c:::se ~o 'i=-..~. .titti1 :epo~ my me::. :u::ioII .met me 1Cjumc::uioo u~cn ":OI'tIic :c :.:: :;ased. to .:te [S't.:ue dri-/~:" lic:e=se 1uctori:,-:'i 7'imm (th'~f d.:J.ys on :'::::::-AS [fumisiled. byl C:lgprovd by1 tne :Slate dri.-fe::' ic=lSe =nrt"'..,....tyI. NC ~4t:S S..:-c:::ca o. CGse dtis see-JOQ to ice::uifof ~e=E=:ily {hose .-;:':jvistoos ,J{ .it:Uute!o 71mCl tne :cur:re:n: ,::wme::Il.e:i.:.:x ~cit: ';'/(:.) lre ~./ai.~ me ':lIiJ.ic.":. -::tiil be give:::!. ciec: 4t~ me curuc::e 'Ji 1I't:iC: ~i(::tJ md (c;_ Also'lse j'-..is .:ie__on co :uid .:aditiOll:l{OZ:e::::e:: or '11.0i.:I.tiolIS_ ~J.r:.:r. co be give:1~f== tII1C1e:" =c: ~!(b)'; ..l':!!-=-': :::I: :...-:., ?'=..:..:.-:; S~on 7. [:'::is .!cc::ion :nay be .1Se:d. if;r is ;:~r co ;.'";:~d ame:- !t:1tu~ ':0 ;lVOla ;,oss:oie '.::m..clic:: -:nti:J. suoci....,::Lon (::;) at :=-..:c:.e ~i,;. ~$:'::::"" ~=:'t::: 3"~cn ,3. ~e:-: c:::rre ~e.i ~r:~i_ ~.,,: I :";''::=r:~ :.::e "" 5u::a.:-n,SICr.. ..;,! '1i :;.:....c.:e V :.~!ies::t:e "::.::~.~ice.."lSe :r:==::i::" :0 :::e =...::o.ne= 'J! :ew lic:::ses :0 .2C'cticnc: ::em :r.-::c:- St.i:.:e::. :: .:rovlCes tl:lat ! .::::soa 7no aoidS ;. ';~ci Uc:=e :.0. one :Ja..-:-.. ,S"!;l(e ""':=::'':;;'::; , ,., .' ,,- .nus: ~"':1l.t::l ::e:ate :e .':1:!.y je ~~ J. ~c:::::e '7f :nOCI:e:- ;;.:..-:;:, S1.::Il.e. ?':'OOte..":lS' ::1:J.Y l-"'~e :mie=- ;:::;'[:J.cie =~= :lIe :n~G~ := em:::- ~-"lU[#>o!" ......[ .-,-"[ ,-.....~1;- '''t~;'' ...... :uo' ....;.,~'l"-C" :"r ..-~.--.... "I ..~... -....... ,... ~ .................".."'... ..... - - ............~ ~ : ~ ....~.~._- ,-. ;~ca ::'1:xy ,~.:tce: :.0 :J:tI't'"! ;::i.te ...;" :..na ae gC.:.-:.~d7 ~:n~:"-:::JI?c. :n :art'1 :::.te 3. :......nae:-::;:e C'JffiOac. :e :nay :Ct .:ctci :icze:: ::-:m Jam SLltf:s. :t me ~e 'ime.. :n:.CiS ~It!::uon.'J ~r:oi=n W't)wd l...--:ze:i ~ Jt.t%:::- z~.atua::: oi :t.e twC1 ;7art"! Sea!::::: ~.ire: :cm resiC.c-..:.: =..-ui i~~";'..;i1.7 em.pi.::;:/I!a. .=er:DrLS ,0 .:-e lic::::1Se:l.. :)0.-:=: ~;;}o'~ s:~^:- ~=-=: :.C- :5 ~:..- :'or .!~. ~c:.:.' :kI'C.':'::. ::3 .- : l :-e:-:::,:~c~ ::J 'T.l.s Scare. .:te APPENDIX B )Ve:::cr. :r 'Ji :.t'.lS 5i::U::. Jr J. ;JD. ':0 :::ke :.n~r' :.C:iOD. :n~ 1 ic::::!Se :0 'in'/e. ~h:ill an :.1900. ..vcic.:: it is Jasect !o :l ;:ii./ej ri:J.]S :n Eorms [Ine.:' :ic:::.:JSe :.urb.orir:r!, NOTICE OF CDt-.F!R.\iATION ;oH~. ~e :=:"~Z: ~<:"':l'::$I!' ==.1IC": _5 ~_-'""_ ~= ;:"""':2"'~e-" 'oe!:i.::c:tily :r:.cse ,')rovlsions ~(~ct :n mici= ~V(li :lore :: .:viLma me ;uI"9ose 'Ji :wJc.:.: id ~C:C:itioD:ti Jife:::ses 'Jr .=e..ns ::u-ou=: '*11':'<:"": :..~ sev~:3.':' ;u::::..sc.:.=.:..::zn::s ::a')'. ~:':::'~4ce :.., .I :-eC::';lroo.l. ?== -:::z ~.i~~-:.:",c.= :"':.e sac= ?CIl.;.::.1ld .U1d :;nl--"o::ses .:;u:: :..-:.e ~C':.. .uu: ~= :""-C1.c:,: ~V(bj,j ',,~. .lu:..-:o.:-:.::",r .~ M1ce: :"":e ,-=~c: :.s =n~~ ':"''''1 ?~.l.:,:= :..a.. 35.-ia4 :~e 3e~:: .~:SCll.l./;c.:.::::::U. ~ t :s .'1ec::~~:!.r; :0 JITle::d '1me:'" ;Joo.btsion ::;; -Jllmc:e '1,;" '..lf~.. :"':e =~ec-: "1.":': ;.e.:-,"!- := ::uc:-.....-.L:'f ::-ene~:.:: :..~ ~';:l.Cl!'n=.. ~ =_ ~C4r3.C::Z11 :::: :;~"c=;III%1C :.:: :..-:. ~r ;u:---~- :':'::Zns. :iCW ~E:"~:U:.. :."'l: ~"S::,,='e~:::tC=1't :Ji :"-.II!!' ::ut:"~ ,U':oG :'I!<:":~~.i ~r..efi.:z :.::J ::;;;w :.:':e.:'>?==-. .Jr.c ;::u.::nun: := :,:,e J.u::.::c::-.:.::;' -=n~..:...~ :"'''''1: !':'n~~ :0...11:'..:-:::::-.' =:.::~ :li .!itJ:::::O~::'':'''' ':."'l:l!:: -::::.'~~ ~c~ns-e .:.:::c.a~6 :.S ...e~Cy :=n':::-~. :::a:~ lRC.':=:::: :..~:: :::e ~~.:.~ :.!ce ~t ~r:=-I :.s ",-'$ , .In-=- ~ ,::.c.e-;ic~:;!:. ;r:r.:c:;:!e t :0 .:) ::"~m ::i:z:e:.:: !.::Ue$. ~r. , i , I I . :"':ll:'::':-!!:'\ :~c'./:::~ :"":.:1'1: ::::'.:0: ;".J.:;:.=.:.~.=.=n :..-:.c :~.:'::'IS .u!C ;:~=""':.'::::'':::1.S .:: :::e :,;;::::,so::-:. ,n:~ ~_ :=':",- ..:.:..--:. \u::..-:.c=-=-r ~=::- ~:'::':':;;:=.ll--::':'=:: .. _.._.... ~c:-:...I,,:.-:.:.:: ;.':::-':..1C:':-":'::::: ~.s "~s::.~ :....-: :..-:.~ ::::..:.::::! .. :ice:"'~e ::l ':Jc.e ?an:' 5L:ce jc~!:S'e .J;-' :.cctr:.e= -;~, ~ '::':':J.::ges :-"'e :nade =.= Jcte:- :in::;.,on: ~'7r ~::::::.n:Fie. ,..l, ~ '5"c:.:..-:..-~~:/ ~~~!.c:r~~ :::: :.? :10:: ~old :;:~~e~ ~:::r.1 :Ot= . 1 ~r:oie=. '~f}uid ::l.o.'"'1se :f :.:..e Jlre~ ':ot.t: ,-?:r;::e."!.=.; ::,~a. ::se~. :A7!::: :: -:'.-- :..-:@ 3:t...1::.!v?:--=",.,.:,..""c=' :: ,,{I!Jo'~ s:~^~ .~::._u~~ ::.\=:F ::...-.r.::t': .~u~;s: ,It.'l'':..:=:;.s:' -N' :J.lS ~ :-JC:"'-1"':~=-:H :s '~::-l!:9 ':': ~ ~:P~ ....!:...s.t:.'s 3~ ~ ~~..;uu;.=_ :~ ~ur:.~c '.!.l&ie: :t'~""e?..e0c2..i..,-rd. !ie-e.;.:::= :fen.::: -:= --~C":. ~::::;. iG.ll.'C.ItJ !d.a1:Z:! :9 APPEND.c-5: C DEFINmoNS I I I , i j I , I I i I ! I I I I I I ,..1...-\4\1tV A... ......, ...:l...,m:::::-:c::i.I1 .':'sscc:mcI'l of :'rictCl"' 7dtiC: Ac..'":-..Inist.'":i:tar!~ m ::~an of Slat.:' ma ~rcvi::cat offfCais in :=:.e C' ::w::: S~t== J.."!C C.mact:t.. :::=;::onsibie :;::: :...-:~ :iciC'lir~:-:tcca iIId ~{cr.:=c:t '~f :ZON'i ::;C"".3ir..i..-:; :0. ale: :nOlel"' "e::U::.e 1.:.~c::.s :.I;S.:.. C~nvtc::cn .' ,-. .. - '. ,........ .;:::::::~C=s: ::1:: :ar:==::::::-:: ot >JaIl ~OSire:: :.J :~.,;r::1 cd==C4!:(~! 1ppo:-...::c: :n =~.r:. i ~Ia :;( :cio c:::nt=::c:.=": :Ie. ::=~== :y :ne .:::;--=:. ::Ie: ::-aymc't. ~( 1. ::r::... 1 ,:io. J{ ;..:i!:7. ~r i :mc::=; of ;::::: ::n ... ;~i::::''''lCta(ion =:u-;=. ~.--::':::: :nir=c::c:-...:s ir: 11!O :nc:.:ce:::: .otU:'::."1 :::tS :e::;::::~c:1: :.or :!.:e ;u.."",,:~d~. ::0:---= :~::it :::1ve :=-::;:nn-;:n--:: -:z.~':::: '1101':>'CC:"''':'' :iignwa:..- :4{~r ::::0,,"=::'-::: ..... _ ' .. . ..:.~:-==::::t ~:::-o::: .::'1:0 :y SLar~ :.cr . . ::::: ':.:-::':::.3: :!1.r-:::~.: ~[ :-::CIvtr.~ ::::..m;at . .- ::-:::::::=-.s ,:% .:::!:::!t:.:n.:: ::tgr::\lo"3.Y ~:-:l!i1C. ~c'"::: .:~;z:~ - .' ~!.;i:: ::::i.t .'!:U :ZSi..:.=::' lee :!as ~:::: :owco:" :c ~::::a .:r ::-IC1:.:: :::c '.:Sc ~[ :."'::: ::c:".!e :f ~~~ :0 ::Ce:':i.t:: :l =cccr 'n::::c.:. . .. ..-. .nte:su:~ -:::c:paC....l :cr:::4.1 ma ::::r:::4<::'..:ou J~:::!t :e:.~<:::: :wo '-J[" :=cn:- States j:tu, :::.ay i::::~c: U".:: U..$. ::cve::mcn: a:s: 4 ;at>J; lU:~C:==:' ='1 :;,:: ~l1!iirution: :z.s-~y ,-==::l;"'~ '::z: =r.:z~: of wn~ ~:z- :.cr ..._ '1 ~ne ~u...... _~.c: C.Jurt =f :111: ... - ..- ._;:;:-.e;: .:)(arC'': :=~ :IS' ::IJc;~~ :;:-=:ac:c: OVc:' my atnc::" or"d'..nary mc../ ':r ~lIiIic::::; SCat: statute.. ,~,. C,.;---ot....:":"/Qc:i.tion.. . ,.hi:: .::tnc::I.acon ;:.{ a ~n':; '=:::./e::' jc:::se.. ~O[ mCl= :0 :l::C->>a.L :1" :l:::toratIon '::::C=;C 'lpca ll:1plictie:'t fer a J~N lic::1Se ~a aeoa oy :ni:: .::o(or '/c:tic:= de:;ar:::i:':~t Jilt::' :.":c- _..........tion of :11e l+lptic::ti:!ie ;::E:::':c<i at" :im~ i I I I I I ~. .,.,,, , :-1 ."o~r ~...,. : ~~,r.'S.. -C~~.: . I .u::::'::::Wr'l ! 'f'::r":1l..,.. , I I I , I L.;:C:::!St: ru.s~=sion .. ~::e :01~()r.1rr ''''-Tr'::c~W3i of 1 ~Qn'! ~'Vc::'" iic='...se., :.cr a ~fi'c :;e::-:ca. of :irne d=rignate:: ':"! :he :nOlcr .l&~= .::=;:art:nc:::::.r. .'4C R. ..... . . ' , , _ . . . ."laricnai Jr.v-=- ~~..stc:'. 1 Jaticnwide me J( ~nfar=atzc:l .~roviric:::. "QIU:1cu-rjy :y ::::e S!4I~ =n ::::VC'3 'l,Itti'I 1c::"-Sl::; 5iinc::cns :.0:- .:..,-.:.-:.x driv;n.lJ .lnc :ti:.=- ~e...-::cu:s: [;;Iiue ''1C:.aCOrlS. :nat ;rc..,ic.CS' - .. , ._,' , ~L.a[e .lC::::Si:r:~ .:r:::::::us '.liun l =t.-:ll :nc::::: .;;ar.:m1S:=::: :7 ~"I:' CC'"'~::!=".I oJ:' 7iJ.n:i:~cr:.:u.:c:':',; ?'4aucn:ti ~~:;'-:-Nay 7"~(r;c S::i...lC~,"! .":',~::oist;:4uon.. .~=O'l":i[:cr:. .. ;::::::tJ.te:n::..-:r ::( :::c :::ti.....-in; ;r.-Ilic;:: :-,:aicwm; 1 !us=::::.z;on ar ~e-/OClCicr:_ - -..- ~c:-=::.:::: cr:~::.z.:::; ,oJl;':::!'::: 5C:::::::::::: ::: :::e C.:rncac: at: '...::::r:e:!:aHy ,.=-s:::=== i.S ~"1~e:"~c..s l~C o;.;:::!e::: :0 :::: ::-ovISIcns ':X :::e OLe; ;.. :;;';;';lSi.iiU;:::::- ~. :;e;~i;c::: :~cmlc::Ce: .::-:.....m; '''''rule ::::oxiQ(:::; :::nVlC""..lCn :;{ .i. :.~on.., :"'1 'lime i :nctcr "e.-::JC::: '''''as '~c:::i: :nc. (~} .:::::nvlC:cn af :.aliur:: :0 sten .i.I:C .:"-::CC" iic :n .il: ac::.dc:t :-=uitin; ;n Cc::!.In or ,:=:;cnai :tJJW"'1 (h..'"t. :md. :':.::11. :3i 7:-:.. .'l"lC:':' :-f '1c~r ~~. " : ':'~2n'S.- ...cul.c: ~c Ac:::~::.n"l: f.::r-':lI..r' ~ ~ -: is. :'lC rta i"''''~CC: 1'::"'''....r-: Swe .. _... _...... ..sLate. :C'titort. Jr :cssc:sion of ~.::: Unite: Sura. :..'= :i.ntic: of C:,u::t- Jia. Jr .:nc wmccnwc!tn of ?~c:a ;{ko. 'W;(!:cr:I.wai ....... ,Su:ii::c:".sian or .-e-nJCtIOn oi :be dri"nng ~nvlic:;:.. ".~:.oon:u lhe- ....,OR. ?"",nla- Snll.-m r\ rUll~ ~DC'::ltorrat. ~<:1i ~s ~iuaauQn COOY1CIQn!o J.l!oo .....il k 'lWO.C'l1 in lnc ."+C R :lie.. '':Jr:i. ;X:-:Cr:.': :'::'11.::- :::: :0 ::~t:wai ,Jr :t '.!~on lcpii::.::.uon :c:- ~ .iC:;on JY ::1.: ;-;:QtCr .;:: lite:- :ne :;;:;:n-aticn ;;::::'OC J( ::m=. .~?ENDI.X D ~ i FORMAn , ~ C:.:.':J .. ." I ~ . i I . i[!lc:4waJ 'J( .i ,:-e:-.:an' ;" 1 spc::::rlc ,:::::-:OC Or' :y :11c: .~Ctor '/e:-:ic~e (Ill :~.~:;i.s;:::", .l :-:'3.tionwic:: :n ,::rovic.~~ "otunt;:!.r~i:1 -:riv.e:-s ....ici1 ;!c::::::::.sm~ :::x :r:.,in~ lnc ~t::;=:- Jiations~ :na: .::ravide::: ':ic:a.LS ....,un l :.:::-:t:":i.l s: =..a ':3 :"'f .-=:::::::::::::::.:::::::- ~I~ cr a..r:"'-.:F-=--r~1"Z :-R.tVS-S ~;~ ii'l.. ..nc~~'S.., ~-:"".r : .:.=~~.-s _f'"''' .LU""~"n4~ :y 1::Jr~..r .......i.:.-n":;'S =-t 'tdUl" ,,:~-:.... 'ooot\d ,'":........ :..", ~.$.~ ..-:.::::::::.:::::::=- ::-......,...,..,. :~.:::tns..._ 'e~ ':.! :::::= C-==anmc:::t ~~. : ::::::21"1'5.-1 ..1.1""" :""..o:-....~..c: := ~<'Cu i~ ..c:~~4~ _t'::'l ::':. ":n. t::C2~.'" :::-':.~::l.. :1'-:' =:. :::::>>"':';&':'2 :r-:v.r> __.:.~. '::.:=c.ac:-=_ ..... -au.i.a '&oCT"-.c:",a ."""foc:'2':~'!.~ ..I.r:Y .",i.s--::~~::: ~:-~~.,~~ :"'ft:=r~s ~;,:,e~:.:.=i~:; ~='::::rn~,.. ,:':~:::":';.:::n-w. -TYC'.c:~:::'-=ns.. ::- ~."'$j.=ns =n ~ :"f ::':.-s.. f:~,. :....1'~:.C2n-::-s.. =1.....s. f=r-....r-: ':..-:.$4' :"'..c:::....-:S '::.: :;'i ,'iar:cn.al :-:ig.hway :~:mS::;-:H1on. .. :ne :r-i'I1r.~ :r:'l!i~:;= :::S:C-:1 :~r ~:'/C-<::atlon. -=<;-.rn=--...- ,""". ~~~~~ ~c=r~'3~=C~ ~~.r : :;i ::~~ ':.::rr:.:=ac: lr~ .:r ::e:;!i~::::: I J ':::"'. 3:~:;jt' -::.;:::: lS ':.J..r.~=:"::;U! :: ::r':'1ISiC::S ::( .-.... :::c:uion or :n:: ::riv"n~ i ( J I .:.c;.nc:v ,~ 5't:"'~1: .:.::c::-w"S.../=cx ,~..r i I i i I i I uz; :r1tC.1:lc:lre-;:: ~~~~~ :~ ~~:==:===~==- l :'..:~:::r.~' ::: '"'"':.lC~ _ ~~.!"7"":":.L J '~-~-="'"'7'~~ :R!'..S.-S: :..:~= ;"oas 'lse:::: .l.r:C "3IiL.:r= ::: ;-::.:::; 1:::::: ~. .f'"":~:<s.c ::::""'-:....~ : ::=:~".....,_ _f""" ,,\,U"'-"I"OC:.~ :v ;;::r-"!'l.l'" :"'__~::.n-e'S ~'f '.:'<:~:- s~:.. -no ~~..... :...n :':Sll~C ~'::::.::.::::::.::::- ::-":.~.,...,,' ::;:2n'1l.... :1;; lC:::C.:::~ ..e~ti:t!r.~ ::-:cn;oj,Z :r:j:':~.' ::ic l.r.C ;r,...,.. :':'.:::~~..... ..,.... -"?":"'..:~ :::: '''OU ~:" .1l:::=r:..Jr:::;2' .1:"" ~. ..:-~ ~lor't'S." :r~:"'.c::.=l. ::.-! ,::-::.. :;"1"::M""'~4.:2 :,..:..,.,. ,-.:...:",... ::.:mc.c:-=_ '. -cui=: ~ccr~~~:~ -~~~V~~~ ~r.v 9~l3~~~~ ~,..~~~~ ~=r~3 ~~~~i~~ ..c:.::~:::"'-:'S" ;::nv'C:"":~.::r."S.. :"""roIOC:.3..-::.::ns'O :r- stulG...n"':'-=~ :n .u1V :-1 :fl..,._ fQl"'~ :".......1c:1n1'e'S.. ~-:"::o:. ::::""':"'''' ."..as .& ..:~...,.. :"~- i:t ,,:,'O'4r- ~'l:.a--::=-'O ~ -: ~s ~c-; ,".c:~-..ary -:.: :':;~r: .I, :1"'~....i.nq :""IC::r::_ .. ...t.l~ ::::f'tS.U:.'" no :"'It'5c:am. :: ,~.n =:. :.::dlvt=u.a.l !'!~.. ~ :':'..u-:""'WC:r'"':.. rat..... fa~~ =:..... ~r-:::s' ::: r :css~.c{"j ::;( '..... : Cis..:ic: ,Jf c.~ium- :QnW~:liL" ',J-( ?''::':~O ':":':Y. S~~ ::..:..: ':-:110n::ll. ,e-::::rc3. ) ( ;C':'Iau~ .CR ,iie. ':.:_":1 57.1.4,. JK::'1ZZS :....:~ auu:..u ~ ...c.Ca:~~''l'''.':. 10 , c::--:_ .i:'J.>=" =.'" 1=........; j;:Jt..:.ros :...;=tSZ ::....:.J..AAJlC",S:-..L7"..lS .:r :...:::=:cs; , i 1 I -:':'1. , i L ~-... -:..::- ~ ~ ~~~I.-.::ll'1;1,l_ :..a~~O#':a#o~ ...:1CW&.....~ot ~,- ~::;C" . "..!.,..':":"~""''C..>l~'1UI. ~~~. .._ ". ..lJJ.T"-:.o; ~ '__~=B. ;p,~ nrcV::':C .... .::..o..x..r.~c:::: ,:"\21 ill.l..=.. :- -\~......- I I I J ! i , I j I 1 ! I I I I I I I ~c.:....... ~)l._'t ~ ~~-yt, ~ ,"-- j:"":"':'tt_ .tu__t" 10..1:. ~:: J~_'"l. : c...:=~ i"C1.o:L.-.. ~ ~ r::.:.:... .S~-=.~ ::.:: "'OO~1:. :::1::;:7'0 .t:o:=m :...l:-:.:s . ."=2 '.:s;:;;: 11' :....:=cs:cc -#'''. " :n.: :,.,,,..:....:. t._ !-~- :,,;=~-:.~ <4...,..: :t...:..:~".. :-C1ol..~ ,~~ :;:..~. ~.:=: 3..-.... ~. ~..11:...--=-~ 'c.:.:..:- ",cc..__. ~... :::.:.c:z:__~ :S7~-:-..:s ,:u=:ts"':".:.~'I""Ir:' '~."~C'~Sl ::.....<:: lIo :""'o::~ ._ ...- ...-- .:..-:.~ -=:..::.~~ :.:..::.--. ...::=:.:~ --=".:.::-:.~.,. =_.:..::.~. =_1:' ~ :.::~ 1"'l:"~.. t01:.'~ __o.~ru~_~'l:~a... :"._~-_.., ~~~..,. 2-=., ~ .._~.:; _.\:l'..n.::'~~'C~ ~ .~-=--:.,.. 2~~ ~ =. "_, ~~.w.-.. ,l_ r~ :...:...:.a.. :_:._. ,w._ c:~ :!o~~ _~ :.1t.&.1'. ;"~J4_~ :.a.o..L.~q .l.U~ar"...:a1:.:..:lt :-7~ '.l.c;U:_ , ic..'C.. ;oL APPE'1lJIX D -.riuu..4 ';.1.":1 ::I.t.,..;.; !:!..;_..) 7i:..:..- =":'>>s.r'llC:"/.~'C.'-I. ~A ~.~~~ ~~r ~a ~.~. ~:":l. ~.",. ~.'C... .:...."'.-01. I=:'''';!~__::S ?-~aa-:- .'C.~~ ~~ ~aG~.:.=.n'C. I I I I 1 I , ! 1 i , I i I i I i""-' :l"'':.....--...-...:.~ !~-U ~.;::l.Te: ,;;;: Ir.,... .ncz ... HIIlI.J.Y-'="'::q ~...~'U...'C. ""'t"~~-=",c.:::'\ .....:.~U1q' ~....:7 ~=---.; :".J,_ ~-~ ~~._~ :t=I1"'..'S ~~Ar:::N !~z:r-'" J:..':.3. ;.:11 lC':':-/, , iU:a. ". ..01:._ ~'t'.. ;~S=:lu :;:..... .__..l..L.. :XI..'" .~-it~:~.A..:tt ,.... :.z=~""'C.':".=n ;V"'1:;':'.II' -:.~... ~~....;~ ~...r .-:.... '.... ~..,... Jr=.;.;':~ ;~~..:::N ,.~ i."'C.~~__.:..~n. :c.:.~::.;::n :.:.,.:~ ::''''~. : '-:~:;:'.-:n .."" ::"~...... ,..... ::''''I.aaT''':II...-n~.:II ;~),.";"::;:'!o-:' 7~:';::U:.':!:r:.("~:S; 'o.~~=~:.=" ~T J~~:,.:;:=" '~.::wn~ ~''':IO~. .C-:I.U""': --:=-t::-:.:.:n :....c. ~~:'l...Nl:lI:. ~._ :." '<=:::.:..=_n-.:. I..c-..:"':. ~7 ;:2_o";'':'.3.nc:... '.':'."\.nc::.A..l. :'....'<:lCln.~.=.:...:..:.-:..,. ;::z....:=..,. .-:.=.. t.::"'::.'C.:IIo'l:..~-e !_ :I':' . ~ =...- ::'A..:, ~...J..~.:..:!.q A,QT..-:a:=.:al:.;,.4n ,.. APPENDIX E HISTORY An: lm~y.t.:: cn:~c :s .1 :.arazzi mri C::m:r:ic=:a:i 3:~n=:ne:!c b'e:.We::I cwo IJr :!:cn: Stat.:!. mri ::J:lY :::c::zdl: :ne 1'.1...5_ Gov- ::::mc:::: 1S ~ -;;ar::1- !t ~ri~:Ia[d in the: ::=iarriai ~ccL me. ::s lUC.hOriz=:! 01 :::e CoIIS'"~:!lticn. [nt~ate ~ usually .:-e:::wre ~.t:e c.::ms.c:::c oi C.Jn~::i" :md. C;n;."'=S J.hv.:a:ys has :he Juthariry r... :croid 3. ::::JOp:lC: by ~e:':Ic :::ac=~t_ 77:e SU!-H..._.c:: C;,JUIt ~( :ne C'nit::=: StaLC '::Ifc~ mtC=:--wte =m.- ;ac--.s. ma ..=g:!iz~ ..he:::! 1.S ~g ~iDc:::c:: ~Vl:" my 'Jrcmar/ and/or =::::ulicin:g State !i'atut!:... uIt~..ate :m- JaC"..s ue :ac:::: :::ta 5'(3.[:: :aw in :u::: ::arti.c;:au::.~ jur.scic:iac. ~y 7ilt:n :ce::t::c::ti. ""oniir:-;.. ;-;'i;.,:w<!y !3.(~! :::a::caC"..: lr:' :il!,h_....c:::tS =:c=::i :mc jy Sta,tl::' :cr :be: ~=:':s ~ur;cse at" :-::o.ivin; :nUt'Uai :occ:ic=".s :n :me::-:r.:lt.: ii~.r."""a'Y :r:t.ff:c. ~me::!""wtc: :::ctCr "o::-..:c-.:::u- :::;:.'0:: ::-::![~ ::::mo::ic .::-:::cic::"...! :~a! :::....y Jc:' !uc::::::sfu.il-, ':"',=,::::rr.:: :::roc;..-: :;::c: :ISO: ':{ ::::::;::;i.t:: :ag:::=c::::u_ L:: .:Q~a. C.;ngr:::z ldeafe:: :.'::: 3c:unc l.::ciuticn :?..:bfic :..zw l~-;a4). ',vi'Iic:: ~.ut[e:: =r:~.;;;...;....l,~ai .2cprovai i...-: :=t:'lalfC!! , . .'. -. :c :nt::"!,ate ::=mcac:.s: ,0 :::::::.=:- ::l~nW<i.'" :.....:unc: !Z1:!-7_ 7:-:e :1r:r:: :naior "~wor'.sc ~c :::e ':r:::!rnC" ~-=cjucoc .==e :n : 960. '.:.If'll::! ::CLCt:Cns <lr;:::~ :hc :ar.:::;:t:cn c{ :.he !;-r=- ,7:e:I{ .~'=": ':as!<:~ JY :nc: '~. -::.;:e::: :;:Ie:":>:':;:;:: -:~mrml!e: on :-:':;"'1way ?~iiCt ?-:-:::cie::-.s !.'1.c. :::: Wet::":: Cavo::':cn-" C~n:- :.e:-:::::::. ~4e C.:u::c! JI SClle Gavoe:":mlt:::::l :t:.r::: :e;:u: :1r:I.{!4 :ng 'lol!::,at 'M4)uiri ==rne :::e ::r..'e:" L:c:::se C~muac:... in .::o:!:e ::=opc~tion ."un Siate =:.ctc.:- <Ie:::: 'lf1.",,:::::.is:r:1r.cr:.. :.i.e ~n- ::~a{iona1 ..us:o~:Irion of C-::c::.:s "f ?o:lic: (LJt.C?,.. :1:e Amc:::an Assoc3.ccn oi .\iolor '/~ide Ad=i.ci$tr:1tcrs: (AA~\otV A).. tbe !rs..lr.mc: :~.i{ute tar Hi~y Saic:y~ md othC" :jarionaJ s;;.fe:"f orgarnz:Itions... A5si:stanc:: 31tti =m- mc:::u .In mbse:moI draiu 'Ne'e ;:rovidc:i by !c;istatoO' ;rom 3. "'met.., oi Slate: .1na f.:om U!C !nte::taJ:l:' C:r::;:ac: Ccmmitte=:- or.:Ie ~ationai C.::nfC':::c:: of C::tmnis:s:ccc= an Unifor.n: Stale: ~ws. "CIftft' 'I, ~;ddk>.:: u....s... fa ';J,.~C2I.: ! !rmt. The C.:21m ~::=I Dr in- :C'CI. c:m::0U1 is moer.cr ;n rure !Q OCtft pnar :zna ...~ =nuory :a,..... l:tal is. in ~Wa ..tt.C:r. Use ::=moac:. ., '7:-:= Ori~ ~c:=e C::m:pac: :c::mre z n::Wty iD ~S6i.. 70Inc ~c-r.uia. bc=zmc: ~n= am .sew: co acia;Jt iL.. MississiD'Ci ~... ' ~'1= DLe in t96Z met du: c:mtp:aC ~ a vr.une inz:c:r-.....t: instr..uncm.. T ~ additional SU1cS ioinci i.i1 L963.. md the ,umac:- iI""" co :::a by ['166. :n. MarC [965. "~e 8o.wi of Oi=r.< Qf:lre.~ ,~oC:uicn of Motor VdUe:: Adminim-......tcln ~vd .1 :=mmcd.=:.tian r...tza., ~WVA ~ u ti:e Sc:::::-~ :.c:- SUtc: p:artic::palin-g in cne CJm;:ac.. Tac r ~- SUtc:: :-:1wl~ rnis .u:::on. ::cweYC". dIe ;;romocon of:.tn= Dmp:ac: ~::I:~~ tor :l3.Cy 'fe:Jn. 7":1is: '.vas a"'~mc: Tt N~~ in 1980 "Mite:: 4 .:::ncrac was J.warccl CO cnc Cotmcl or Sate G~ :0 rr-.:dy mci ~rovicie :c:::mmc::c!:rians on ;lOW dn: C~m,!=ac: :i:1Quict ~e Stn::::l?;'!:,hc:::c:L The ,omary :-=m:nc::ciatiIJIIS ;";c::o, :"":3.t .r.:ud.y ...e: ~hat J. C::tnpac C:m.misSan titauid ~e Or"'" ~iz::d.. ~'Yiaw'S lCOP[c1. llIa lan'i-{c::n: :ouniin" ~ r= t982. ~h"TSA ;:rovidc:: :iuIds (0 AAMY A :q {!1 :ul 1- r::eetiJ:g of C.Jcpac:: :nc::ti:c" Slate!. 0 ramI .. Wmp:ac C.;rn.mi::rion as i lOVe:-..m; 1:octy mJng .:nut !::Ie: ai!!= u:.:: ::'iaw~ of :::at C.;mmissica. (J) de'"Jdop :i.tt oac:-..a.tion:s :r'..anual.. ana (~, ;rOInot: :ne CJta~c: J.C:loo.~ ~"!'l"!~t'c:" lu.....~Cic::icns.. A Drive" f..lc:::se C.Jmpac C.Jrnmission (Cleo. ::%2c% 'J.O of :otar .,c:rid:= ldminisu-oaICr: (rom C:m:taac: ;ncnCC' Sat=.. 'N4.$ ~biisiu:::t in t983 to ~d~- die: ale 1na deYe:oll . !cn,,-;= plan:C in= ~ wi =ri= I , i l- I I I I I i 1 i , I ~~""Cft'W2t :w........ , , I I ,& "-' .-""' ., ~-'., ", >- Lr) is a;; ~ c. N ""- UJ~') =><( FfP? '::>-~ ~ (~~ -,'- 0... o~ Clco' @f~:': 0 :'::.;: >-. '" U) N .~) :z: ~q~ - LC7 ~c.. LJJ!jJ r:;~' -.:1: ~JJ a.. -, U.... .." c~ a :"J ~ 0 (.) ~ ~ f'::> ..g ~ l~ ~ d -2:t~ J'-.-.rf) rY) <:J ~ ~~ a:' >- W...J ~o Z...J w- C):> ~;:: <(f- 0- 0 >- < w u 5 ell ~ .. " " . . .'" 0 , >- ~ I a: Ww >- :J ~ ~I " 00 0", ()cn ~a: Za: ~ a: " < <(w "J: ~I ~ J WE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN IS A TRUE AND COR. RECT COpy OF THE ORIBINAL FILED IN THIS ACTION BY ,~c"'- ATTORNEY I' c , .A: CJ ~ /",..,,, LAW OFFICES 0 ~ANCKE, WAGNER, HERSHEY & Tl!LL Y -,'1\iI" " '0 XOUw~.r~~Be"s=r\W rM ENClOSED ' W\'fM\N 1'HdlTY \211\ Djl,.YS- FJIDIA SEfMCE HEftEOF Oil A JUDGMENT MAV BE ENTEF ABA1NST YOU " AnooN" 'JAN 21 ,2.OOf/t) "'-r""'--"" ---'I . . ~, ,..l... __ ~ ,,,_,,--,~d:;,,,",.fl)!*,,,,~I,",~"t~"'t'''''-'''--'''''^ c '"'''' L . ~.-lV s4- J,"",,,,-""-_,~,, '!C'~'".,.""'h"_~"_'W"id-M:!IiL'~~",,,,,~,~,~,,-,_,, o ,"'"' i~ :. "-;:,-"''o.,~.'ij.,.bIIj1l1ii..0i'''__,__ . . ~ - , ~ -." .",. '"'" -~.. I~,"'. ~ "'-- o o DARRY SINGLETON, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 00-0366 CIVIL COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE BEFORE HESS. J. ORDER AND NOW, this :10. day of June, 2000, the within appeal from suspension of driver's license is DENIED. BY THE COURT, David E. Hershey, Esquire For the Appellant :rlm ~ ~O l-'~ (jO 6? ' I)j ,c-., V ~~ George Kabusk, Esquire For PennDOT r- Jj. , ~ ;"f ~ U!(~" .. ,~~f~ ~ ;]j2' ~ i?;: _I '"") C:> C:> 1.,:::,:~ L' (:> 1iiiiIii..........~.....""'"~.-'li\ij...jiii' :g i::: ;?: ::5 (::)2}: (j<" '-J :;; ;;;s! ~_ CI) C;!Z '~J'=?: 0:)"'"' ~o.: ::::J (j .- -~ ' .~ I i "'" ,., Q -~- i . L. "I "'~'" "''"'"';1 o . DARRY SINGLETON, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 00-0366 CIVIL COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE BEFORE HESS. J. OPINION AND ORDER This is a driver's license suspension appeal. The petitioner received notice that his license would be suspended as a result of a notification from New York of a conviction for an offense which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 ofthe Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, Driving Under the Influence. According to the notice, PennDOT had received notification from New York ofa conviction on November 1,1999, for an offense which occurred on October 16, 1999. Specifically, the defendant had been convicted of Driving While Impaired, a violation of the Vehicle Code in New York. The petitioner has raised numerous issues in his appeal. The first contention is that the record of the New York conviction is inadmissible. In support of his contention he cites Hoover v. Com.. DeDt. of Trans.. 725 A.2d 1254 (Pa.Cmmwlth. 1999). In Hoover, the department attempted to suspend the appellant's operating privileges for a violation ofthe Drug, Devise and Cosmetic Act. The court held that a certified record ofthe conviction was necessary in light of 42 Pa.C.S. Section 6103 which governs the proof of official records "kept within this Commonwealth." The matter sub judice, of course, involves an out-of-state record and, as Hoover itself notes, such records are governed by 75 Pa.C.S. Section 1550( d). That section, in 00, _r 01 I . 00-0366 CIVIL ~ o turn, provides that documents received from out of state become the records of DOT and are admissible. We agree with the appellant that Section I 532(b)(3) appears to suggest that reports made pursuant to the Drivers License Compact are required to be certified. Such an interpretation, however, is clearly at odds with Section 1550( d). As noted in the law of statutory construction: (a) The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. I Pa.C.S.A. Section 1921. We are satisfied that it was the intention of the legislature to relax reporting requirements with respect to out-of-state convictions. This is evident from no less than the adoption of the compact itself which requires the department to act upon receipt of "reports" of convictions in other jurisdictions. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1581. Next, the petitioner alleges that the report from New York does not contain the required infornlation by which the department can act pursuant to the Drivers License Compact. This issue we recently resolved adversely to the motorist in Fox. v. Com. ofPA. Deot. of Transo., Cumberland County, 2000-0145. In that case we found that this situation was governed by Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code as recently amended. Succinctly stated, that provision provides that the department may suspend a license based upon the report of a conviction even though the report does not comply strictly with Article III. The third issue raised by the appellant is whether or not the offense of Driving While Impaired in New York is an offense "substantially similar" to the Pennsylvania DUI statute so as to wanant suspension. Our courts have earlier held that these two offenses are not substantially 2 57 -,---, ~,- ~-,-, '.' , ,I - - :~ . 00-0366 CIVIL ~ o similar. See Olmstead v. Dept. ofTransp., 677 A.2d 1285 (pa.Cmmwlth. 1996) and Petrovick v. Dept. of Transp.. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 741 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 1999). In an apparent reaction to these two cases, the legislature amended Section 1586 of the Motor Vehicle Code to include the following language: The fact that the offense reported to the department by a party state may require a different degree of impairment of a person's ability to operate, drive or control a vehicle than that required to support a conviction for a violation of section 3731 shall not be a basis for determining that the party state's offense is not substantially similar to section 3731 for purposes of Article IV of the compact. 75 Pa.C.S. Section 1586. We are satisfied that this new language defeats the petitioner's present argument. The remaining issues raised by the instant appellant involve, inter alia, challenges to Sections 1584 and 1586 of the Vehicle Code which prescribe procedures for the implementation of the compact. With regard to these statutory provisions, the petitioner contends that they violate the contractural provisions of the compact and the petitioner's due process rights under the Pennsylvania and federal constitutions. He then goes on to contend that the suspension of his driver's license in this case subjects him to double jeopardy and/or the denial of equal protection or due process. We have disposed of these various issues, in one form or another, in the cases of Karen A. Gnazzo v. Com. ofPa.. Dept. ofTransp., Cumberland County, 97-5408, and Fox v. Com. of Pa.. Dept. of Transp., supra. Rather than reiterate our holdings here, we will attach copies of these opinions and incorporate same herein by reference. As can be seen from these earlier opinions, none of the grounds asserted operate as a basis for vacating the petitioner's license suspension. 3 58'. 00-0366 CIVIL AND NOW, this driver's license is DENIED. David E. Hershey, Esquire For the Appellant George Kabusk, Esquire For PennDOT :rlm o o ORDER ." -"" ~I;...G, we ').,1, :J 0" day of June, 2000, the within appeal from suspension of BY THE COURT, *H~! 4 51. _.,n~.J.=~ ~ <lI - .' ~ ~~H'~'~ o o KAREN A. GNAZZO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. 97-5408 CIVIL COMMONWEALTH OF P A., DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant APPEAL FROM LICENSE SUSPENSION IN RE: APPEAL FROM DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION BEFORE HESS. J. ORDER AND NOW, this /2 "< day of February, 1998, for the reasons stated in our opinion filed of even date herewith, the appeal of Karen A. Gnazzo from the suspension of her driver's license is DENIED. . BY THE COURT, David E. Hershey, Esquire For the Appellant .AL' George Kabusk, Esquire For PennDOT :rlm (PO. ~~ - " . "I .. o o KAREN A. GNAZZO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 97-5408 CIVIL COMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant APPEAL FROM LICENSE SUSPENSION IN RE: APPEAL FROM DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION BEFORE HESS. J. OPINION AND ORDER Before us is the appeal by Karen A. Gnazzo from the one-year suspension of her Pennsylvania driver's license by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). By official notice, dated and mailed September 4, 1997, PennDOT notified Gnazzo that her license was being suspended pursuant to Section 1581 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. Section 1581 states in relevant part: (a) The licensing authority in the home state, for purposes of a suspension, revocation, or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article 3 of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for: (2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle. PennDOT had received notice on August 11, 1 ~97, that Gnazzo was convicted of driving &l. -- .. ...,~ o o 97-5408 CI\lL while intoxicated in New Jersey on June 18, 1997, in violation of Title 39 New Jersey Statute Section 4-50. Accordingly, it determined that the New Jersey conviction was equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, relating to driving under the influence, and, therefore, enforced the one-year driving suspension mandated by Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code. Petitioner is a Pennsylvania resident who, other than the offense stated above, has no prior record. Additionally, in the incident which gave rise to Petitioner's conviction in New Jersey, there was no accident involved and there was no act in conjunction with the offense in New Jersey which would have constituted a violation of any of the specific. offenses enwnerated under Section 1542 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code had the conduct occurred in Pennsylvania. Petitioner's driving privileges were suspended in New Jersey for six months, she received a fine, and was directed to comply with a program deemed satisfactory by the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center in New Jersey. Petitioner now raises several arguments concerning the impropriety of having her license suspended for a year. First, she claims a violation of her right to equal protection under the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions. Second, she claims that her right against double jeop~dy has been violated under the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions. Third, she claims that PennDOT incorrectly determined, pursuant to Section 1581 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, that her violation in New Jersey was equivalent to Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code. Finally, she contends that her rights to due process and equal protection, and against double 2 ~~ ~Illl - ~'~; .. o o 97-5408 CIVIL jeopardy have been violated under the New Jersey Constitution. Plainly read, the above cited part of Section 1581, requires the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to look at the conduct reported (i.e. that an individual was driving under the influence), and to give the same effect (i.e. license suspension) to the conduct as if the conduct had occurred in Pennsylvania. The petitioner argues, however, that her conduct which resulted in a driving while intoxicated conviction in New Jersey would have very likely placed her in an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program in Pennsylvania. And although ARD programs are handled differently in many counties in Pennsylvania, generally, the license suspensions which DOT must effectuate in ARD programs are six months or less. As such, the petitioner argues that her right to equal protection is violated, since she has received a one-year suspension whereas the same conduct in Pennsylvania would have almost surely resulted in a suspension of six months or less. We agree that ARD is generally offered to a first time violator of Pennsylvania's driving cnder the influence statute, and therefore there existed a good possibility that, had the petitioner been arrested in Pennsylvania for the same conduct, she would have been allowed to enter an ARJ? program. We do not think, however, that PennDOT, pursuant to Section 1581, violated the petitioner's right to equal protection, The wording of Section 1581 creates a problem of interpretation. IfPennDOT is supposed to "give the same effect to the conduct reported," then should not the Department 3 ~3. - ~"J., '""'~; .. o o 97-5408 CIVIL consider that such conduct, had it occurred in Pennsylvania, might have resulted in an ARD disposition? In resolving this question, we resort to the well-established laws of statutory interpretation. In attempting to ascertain the meaning of a statute, the court is required to consider the intent of the legislature, and is permitted to examine the practical consequences of a particular interpretation. The court is to preswne that the legislature did not intend a result that is absurd or unreasonable. . Commonwealth v. Lone, 395 Pa.Super. 495, 577 A.2d 899 (1990). We are satisfied that it would be virtually impossible for PennDOT to give the same effect to the conduct involved in an out-of-state conviction, as would probably be given for the same conduct (without a conviction) in Pennsylvania. It is possible, of course, that the Department of Transportation could determine an average suspension period for first-time DUI offenders in this Commonwealth, and apply that suspension to out-of-state offenders. This potential resolution, however, is plagued with other problems. Suffice it to say, in any case, that such an interpretation of the statute could not have been intended by the legislature. Rather, we believe it is apparent that the statute requires PennDOT to treat out-of-state conduct resultir:g in a conviction, just as it would treat a conviction in Pennsylvania based on the same conduct. Since PennDOT is treating the petitioner as it treats every person who is convicted of violating Section 373 I of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, there is clearly no violation of the 4 ~4- . - .iR", ~ """ o 97-5408 CIVIL equal protection clause under either the Pennsylvania or the Federal Constitutions. I The petitioner next argues that the suspension is a second punishment in violation of her right against double jeopardy, relying primarily upon United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989). Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has concluded that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides no greater protection than the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, v{e have only one analysis of the alleged violation. Commonwealth v. Tabb, 491 Pa. 372,421 A.2d 183 (1980). The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple prosecutions for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction and precludes the imposition of multiple criminal punislunents for the same offense. Sweeny v. State Board of Funeral Directors, 666 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cornrow. 1995). See also Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938). In Halper, supra, the Supreme Court concluded that a civil penalty of a large fine for violations of the False Claims Act constituted punishment for purposes of double jeopardy because the amount of the fine was umelated to the damages suffered by the government and was designed to punish violators. The Court said that a civil sanction may constitute punislunent for double jeopardy purposes if the sanction "may not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as IWe note, once again, that the Department of Transportation, pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. 91532(b)(3), is required to suspend the license of any driver convicted of 75 Pa.C.S. 93731 for 12 months. 5 (PO: -"~~ .. !!lI'" "'^'kii ~ o 97-5408 CIVIL a deterrent or retribution." Halper, 490 U.S. at 449. The Supreme Court, however, has recently disavowed the test applied in Halper, and reaffinned the test applied in cases pre-dating Halper such as Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 373 U.S. 144 (1963). Hudson v. United States, No. 96- 976,1997 U.S. LEXIS 7497 (Dec. 10,1997)/ The disavciwrnent of the test applied in HaiDer, however, makes little difference in our analysis here. The Commonwealth Court has already detennined, even under the Halper test, that a license suspension does not constitute a criminal sanction. Krall v. Com.. Dept. of Transportation Bureau of Driver Licensinl):, 682 A.2d 63 (Pa. Commw. 1996). It is well established that "driver revocation proceedings are remedial sanctions and are civil in nature, designed to protect the public from unsafe drivers." l.d.. at 66, citing Dro!:!owski v. Com, 94 Pa. ~ommw. Ct. 205, 209, 503 A.2d 104, 107 (1986). Next, the petitioner contends that violation of New Jersey's driving while intoxicated statute, Title 39 New Jersey Statutes Section 4-50, is not an equivalent offense to Pennsylvania's driving under the .influence statute, 75 Pa.C.S. Section 373]. The petitioner points to the fact that in New Jersey driving under the inIJuence is not classified as a felony or a misdemeanor, but more as a surrunary offense in that there is no right to a jury trial and the maximum tenn of imp~sonment, even for a repeat offender is six months. In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, driving under the influence is a misdemeanor of the second degree, the accused has a right to trial by jury, and imprisonment of not less than one year must be ordered for third time offenders. See 75 Pa.C.S. Section 3731(e)(I)(iv). 6 ~Cel ,-'" . ....... ..-< ~ . -.- ~"j - aJ o 97-5408 CIVIL We are satisfied, however, that the relevant question under the Driver's License Compact is whether the conduct prohibited in the new Jersey statute is of the same type as the conduct prohibited by the Pennsylvania statue -- not whether the offenses are punished equally. In this regard, the Superior Court has already decided that a conviction under the New Jersey statute and a conviction under the Pennsylvania statute are "equivalent offenses" for purpose of sentencing a defendant as a multiple offender. Commonwealth v. Whisnant, 390 Pa. Super. 192, 568 A.2d 259. The Superior Court noted that both statutes define the offense as operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or with a blood alcohol concentration of.1 0% or'more, and the court also noted that the 'underlying policy of the two statutes is the same. Id. at 195, 568 A.2d at 260. Despite slightly different wording in the two statutes, we believe that the statutes address the same conduct. Therefore, PennDOT appropriately equated the conviction in New Jersey to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. The petitioner also argues that PennDOT improperly applied the Driver's License Compact because there is no evidence that the petitioner was convicted of driving under the influence to a degree which rendered her incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle as she believes is required under the Compact. The petitioner, however, has misinterpreted the lang!lage of the statute which applies to convictions for "driving a motor ,'ehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor," and doe$ not further require that the driver have been found incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle. Finally, the petitioner argues that her rights to due process, equal protection, and against 7 ~7, r.~~._ ',- I ~'o ~i . .. a:> o 97-5408 CIVIL double jeopardy under the New Jersey Constitution have been violated by this license suspension. We disagree. The petitioner argues that her rights to equal protection and due process were violated because she was not infonned that she would lose her license in Pennsylvania when she entered a guilty plea in New Jersey. She claims that because of this lack ofinfonnation her guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. See State v. Samuels, 253 N.J. Super. 335, 601 A.2d 784 (1991). It is axiomatic, however, that a licensee may not collaterally attack an underlying criminal conviction in the context of a civil license suspension proceeding. Com. v. Duffv, 536 Pa. 436, 639 A.2d 1174 (1994). We need not address the petitioner's other arguments concerning a violation of the New Jersey Constitution as we know of no authority whereby a resident of Pennsylvania may challenge the actions of a Commonwealth agency based on the constitution of another state. ORDER AND NOW, this 12-.... day of February, 1998, for the reasons stated in our opinion filed of even date herewith, the appeal of Karen A. Gnazzo from the suspension of her driver's license is DENIED. BY THE COURT, ./1tL 8 ~ g-, """" '~."~~ -. . co 97-5408 CIVIL David E. Hershey, Esquire For the Appellant George Kabusk, Esquire For PennDOT :rlm .' .I l~'i~ o 9 (Pt "-. --- I, , I ~ ~~ .-~ . o o JUSTIN C. FOX, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Ys. 00-0145 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW COM. OF P A, DEPT. OF TRANS., Defendant LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL IN RE: APPEAL OF LICENSE SUSPENSION BEFORE HESS. J. ORDER AND NOW, this 2 '2."; day of May, 2000, the appeaL of Justin C. Fox from the suspension of his operating privileges is DENIED. BY THE COURT, K-:fr~1" ~ Samuel 1. Andes, Esquire F or the Appellant George H. Kabusk, Esquire For PennDOT :r1m 7D. ,. ;i '~~~~ ~~~ "~L" '~ .........~ -. ~'~, ~o.>~~, ~ o JUSTIN C. FOX, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-0145 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW COM. OF PA, DEPT. OF TRANS., Defendant LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL IN RE: APPEAL OF LICENSE SUSPENSION BEFORE HESS. J. OPINION AND ORDER By a notice dated December 14, 1999, the Commonwealth ofPe,nnsylvania, Department of Transportation notified Justin C. Fox that his driver's license would be suspended for a period of one year. The notice was based on Section 1581 of the Motor Vehicle Code which requires the department to treat certain out-of-state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania. PennDOT had purportedly received a notification from the state of New Jersey that Mr. Fox had been convicted on November I, 1999, of an offense which occurred on August 17, 1999, which offense was equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, Driving under the Influence. In his appeal, Mr. Fox raises two issues. His first contention is that PennDOT failed to satisfy the requirements of the Driver's License Compact (in Pennsylvania at 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1581 et seq.). Article III of the Compact requires that the "licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority ofthe home state ofthe licensee." 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1581. The Compact further requires that such reports shall: (I) clearly identify the person convicted; (2) describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated; (3) identify the court in ft. - ~~ I" ~~- -'~!Iil1ill r '-~ .00-0145 CIVIL to () which action was taken; and (4) certifY how the conviction was obtained (by trial, guilty plea or as a result of some kind of forfeiture). In 1998, the Commonwealth Court held that the reporting requirements of Article III were mandatory and that a failure to fully comply with the reporting requirements made the suspension ofthe motorist's operating privileges improper. See Mazurek v. Com.. Dept. ofTransp., 717 A.2d 23 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998). In an apparent response, the legislature amended the Vehicle Code to provide, at 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1584, that: The omission from any report received by the department from a party state of any information required by Article III of the Compact shall not excuse or prevent the department from complying with its duties under Article IV and V of the Compact. Article IV of the Compact requires the licensing authority of the home state to give the same effect to out-of-state conduct as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state. In this case, the Department of Transportation submitted a New Jersey driving record which contained Mr. Fox's name and Pennsylvania driver's license number, his date of birth, gender and eye color, a violation date, conviction date and a description of the offense which merely read "operate under influence liq./drugs." The report from New Jersey clearly failed to comport with the requirements of Article III ofthe Compact. Under Mazurek, supra, Mr. Fox would be entitled to relief. The department counters, however, that the strict application of Article III is no longer necessary because of the 1998 amendment to the Vehicle Code. Mr. Fox argues, in turn, that the language of Section 1584 relaxing the reporting requirements of Article III is unconstitutional. There are not yet any appellate decisions on this issue. The lower courts are split. 2 7J.. '-~."""'-'~ .~- "~ - , .' ~ 1iIiI~ .' ..,. . 00-0145 CIVIL o o In Com.. Deoartment of Transo. v. Anderson, 48 Ches. Co. Rep. 3 (1999) Chester County Judge James P. MacElree considered the notice requirements of Article III of the Compact to be of constitutional dimension. Concerning the 1998 amendments to the Vehicle Code relaxing those requirements, Judge MacElree observed: The Amendment violates the specific requirements of Article III of the Compact and it violates due process requirements under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. the purpose of due process notice is founded on the concept of fundamental fairness. Due process requires that the defendant have enough information to respond to the charge. An examination of75 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 1584 reveals a broad and sweeping provision, which permits Pennsylvania to suspend a driver's license where "any information" is omitted from the report required by Article III of the Company. Applying ~ 1584 literally could result in Pennsylvania suspending the license of a driver where the report only contained the licensee's name or operator's license number. Such notice would be really no notice at all because it would lack fundamental facts sufficient to advise the licensee of who, what, where or when an alleged violation occurred. While we certainly share Judge MacElree's concerns, nonetheless, we will follow the approach taken by Bucks County President Judge R. Barry McAndrews. In Com. ofPa.. Deot. of Transo. v. Wenger, 73 Bucks Co. L. Rep. 54 (2000), he wrote: This Court agrees with Judge MacElree in part, but disagrees with [his]conclusion that the amendment is per se unconstitutional. First, it is a well- established principle of statutory construction that vests all enactments of the legislature with a strong presumption of constitutionality. 1 Pa.C.S. ~ 1922, Plowman v. Department of Transoortation, 535 Pa. 314,635 A.2d 124 (1993). Second, a court reviewing a statute should interpret the enactment 3 i3, ~ __.1. - :~ , 00-0145 CIVIL o 0" I: , of the legislature in a constitutional manner, if possible. 1 Pa.C.S. ~ 1922(3), Commonwealth v. Hude, 492 Pa. 600, 425 A.2d 313 (1980); ComlUonwe,alth v. McDonald, 464Pa. 435, 347 A.2d 290 (1975). Article IX of the Compact clearly sets forth that the provisions of the Compact should be broadly construed so as to effectuate the Compact's remedial purpose. 75 Pa.C.S. ~ 1581, Article IX; See also, 1 Pa.C.S. ~ 1928(c) (regarding liberal construction of statutes). Procedural due process simply requires that the Department of Transportation provide the licensee with sufficient notice ofthe conduct that forms the basis of the Department's action so that the licensee can prepare a defense. The use of an out- of-state conviction report that does not fully comply with all the technical requirements of Article III does not necessarily impinge on Petitioner's due process rights. The Department still has the burden of proof; hence the report must still be suitably informative so as to allow the Department to identify the driver and the offense for which the driver has been convicted. In other words, the report must still contain the fundamental facts. We reach the same conclusion as Judge McAndrews and for the same reasons. The appellant's second issue arises out of the circumstances of his plea in New Jersey. The guilty plea was accompanied by a so-called "civil reservation" preventing the use of the guilty plea as evidence in a civil proceeding. Since thesuspension of his license involves a civil proceeding, the petitioner argues that evidence of the guilty plea is inadmissible. We agree with the department that the plea entered is akin to a plea of nolo contendere and that the plea cannot ,serve as an admission of guilt in a civil action related to the defendant's driving on the date in question. The civil reservation, however, does not alter the fact that the defendant was convicted and it is the conviction which has triggered the Pennsylvania driver's license suspension. 4 ~~ ,l' ~ . ' -' L - ~'''lt1lfi 00-0145 CIVIL o o The motorist in Hunt v. Com. ofPA. Deot. ofTransp., Cmwlth Ct. No. 2244 C.D. 1999, filedMarch 29, 2000, argued that his plea of "nolo contendere" to a charge of driving under the influence in West Virginia could not be used to suspend his Pennsylvania operating privilege. The Commonwealth Court noted that it had repeatedly upheld suspensions based upon pleas of no contest, citing Peooerling v. Dept. ofTranso., 737 A.2d 310 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999); Smega v. Deot. of Transo., 727 A.2d 154 (Pa.Cwmlth. 1999); Mackall v. Deot. ofTranso.,680 A.2d 31 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). For the foregoing reasons we enter the following order. ORDER AND NOW, this 2..;2 -1 day of May, 2000, the appeal of Justin C. Fox from the suspension of his operating privileges is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Samuel L. Andes, Esquire For the Appellant .41. George H. Kabusk, Esquire For PennDOT :rlm 5 7J. - I~ o o DARRY SINGLETON, Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-366 CIVil COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this..l..L.. day of 1"4 , 2000, upon application of Petitioner's request for a supersedeas pending appeal and noting the reasons supporting same, and noting further that the Department of Transportation's counsel has indicated that the Department does not object to the granting of a supersedeas, the supersedeas is hereby rrlt>./:aI. The Department of Transportation is hereby ordered to stay the imposition of Petitioner's one year license suspension pursuant to the Driver License Compact until all state court appeals have been exhausted including a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It shall be Petitioner's counsel's responsibility to notify the Department of Transportation in a timely manner of the outcome of the appellate proceedings. BY THE COURT: Distribution: 17i Prothonotary's Office George Kabusk, Esq., PennDOT, 1101 S. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 David E. Hershey, Esq., 2233 N. FrontSt., Harrisburg, PA 17110 c ~ 11\'0.3..1 7<)6-60 R){s 70. ~, IiI!IiIiIIIIl!iiI-,...-........... -~"'-~lOl~,!IBIIi~lliiiIllm.G~"lll><"'""~illlb.W..lli-J..f~lJg "W~ r,_ L_ I~ :;::) __c, 25 'II&.;r~ ~. C""'... " '\ '''J C\.,: (31 :>- f- < ::) ~ (~) :sc" <:):!f .:;?{2 i?:; ~/ 111! .:::; (.) ~ , [) (".l ~~'" o ,._" "_~ 'h'~', o 0 DARRY SINGLETON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-366 CIVil COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent PETITIONER'S APPLlCA TlON FOR SUPERSEDEAS TO THE HONORABLE KEVIN A. HESS, JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-SAID COURT: AND NOW comes Petitioner, Darry Singleton, by and through his attorneys, Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully, who make the following averments in support of Petitioner's request for a continuing supersedeas. 1. A license sl)spension appeal pertaining to the application of the current version of the Driver License Compact was argued at a hearing before Your Honorable Court on April 7, 2000. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, Your Honorable Court took the matter under advisement. 3. By order dated June 30, 2000, Your Honorable Court advised Petitioner's counsel that the appeal was denied. 4. A series of issues preseNed in this case involve the application of amendments to the Driver License Compact more particularly found at ~~ 1584 and 1586 of the Vehicle Code. 71. d< '" ~~' , ~ 't" o o 5" Various Courts of Common Pleas have split on whether the above two mentioned provisions are constitutional. 6. The appellate courts in Pennsylvania have not yet addressed the constitutionality of either ~~ 1584 or 1586. 7. In pertinent part, in Petitioner's case, because Penn DOT's records reflect that he was convicted of DWAI in New York (a lesser offense), the application of 1586 to his case becomes critical. 8. PennDOT's counsel, George Kabusk, has advised Petitioner's counsel that in Compact cases such as this the Department is not opposing the entry of a supersedeas pending an appeal. 9. It is Petitioner's intention to file a direct appeal to the Commonwealth Court and Petitioner reserves his right to petition the Supreme Court for allowance of appeal in the event the Commonwealth Court appeal is unsuccessful. 10. Petitioner's counsel will be responsible for notifying PennDOT when all appeals have been exhausted and the outcome of same. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that Your Honorable Court enter a supersedeas in favor of Petitioner directing Penn DOT to stay the imposition of the one year proposed license suspension until such time as all appellate relief has been exhausted including a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 'if. ,,'~." ~ ~ I ~. . o o Respectfully submitted, Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully Date: ~//J/l_-- Dav~erShey, ~ ID# 43092 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/234-7051 7q', ,JI "I "' C'U"j c o CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE I, Tammy L. Kelly, an employee of the law firm of Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document to the attomeys or parties of record in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing A ~ of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the lybt 1 day of July, 2000. George Kabusk, Esquire PA Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 BY~ '-/') kULa- Tammy L. Ke Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully S'D. ~ . ~ - I . ~.. o o I hereby verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date fs /. ."- f~ !',? U,JC':- ( ,. . C>! " , ~:' ~'1 <'? .>- I- Z :~~~ .~~) ;J .tf ...;~ ~.:J o . '-,,,~ ,...1 C ('-......' -, ci >- w ::l ~ ~ Z :> 1Il ... Cll-~~ . <( c1l H w u SO" & >- fE (j 0 . I IX: ~ W W Ii: ffi :..: I 0" U (/) ~ a: Z a:: ~ ~ <( W N :I: 2I , - f"'" 0 . . V --._-- . ~ ARE HERESY NOTIFlEQ TO FI WE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT /.rf""'", LAW OFFICES ,0 A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO TH THE WITHIN IS A TRUE AND COR- . wt:rH?N9EOTWENTV W DAYS FRO REel COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SERVICe HEREOF A JUOOMEN FILED IN THIS ACTION ~ANCKE, WAGNER, HERSHEY & TULLY MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY OY ATTORNEY ATTORNEY . , Jffl 2 4 -., . , 1 '" , M ~ ., ,.,~,--'''ic: ~..l~, ' , _ ':'-'_1 __'_,0'" .,'f-.:,,<_,,'" Jt'n .,_,_,~",,,,,,,,,,,.~"~"--=.'",,~?~Ici:t&~ili.k.I'-,,,;'-""'h"td...,~,,, ""''';,''',"""IL~'":t.,'',L,A'-''l..,">J,,,-,,,_,,,:o"~~''' "'-"""'"'''",;1,,,,,",''","'=0=''._ ",,,.,f, ""'-;>"'_,,''''orl_'''''",,_ o o c o ~). '" I" ,- :.... 0 0 , , DARRY SINGLETON, Petitioner v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-366 CIVil LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Darry Singleton, Petitioner above-named, hereby appeals to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on the 30th day of June, 2000 by The Honorable Kevin A. Hess, Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania at docket number 2000-366. This Order has been reduced to judgment and entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copies of the docket entries. Respectfully submitted, Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully Date: Davl . Hershey, Es 10# 43092 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/234-7051 ~3. " -~ I_~ - t.I1It~; o o , DARRY SINGLETON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-366 CIVil COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent A Notice of Appeal having been filed in this matter, the Official Court Reporter is hereby ordered to produce, certify, and file the transcript in this manner in conformity with Rule 1922 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. D'::: e:::::2~ Attorney for Petitioner ~ft, ~""~~ fl"--- ._' J'~..,< I., PYS510 cumbe~. and County ProthonotarY's~fice ~ivi1 Case Inquiry ~ . 2000-00366 SINGL~TONQARRY (vs) PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF Reference No..: Filed........: Case Type.....: APPEAL - LICENSE SUSP Time.........: Judgment......: .00 Execution Date Judge Assigned: HESS KEVIN A Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. --~--------- Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: Page 1 1/20/2000 2:05 0/00/0000 0/00/0000 ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info SINGLETON DARRY 815 FAIRFIELD STREET MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING 1101 SOUTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG PA 17104 2516 APPELLANT HERSHEY DAVID E APPELLEE ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries * ******************************************************************************** 1/20/2000 1/25/2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS LICENSE ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATED 1/25/00 - IN RE LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL - HEARING 4/7/00 9:30 AM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 1/25/00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATE 6/30/00 - IN RE APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS LINENSE - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 6/30/00 6/30/2000 7/21/2000 7/25/2000 PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR SUPERSEDEAS ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/25/00 - IN RE PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR SUPERSEDEAS - GRANTED - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 7/25/00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * * Fees & Debits Bea Ba1 Pvmts/Adi End Ba1 * *****************************************~************************************** APPEAL LIC SUSP TAX ON APPEAL SETTLEMENT JCP FEE 35.00 35.00 .50 .50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 ------------------------ 45.50 45.50 .00 .00 .00 .00 ------------ .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information * ******************************************************************************** TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In TestImonywhereef. I here--unto set my hand r'd the M1~~id. ~""'..., Pa.,; '-- ,,!~~~O g t:~~}~ . hOl1Q;lary ~s: I c o . DARRY SINGLETON, Petitioner v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-366 CIVil LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE I, Tammy L. Kelly, an employee of the law firm of Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document to the attomeys or parties of record in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, by depositing a~qpy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the~rl"8ay of July, 2000. The Honorable Kevin A. Hess Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 George Kabusk, Esquire PA Department of Transportation 11 01 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 By: ~~ kJ~~ Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 ~~,. " c'" '::,:':-'..:::r' ':.:.:\ ::~~ , , ~ ...... .._~. :3 .',.... (J) '0---:7 '.'z ~ :"J LLI ,--,{:lC- ~) C.l -..j.'--- 2j ~ ~ ~ " r( ~ (j- ~ cO ...~.- ~- ',- ':~~; IJ o (l 1 ~ ~~CL a:>- w-' ~o z-' w~ (.9J .- .." <(I- .~ ~ .. ~ u sell ~ ~ . . . . 0 , >- . " , ~ ~ Ww ~ :> ~J: o m z !!1 U(fl M ~ Zoc M ~ N ~ <(w N ~ 2J: . ,f""'\ V ,0 . ~ . "'" . . WE 0,0 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN IS A TRUE AND COR. RECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL FILED IN THIS ACTION BY ATTOIlNEY ~. LAW OFFICES ,~ ~ANCKE, WAGNER, HERSHEY & TULL ~ TO YOU ARE H.EFlE8Y OOTlFlED TO FILE A WAlnEN RESPONSE 'TO TliE ENe""'" ~~:~E ~ER~Y= w ft1~::E~ MAY BE ENTEAED AGAINST YOU 'OY ' AnooN" " " - " o 0""" "' t'''' ~I' - "'.) . f;7 , ,,'.,--,-""":;,<," C.,",-"-~l1::l"j",':':'.'" ,;,I..I.,-,'r"I~"'~",~ ," , . o o DARRY SINGLETON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. COM. OF PA, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF LICENSING 00-0366 CIVIL IN RE: APPEAL ORDER AND NOW, this t'~ day of August, 2000, in accordance with Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the petitioner having filed a notice of appeal, the appellant is directed to file of record, within fifteen (15) days hereof and serve upon the undersigned a concise statement of the matters complained of on the appeal. , BY THE COURT, David E. Hershey, Esquire For the Petitioner .AiL George Kabusk, Esquire For the Commonwealth ~ (\~. ~ ur ~-~~ :r1m r~. .. i~~ ... . .... F1Lm-Oi:F\CE C~ '., ".. tr.r"WN 'O:nOV 11 ~ :-1'; rt;-;;~_111 .;,)1\! 'It\i''\ 'i 00 ~UG -9 PH \: 38 CUMBSRLPND couN1Y ptNNSYLym1A o ..."............ .,.. o l!llJ',.~.," -'--:'!':"Yf,.. 0 c:> 0 '- c::> -n So E: ~gJ ~ C) -::J,M; zt.;:: I ~z (JJ )2,9 ~c -0 '.:~o ~o :1::Yrl ::;I: '::>- >8 '70 Cfl rim ~ '::::, t,) ~ U1 . >>",~ ~- -. "" ~~ ~~ L ,I ,~ ""-, ~. .. c!monwealth Court of pennSYIV!a August7,2000 RE: Singleton v. D.O.T. No.: 1756 CD 2000 Agency Docket Number: 2000-366 Civil Filed Date: July 27,2000 Notice of Docketing Appeal A Notice of Appeal, a copy of which is enclosed, from an order of your court has been docketed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The docket number in the Commonwealth Court is endorsed on this notice. The Commonwealth Court docket number must be on all correspondence and documents filed with the court. Under Chapter 19 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Notice of Appeal has the effect of directing the Court to transmit the certified record in the matter to the Prothonotary of the Commonwealth Court. The complete record, including the opinion of the trial judge, should be forwarded to the Commonwealth Court within forty (40) days of the date of filing of the Notice of Appeal. Do not transmit a partial record. Pa.R.A.P. 1921 to 1933 provides the standards for preparation, certification and transmission of the record. The address to which the Court is to transmit the record is set forth on Page 2 of this notice. Notice to Counsel A copy of this notice is being sent to all parties or their counsel indicated on the proof of service accompanying the Notice of Appeal. The appearance of all counsel has been entered on the record in the Commonwealth Court. Counsel has thirty (30) days from the date of filing of the Notice of Appeal to file a praecipe to withdraw their appearance pursuant to Pa. RAP. 907 (b). Appellant or Appellant's attorney should review the record of the trial court, in order to insure that it is complete, prior to certification to this Court. (Note: A copy of the Zoning Ordinance must accompany records in Zoning Appeal cases). The addresses to which you are to transmit documents to this Court are set forth on Page 2 of this Notice. If you have special needs, please contact this court in writing as soon as possible. Attorney Name Harold Cramer, Esq. David E. Hershey, Esq. George H. Kabusk, Esq. Party Name Bureau of Driver Licensing Darry Singleton Bureau of Driver Licensing Party Type Appellee Appellant Appellee (ff. ~ :;; ~~ - """ --"i. ~ J ~ '"',; , e o ~ ( .. /7S~ e~ .)lJci) DARRY SINGLETON, Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-366 CIVil COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Darry Singleton, Petitioner above-named, hereby appeals to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on the 30'h day of June, 2000 by The Honorable Kevin A. Hess, Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania at docket number 2000-366. This Order has been reduced to judgment and entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copies of the docket entries. Respectfully submitted, Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully Date: ./ ~/'/~ Da~ Hershey, ESq):llfe 10# 43092 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/234-7051 ("', " s':: r:'. . ~,,_. -. C", '...-, ~:'~ \~ ~:, L .<::. '-', ...-,.~~ :.....i TRUE COpy FROM RECORD =< In Testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand and the seal of said ~lisIe, Pa. '- mad::o~9_~~~~ :..) 90- ~lijlili ~~"~. b.djliil~~I!1l!i&,fti,,-tlii:.,,",j__,,~~ ~"""'""~ '-" ,->,. ,.,-- o .e_ . - '-'" 0........ . .~ (') 0 0 C 0 -n ~ ",. ..1 -00:; c: ~:T-n mrn "" l'lF 2."""1 ~. -.-' rn- Z~ -i'iy '. (/')~".. C)C) ~c:; -u =2=R ~O ::;: ':::>-- ':;:;.,.. ("') >8 ~~:....j';n- 0 Z 0 ~ ~ 0 -< - ~,' -'I i~ )1 .. ) J , o o J DARRY SINGLETON, Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 00-0366 CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU: OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent IN RE: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Proceedings held before the HONORABLE KEVIN A. HESS, J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on Friday, April 7, 2000, in Courtroom Number 4. APPEARANCES: GEORGE KABUSK, Esquire For the Commonwealth DAVID E. HERSHEY, Esquire For the Appellant q{ ~ ~ - , L , ,~" - -""'.".~, -~ ~ , ~ o ,,"{- -~ " ~ ~"" , F!LED-DFF!CE 0- T"~ """'r! '(" '~~AAY .t!- ,hi' }-.J,'--=', : ", IJ\,{ Jl, ' I ,., ;'.~ l, .1, _." r I 00 AUG 14 MilO: 09 CUiillBEPiLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 0......... .. ....... ....M.".. -~'"~ """n'!!J .~ " "" -~ "~_ r ~, <V- ~_~ , ..",- ~" -=~~~fq,~ . o o 1 MR. KABUSK: Good morning, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Good morning. 3 MR. KABUSK: This is the case of Darry 4 Singleton versus Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department 5 of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, No. 2000-366 6 Civil, license suspension appeal. The Department is ready 7 to proceed in this matter. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. HERSHEY: Your Honor, if I may make a 10 brief opening remark, because I think the Court has my 11 brief. It is kind of lengthy. And I wanted to try to give 12 the Court an overview of where I am going today if that's 13 all right. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 15 MR. HERSHEY: This is a Darry Singleton, 16 Your Honor. It is D-a-r-r-y. Judge, since Mr. Kabusk and 17 I last addressed you on the issue of the Driver's License 18 Compact there have been several substantive changes to the 19 Compact. Number one, Section 1584 and 1586 were added to 20 the Legislative Compact. And, number two, as it relates to 21 New York's DUI statute, there have been several 22 pronouncements in the Commonwealth and State Supreme Courts 23 on analyzing that statute. 24 Mr. Kabusk is going to offer into evidence a 25 certification of a document that is purportedly issued by 2 (') ( 0-.. . . 1 the State of New York, Department of Motor Vehicles. And I 2 have got two technical objections to that, that I would ask 3 if the Court would consider taking the admissibility of the 4 document under advisement, and then instead of bifurcating 5 the hearing allow me to address the remainder of the issues 6 if the Court finds that the document is admissible, then we 7 could do everything today as judiciously as possible. 8 THE COURT: Okay. I am not quite sure I 9 understand the concept of admissibility as you are using 10 it. What evidentiary objection is there to the document? 11 All that's being admitted to show is that the Commonwealth 12 received it, right, and that's all it really can show. It 13 purports to be a record of some kind, of some sort, a 14 conviction from New York? 15 MR. HERSHEY: Correct, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: And these are the types of 17 documents that they receive and rely on all the time. 18 MR. HERSHEY: That's true. That's true. 19 There is a technical objection, which is rule one of my 20 brief, Your Honor, and that would also appear again in rule 21 eleven pertaining to the Federal Driver Privacy Protection 22 Act of 1994. Those two issues go to the admissibility of 23 the DOT's document. The remaining issues go to the various 24 issues relating to the similarity of the statutes or lack 25 of similarity, whether or not the document complies with 3 93, - '^ ," ~ '0_1":,.,,,.., '-, ~ ,.' o o 1 the reporting requirements of the Driver's License Compact 2 and issues related to that. 3 THE COURT: Okay. But this being a nonjury 4 proceeding though I think I can hear it all at once I would 5 think. I mean, I will approach it from the standpoint that 6 it is bifurcated and look at the admissibility of the 7 document first. If the document is inadmissible, then the 8 suspension doesn't stand. 9 MR. HERSHEY: That's what I am requesting, 10 Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Okay. That's the way I will 12 approach it then. In other words, we will let it in 13 subject to your objection and preserving your objection. 14 MR. HERSHEY: Yes, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Very well. 16 MR. KABUSK: Okay. What's been marked as 17 Commonwealth's Exhibit No.1 consists of three 18 sub-exhibits. It is under seal and certification. I have 19 provided a copy to Mr. Hershey. The first sub-exhibit is 20 an official notice of suspension dated and mailed 12/28/99, 21 effective 2/1 of 2000. That notice is to Darry L. 22 Singleton, operator's number 22606291, dated December 28th, 23 1999, informing him Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code 24 requires the Department to treat certain out-of-state 25 convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania. 4 qL/- c'_ '-. ,;,,~l... ",-" -- . ,'- -":z.'J~ A... V o 1 Therefore, as a result of the Department 2 receiving notification from New York of your conviction on 3 11/1/99 of an offense which occurred on 10/16/99, which is 4 equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the 5 Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, Driving Under Influence, your 6 driving privilege is being suspended for a period of one 7 year as mandated by Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code. 8 Sub-exhibit 2 is a record of conviction 9 detail, out-of-state driver violations report, received 10 from the licensing authority of the State of New York, 11 operating under the influence of liquor or drugs, date of 12 violation 10/16/99, date of conviction 11/1/99. And if you 13 turn to that second sub-exhibit, it is from the State of 14 New York, Department of Motor Vehicles, to the Bureau of 15 Motor Vehicles, dated 11/15/99. 16 It states the following four out-of-state 17 drivers convicted in New York are being provided per the 18 Driver License Compact Agreement. You will note that the 19 second driver is Singleton, Darry L., date of birth 20 1/27/72. It goes on to state his address, violation date 21 10/16/99. Conviction date 11/1/99. Violation, driving 22 while impaired. And it provides some other information. 23 Sub-exhibit 3 is the driving record which 24 appears in the file of the defendant, Darry L. Singleton, 25 operator's number 22606291, date of birth 1/27/72, in the 5 CfO, '. - -A"0 i . o 1 Bureau of Driver Licensing, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 2 And I move for the admission of what's been 3 marked Commonwealth's Exhibit NO.1. 4 THE COURT: All right. We will admit it 5 subject to the standing objection. 6 MR. KABUSK: And that is the Department's 7 case. 8 THE COURT: All right. 9 MR. HERSHEY: Your Honor, with respect to 10 the admissibility of the exhibit, there are essentially two 11 statutes that cover this subject matter, 1550(b) generally, 12 which was amended by Act 151 of 1998, and does indicate 13 that the Department may use records from other 14 jurisdictions that they have microfilmed as their own. 15 When the legislature amended 1550(b), they 16 never went back and amended 1532(b) (3), which is the 17 section that is the authority for the Department to suspend 18 based upon the Driver License Compact. 19 1532(b) (3) has some modifying language in 20 it, which says the Department shall suspend the operating 21 privilege of any driver for twelve months upon receiving a 22 certified record of the driver's conviction. 23 Now, their records are certified by their 24 department head, Secretary Mallory, and by Rebecca Bickley, 25 who is in charge of the Bureau of Driver Licensing. But 6 q~ 1"- -'" , ""n"._;-:!-,,/,,_' '~>i o o 1 the document that is attached that is purportedly from the 2 New York Division of Motor Vehicles is not certified. So 3 there is a conflict between the two statutes. And it is 4 Mr. Singleton's position that the 1532(b) (3) is the 5 specific subject area governing the application of the 6 Compact. So there is a conflict there between the 7 statutes. 8 The second issue with regard to 9 admissibility, Your Honor, in my brief is at rule eleven. 10 And this has to do deal with whether or not the Department 11 has violated the Federal Driver Privacy Protection Act of 12 1994. That Act prohibits the disclosure of certain motor 13 vehicle and driver information. And I am not going to read 14 the whole thing, Your Honor, because I have provided it to 15 you in the b~ief. But the issue is if the Court finds that 16 the Federal Privacy Protection Act was violated, then 17 should the document come into evidence in this case. 18 So those are the two issues regarding the admissibility. 19 Issue two, Your Honor, of my brief relates 20 to whether o~ not the Department's exhibit contains enough 21 information to satisfy the provisions of the Compact in 22 terms of the reporting requirements. What I have quoted in 23 my brief is the language from the national Compact that was 24 attached to the appeal. You will find, Judge, that if you 25 look at the national compact there is a slight difference 7 q7. ~' -- " " " 0 ~", - _co:., "i;;:I,~' -;'-: ." ~--o~"" - -.- ,-',', o 1 in the reporting requirements between the national Compact 2 and the one that Pennsylvania has enacted. But both 3 versions do require that the document describe the 4 violations specifying the section of the statute, code or 5 ordinance violated. DOT's exhibit does not do that. There 6 is no reference to what section of New York's DUI law has 7 allegedly been violated. 8 DOT's document also, Judge, does not 9 indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered 10 or that the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of 11 bail bond or other security. That provision is identical 12 in both the state law and the national Compact. So those 13 two provisions do apply. And DOT's document does not 14 address those two issues. 15 Since I am on that subject, I have to 16 address the issue of the application of Section 1584, which 17 was one of the amendments in Act 151 of 1998, which DOT has 18 argued in the past is a clarifying provision. At least one 19 court in Pennsylvania has indicated that it is not a 20 clarifying provision, but rather it is a provision which 21 violates procedural due process and contradicts the 22 existing statute. Judge, that section in a nutshell 23 essentially says if there is information omitted from a 24 report received by PennDOT from a party state of 25 information otherwise required, DOT is still supposed to go 8 c;'V I o. ,',:". I-i;~' "'';;~"""" _,', ~: 'i 'J o o 1 ahead and suspend. 2 The problem with that amendment on its face 3 is it patently contradicts other language in the Compact, 4 at Section 1581 Article III. So now we have two competing 5 provisions in the same Compact. 6 In the Harrington decision, and I now have 7 the D&C cite for Your Honor, which is not in the brief, the 8 D&C cite is 42 D&C 4th 153 (1999). It is out of Chester 9 County. And DOT did take this up on a direct appeal to the 10 Supreme Court. It has not yet been decided to the best of 11 my knowledge. 12 The Harrington decision addresses the 13 conflict between these two provisions and says applying 14 1584 literally could result in Pennsylvania suspending the 15 license of a driver where the report only contained the 16 licensee's name or operator's license number. Such a 17 notice would be really no notice at all because it would 18 lack fundamental facts sufficient to advise the licensee of 19 who, what, where or when an alleged violation occurred. 20 And then there is a discussion of whether that's a 21 violation of due process under the Pennsylvania & Federal 22 Constitutions. 23 The Harrington court determined that it was 24 such a violation. Incidentally, Judge, in Harrington the 25 document at issue was generated by the New Jersey DMV. And 9 C/'C ,. o o 1 the document failed to indicate whether a plea of guilty or 2 not guilty was entered and whether or not there was a 3 forfeiture of bailor collateral. So it is the same 4 omission, one of the same omissions, that's present in this 5 case. 6 Issue three, Judge, of my brief which talks 7 about the document originating from the licensing 8 authority, that is not an issue in this case, because DOT's 9 document does purport to come from the State of New York, 10 Division of Motor Vehicles, so issue three would be moot. 11 THE COURT: And that's the discussion that 12 begins on page six of your brief. You are doing this 13 seriatim then? 14 15 16 MR. HERSHEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HERSHEY: Issue four, Your Honor, deals 17 with, and this is probably the single most important issue 18 in this case. Issue four, Your Honor 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: You haven't gotten to issue eight yet. MR. HERSHEY: Okay. All right. THE COURT: This is one of the several 23 important issues in this case. 24 MR. HERSHEY: I told Stu he would be asleep 25 by the time it is done. Judge, issue four is, and these 10 /00. o . 1 are cases that have evolved since our last appearance here 2 on the Compact. Issue four has to do with the fact that we 3 are dealing with a New York statute. The New York statute 4 is one of a handful of tier statutes, t-i-e-r, pertaining 5 to drinking and driving in the Northeastern United States. 6 And our Commonwealth Court in Olmstead, our Supreme Court 7 in Petrovick, and our Supreme Court in Shaw, all of these 8 cases are cited in the brief, have analyzed New York's DUI 9 statute, and have all conclusively established that the 10 provision, driving while ability impaired, is not 11 substantially similar to Article IV(a) (2) of our Driver's 12 License Compact. 13 There is no question that the highest 14 authority within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has 15 indicated that they are not substantially similar. The 16 only thing that is changed is now Petrovick has given us a 17 framework on how to analyze the issue of substantial 18 similarity. Petrovick says it is a two-part test. The 19 first issue is is there a Pennsylvania offense which is 20 substantially similar to the provisions of Article IV(a) (2) 21 of the Compact. 22 Secondly, the court then must determine 23 whether there is a New York offense which is of a 24 substantially similar nature of Article IV(a) (2). Both 25 have to be satisfied. That's the Petrovick analysis. 11 Jof. c - - ".' ' . _ .L ~. -~ o o 1 petrovick found in analyzing New York's DUI 2 statute is that there is another provision of New York's 3 DUI statute that is substantially similar. And that is the 4 driving while intoxicated provision, which is not the 5 indication in PennDOT's exhibit. In other words, PennDOT's 6 exhibit pertains to driving while impaired. And Petrovick 7 8 says -- THE COURT: Does it say driving while 9 impaired, or does it simply cite all of the potential 10 subdivisions of 1192? 11 12 13 impaired. 14 MR. HERSHEY: Driving while impaired. 15 THE COURT: I seem to vaguely remember from 16 my days out at Fort Drum, New York, that driving while 17 impaired was a lesser offense than driving under the 18 influence, but I don't know. MR. HERSHEY: Judge, my copy indicates THE COURT: Oh, it says driving while 19 20 21 22 MR. HERSHEY: In New York scheme it is, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HERSHEY: And that's one of the issues 23 that petrovick talks about. I attached the Barret case, 24 which we just pulled off the Internet, which talks about 25 the driving while intoxicated provision is substantially 12 ~~ "' I',:"" -,'" ~ '." J:; i e o 1 similar for purposes of the Compact, but the driving while 2 impaired is not. 3 The next obvious question, Judge, becomes 4 well, let me just back up a second. The Pennsylvania 5 Supreme Court in Shaw, which was a case that analyzed the 6 New York DUI statute for purposes of sentencing enhancement 7 on the criminal side, the Shaw court quotes petrovick in 8 contrasting the burden of proof with respect to the two 9 different state laws, Pennsylvania's 3731 and New York's 10 DWAI statute. Shaw says New York's DWAI statute casts a 11 wider net of criminal liability, making it criminal for 12 individuals to drink to the point of any impairment and 13 then to proceed to operate a motor vehicle, while 14 Pennsylvania's DUI offense only makes it criminal for 15 individuals to drink to the point of substantial impairment 16 and then proceed to operate a motor vehicle. 17 So the analysis now is you don't just look 18 at the title of the sister state offense. You look at how 19 its state courts are interpreting that offense. And Shaw 20 does that with respect to these two different statutes. 21 Having said all that, the other amendment 22 that the legislature made to the Compact was 1586. 1586 23 indicates, and now I am into the next section of the brief, 24 Judge, which is issue five and I am on page... 25 THE COURT: Ten. 13 /03, I' ,,-" '- ~, _-._~, .f-, "0~", . ~ .,.",.1;,,,<,;:, -,,), '."- 1 I I I ~ o c 1 MR. HERSHEY: Page ten. I am actually on 2 page thirteen for this issue. 1586 says in part the fact 3 that the offense reported to the Department by a party 4 state may require a different degree of impairment of a 5 person's ability to operate, drive or control a vehicle, 6 than that is required to support a conviction for a 7 violation of 3731, shall not be a basis for determining 8 that the party state's offense is not substantially similar 9 for purposes of Article IV of the Compact. 10 That has done a series of things, Your 11 Honor. It is our position that it is facially 12 contradictory with the pre-existing section of the Compact, 13 which is IV(a) (2), which talks about the standard for the 14 sister state offense. 15 THE COURT: Incidentally, but a very simple 16 matter, where would I find the Compact itself, where is 17 that in our body of law? 18 MR. HERSHEY: 1581, Your Honor, Title 75. 19 THE COURT: Of Title 75? 20 MR. HERSHEY: Yes. 21 THE COURT: That's the Compact itself? MR. HERSHEY: That is the Compact that Pennsylvania has adopted. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HERSHEY: There is a national Compact, 22 23 24 25 14 JD4-. I' < .~'" ,'~ ' I ',,-,~~ ,,-~ ",_;1 I o o 1 which I appended to the petition, to give the Court some 2 background on what the national document actually says. 3 THE COURT: And then the subsequent 4 sections, like 1586 and so forth are Pennsylvania 5 implementations -- 6 MR. HERSHEY: Exactly. 7 THE COURT: I just want to make sure I 8 understand the scheme. 9 MR. HERSHEY: Now, not only does 1586 10 facially contradict another provision of the Compact, it 11 has now caused what I think some Constitutional 12 ramifications -- and I actually have a case to back up my 13 argument, which is attached, which I will give to you in a 14 second. 15 To illustrate the problem with using 1586 in 16 this case, or applying 1586 in this case, an individual 17 under New York's driving law impaired statute can be 18 convicted solely of having a BAC of .049. If that 19 happened, DOT would still suspend even though that person 20 could absolutely not be convicted of our DUI statute in 21 Pennsylvania. 22 1586 also purportedly circumvents the 23 national Compact, which is attached as Exhibit B to the 24 petitioner's appeal, specifically at Article IV(I) (b) on 25 page three. So it contradicts the national Compact. It 15 /00- - - ,- . '~ 1,:- " o o 1 also contradicts Section 1581 Purdons, Title 75, Article 2 IV. 3 From a Constitutional standpoint, Judge, it 4 is our contention that this statute is overbroad because it 5 now punishes Constitutionally protected activity. And I 6 have cited the Barud case, which was our State Supreme 7 Court's analysis of our DUI law in terms of 8 constitutionality, specifically the issue of overbreadth 9 and void for vagueness. 10 Now, the Department historically argues that 11 these driver license suspension statutes are remedial as 12 opposed to being punitive. You will see in the Barud 13 analysis that they do the analysis on the basis that our 14 DUI law is a punitive statute. DOT, I believe, will take 15 16 the position that this is not a punitive statute. remedial, so the analysis is a little different. It is 17 Regardless of whether you find that it is 18 punitive or remedial, I think you will still find that the 19 statute is overbroad. If an adult consumes alcohol and 20 drives in New York, he can be convicted of DWAI even if he 21 is legally capable of safe driving. The other example is 22 an adult can be convicted of DWAI in New York with a .049 23 percent, but he couldn't be convicted in Pennsylvania. So 24 by that analysis, this 1586 is overbroad. 25 1586 is also void for vagueness, Judge, 16 /O(p, JI ,:,..1,-- " ';'-, o o 1 because if you just try to interpret 1586, the average 2 person is going to have difficulty in determining what 3 conduct is then prohibited in the sister state for purposes 4 of a driver license suspension. 1586 encourages arbitrary 5 and discriminatory enforcement by the Department. For 6 example, how do you address the issue of someone who is DUI 7 in New York on private property? How would you address the 8 issue of someone who commits a summary offense in the State 9 of New York of driving while drinking? How would you 10 address an offense of disorderly conduct in New York 11 involving a motor vehicle and alcohol? How would you 12 address the issue of a minor prohibited in New York from 13 consuming alcohol and driving? These are scenarios that 14 could be caught up in the net of 1586, but 1586 is not 15 tight enough to determine what's in and what's out in terms 16 of prohibitive conduct. So there is no guidelines to 17 insure that 1586 will not result in arbitrary and 18 discriminatory enforcement. 19 The other way to analyze 1586, Judge, is 20 simply, look, it inherently contradicts other provisions of 21 the existing law, how could it possibly be enforceable for 22 that reason. And that's essentially what the court said in 23 Martin versus DOT, which is attached, it is in the 24 appendix. This is out of pike County. It is a published 25 opinion. I don't know if it is in D&C yet. I just have 17 J() 7. ~ "'''. <, G . 1 the Pike County copy. That court said, and, again, this 2 coincidentally was also a New York DUI case. 3 The court said, look, while 1586 is not 4 vague or ambiguous in meaning, the court cannot ignore the 5 conflict it presents with the similarly clear terms of 75 6 Pa.C.S. Section 1581. And this case goes through the 7 analysis, as Petrovick did, in determining that New York's 8 DWAI law is not substantially similar to Article IV(a) (2) 9 of our compact in Pur dons , Section 1581. So the result of 10 this case was the petitioner's appeal was granted. I don't 11 know whether DOT has appealed this or not, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: When you say this, you mean the 13 pike County case? 14 15 MR. HERSHEY: The Pike County case. The next issue in the brief, Judge, is issue six. Issue six 16 through eight have been decided in favor of the Department 17 in the en bane decision of Correll, which I have cited in 18 the footnote on page seventeen. I am raising these only 19 because our Supreme Court has been sitting on this issue 20 for about a year. And I just don't know where they are 21 going to go with it. Issue six has to deal with the double 22 jeopardy issue where the motorist is essentially punished 23 twice for the same conduct. And I have cited the cases in 24 support of that argument. 25 Issue seven is the issue of whether 18 {Or. -~ .-, ,-.-' ;"1;.-""",,',:;:..--\ . . 1 petitioner's procedural due process has been violated 2 because a sanction is being imposed by DOT for conduct 3 occurring outside the territorial borders of Pennsylvania. 4 And the lead case on that issue is the Bighum case from 5 1973, which is cited on page twenty-one. 6 Issue eight on page twenty-three is whether 7 or not the compact in this case is unconstitutional where a 8 first time DUI defendant is sanctioned more harshly than if 9 their offense would have occurred in Pennsylvania. 10 THE COURT: And you say that issue is laid 11 to rest in Correll? I had an argument recently where I 12 thought I understood that question eight was still open, 13 but I don't know about the Correll case. 14 MR. HERSHEY: I just wrote again yesterday 15 that's my interpretation. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 MR. HERSHEY: I am just trying to make sure 18 that I am accurate on reporting this to the court. 19 THE COURT: It is no secret that I have had 20 a long-time concern with the proposition, and it just 21 strikes me as absurd, that a person can come into this 22 court on a first offense DUI and actually he qualifies for 23 Guardian Interlock and gets a one month suspension, and 24 because he happens to drive while impaired in Wyoming 25 County in the village of Warsaw, New York, it is a year. 19 101. ,< , - '", .....= - V_'" k ~ -~', ,,~~- - . o o 1 2 It baffles me, but anyway. will obviously follow it. If Correll puts that to rest, I I will read that with great 3 interest. 4 MR. HERSHEY: Issue nine, Your Honor, is the 5 issue of whether a full faith and credit clause has been 6 violated. NOw, this issue, I do not believe, has been 7 addressed or laid to rest in Correll. The issue is because 8 of the disparity between the two suspension schemes, New 9 York being ninety days, Pennsylvania being one year, is 10 this a violation of the full faith and credit clause of the 11 Federal Constitution because there are two different 12 results. And, again, the national Compact gives some 13 background on -- you know, what the federal document does 14 is they are trying to insure uniformity between the states 15 on these issues. And this action by DOT, I would submit, 16 does not promote uniformity. It makes things less uniform, 17 at least in terms of the way it is being administered. 18 Issue ten, Judge, has to do with whether our 19 legislature Gould suspend a portion of the Compact without 20 consent of tbe Compact administrators and continue to 21 enforce the Compact piecemeal. 22 Issue ten deals with the fact that the 23 Department is reporting out all violations in a motor 24 vehicle to compact member states. But the reciprocal is 25 not true. Other states are reporting in all violations, 20 110. " ~' --' "'.1 , ,- ~ " jJ ~1 CD o 1 but PennDOT is not assigning the minor violations like 2 speeding, careless driving, et cetera. 3 Issue eleven has to do with the Federal 4 Privacy Protection Act, which I had already mentioned. The 5 last issue, Judge, it is not in my brief, but just to make 6 sure that the record is clear, it is Issue U on page six of 7 the appeal. And that is the issue of whether or not the 8 United States Compact Clause has been violated. In 1958 9 the U.S. Congress authorized the states to enter into a 10 Compact for the purposes of promoting safe driving on their 11 highways. That Compact was appealed legislatively in 1966. 12 We didn't enact statutorily our Driver's License Compact in 13 Pennsylvania for thirty years, until 1996. The issue then 14 becomes -- because our Compact was enacted after the repeal 15 of the statute, is it then null and void because it was 16 enacted without congressional consent. 17 There is a Commonwealth Court opinion that 18 ruled in favor of DOT on that issue. I don't have the cite 19 off the top of my head. I just want to make sure the issue 20 is preserved in case our Supreme Court thinks differently, 21 which is why I mentioned that issue. 22 One other item, if I could mention it, on 23 page twelve of my brief, there is a question as to whether 24 Pennsylvania is entitled to alter the statutory Compact 25 without consent of the national Compact administrators. 21 j{/ . - l -- ~ - -; ,,- ~ ~ . - ~;I i I c o 1 There is a D&C case that just came out, Judge, called 2 PennDOT versus Longstretch. It is cited on page twelve of 3 my brief. 4 The Longstretch court had a problem because 5 they said in essence these interstate Compacts were 6 multi-state agreements made with congressional consent, 7 which arise when two or more states enact essentially 8 identical statutes governing an area of mutual state 9 concern that transcends state lines, drinking and driving 10 transcends state lines. 11 The problem is Longstretch recognized, as 12 our Supreme Court did in Sullivan, also cited in the brief, 13 that these functions simultaneously as contracts between 14 the states and as statutes within those states, must be 15 interpreted as both. Longstretch concluded that the 16 existing Compact does not allow a state to unilaterally 17 nullify, revoke or amend one of its provisions if the 18 Compact does not so otherwise provide. 19 Again, the reason I attached the national 20 Compact to the petition is so the court can see firsthand 21 that the national Compact does not contemplate anywhere 22 that a state may modify a provision. It is not stated that 23 that is a possibility anywhere. And our legislature has 24 chosen to do so. And at least in the Longstretch opinion, 25 one court has found that that is impermissible. Ann that 22 1IJ-. I . . 1 had to do with 1584, which was the reporting requirements 2 provision that we talked about earlier. 3 And with that, Your Honor, I will conclude 4 my remarks. Thank you. 5 THE COURT: Mr. Kabusk, would you want to 6 file a reply brief in this case? 7 MR. KABUSK: I would, Your Honor, please. 8 THE COURT: All right. Any oral argument 9 that you want to make today? 10 MR. KABUSK: I will make a very brief 11 argument, Your Honor. I would direct your attention to 12 Section 1516 of the Vehicle Code. And I am addressing the 13 admissibility argument. Section 1516 relates to 14 Department's records. And in the same act that added 1584 15 and 1586 language was added to 1516. And I will just read 16 it. 17 Court abstracts and certifications of 18 conviction and accident reports submitted to the Department 19 under the laws of this Commonwealth shall be considered as 20 records of the Department, and the Department may store 21 such documents in accordance with the provisions of 42 22 Pa.C.S. 6109 relating to photographic copies of business 23 and public records, and may enter into evidence such copies 24 in accordance with provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. 6103 relating 25 to proof of official documents. Such documents shall be 23 113, ,,,- ,- - , '<<"~_ " >,1::" , - =" ",~ "- ' -, ! o . 1 admissible into evidence to support the Department's case 2 in an appeal of a Department action taken under Chapter 13, 3 15, 16 and 17 of this title. And the certification shall 4 constitute prima facie proof of the facts and information 5 contained in the court abstract or certification of 6 conviction or accident report. 7 That coupled with Section 1550, relating to 8 documentation, which basically I will read that in the 9 proceeding under this section. Documents received by the 10 Department from the courts or administrative bodies of 11 other states or Federal Government shall be admissible into 12 evidence to support the Department's case. 13 In addition, the Department may treat such 14 documents received as documents of the Department and use 15 any methods of storage permitted under the provisions of 42 16 Pa.C.S. 6109, relating to photographic copies of business 17 and public records, and may reproduce such documents in 18 accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. 6103, relating 19 to proof of official records. 20 In addition, if the Department receives 21 information from courts or administrative bodies of other 22 states or the Federal Government by means of electronic 23 transmission, it may certify that it has received the 24 information by means of electronic transmission, and a 25 certification shall be prima facie proof of the 24 1/4- 2 ",~ .,F,';;." - i\ Ii If G ., 1 adjudication of facts contained in such electronic transmission. if ;j 3 So I would respectfully request that you 4 look at Section 1516 and 1550 regarding the admissibility 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 5 of the Department's documents. 6 Very briefly, regarding some of the other ): ~: 7 issues, the second issue generally I would consider to be 8 an Article III type of issue, the admissibility -- or the 1 ~; ;i 9 facts contained in the report. There was a line of cases ~; " , , , called Mazurek line of cases which basically held the Department to a very strict standard of what information I t: I [ I I I F , I , I I F I F I , F' has to be contained on the report. I would respectfully argue that that was overruled by the addition of 1584 to the Vehicle Code, which I would say reduced those reporting requirements. Act 151 added to 1584 -- added 1584 to the Vehicle Code, and it relates to furnishing information to 18 other states. The last sentence states the omission from 19 any report received by the Department from a party state of 20 any information required by Article III of the Compact 21 shall not excuse or prevent the Department from complying 22 with its duties under Article IV and V of the Compact. 23 As Mr. Hershey stated, there is a Harrington 24 case, which is a post 1584, which is on direct appeal to 25 the Supreme Court. And we are still waiting upon that. 25 Il(), ~' I. ~,-. 0 "". ~';;',: 0 ",,- ;;,/ ,'b..;;,~~",,~_ '. .'" o 1 Issue number four is the substantially 2 similar argument. 1586 I would argue applies in this. And 3 that was added by Act, 151. And the last sentence of 1586 4 states the fact that the offense reported to the Department 5 by a party state may require a different degree of 6 impairment of a person's ability to operate, drive or 7 control vehicle, then that requires to support a conviction 8 for a violation of Section 3731, shall not be a basis for 9 determining that the party's state offense is not 10 substantially similar to Section 3731 for purposes of 11 Article IV of the Compact. 12 Mr. Hershey brought up the petrovick case. 13 That did not apply Section 1586. In this case the 14 petitioner was convicted after Act 151. And, therefore, 15 the amendments would apply. 16 Regarding the fifth issue, the 17 constitutionality, Mr. Hershey is correct, the Department's 18 arguing, these are civil. They are remedial, and the 19 legislation is rationally related to the Commonwealth's 20 interests protecting its highways from drunk drivers. 21 Issue six through eight, the Correll 22 decision has addressed that. The equal protection issue 23 has been addressed by Pepperling, Correll and Kiebort, and, 24 Your Honor, you also address that in a previous case that 25 we had several years ago. Just as an aside, your comment 26 JIlt,. , .,. . ., ..T. ,", c' 0 i 'I . , . o o , 1 during Mr. Hershey's argument regarding another case before 2 you dealt with a slightly different issue rather than the 3 strict application of ARD for the first time -- if I am 4 recalling the case correctly. 5 I would respectfully ask that I could submit 6 a brief. 7 THE COURT: How much time did you want? 8 MR. KABUSK: If you could give me thirty 9 days, I would appreciate that. 10 THE COURT: All right. We will give the 11 Commonwealth thirty days within which to file a brief. 12 Anything else? 13 MR. HERSHEY: Can we go off the record for a 14 moment, Your Honor? 15 THE COURT: Yes, certainly. 16 (End of proceedings) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 If? , - - - ,J_,_' . c. o CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the abovecause and that this is a correct transcript of same. ~g~d.k~ Barbara E. Graham Official Stenographer The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. HcJf 1'1 tA"" Date J. District 28 /Ir. c"_': " . ~~ - , - ~ = ~~ -I- . _< "".'." > o o .- DARRY SINGLETON, Petitioner v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-366 CIVil LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL 1, Whether the trial court erred in admitting the Department of Transportation's exhibit insofar as DOT's exhibit was not certified as required by ~1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code and where the legislature did not amend ~1532(b)(3) when it amended ~1550(b) pertaining to the admissibility of out-of-state records generally, 2, Whether the Department of Transportation's exhibit and proposed suspension violates Article III of the Driver License Compact and the Driver License Compact Administrative Procedures Manual as the exhibit does not contain all of the required information pertaining to the driver identity, alleged violation, and alleged conviction. 3, Whether ~1584 of the Vehicle Code is unconstitutional in violation of Appellant's due process rights and illegal because it contradicts the Driver License Compact's statutory reporting requirements in Article III, 75 Pa,C,SA ~1581, and is illegal because it constitutes an impermissible attempt by the Legislature to unilaterally modify the Compact. 4. Whether Appellant's alleged New York State conviction of DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired), NY Veh, & Traf. Law, ~1192(1), is substantially similar to Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver License Compact, 5, Whether ~1586 of the Vehicle Code is illegal because it inherently contradicts Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver License Compact and the two provisions cannot be read in pari materia. See 75 Pa.C.SA ~1581, Article IV(a)(2). 6. Whether ~1586 of the Vehicle Code is illegal because it constitutes a unilateral amendment to the Driver License Compact without the consent of the Federal Compact Administrators and; therefore, is null and void under principles of colitract as articulated by our Supreme Court in Sullivan v, DOT, 550 Pa. 639, 708 A.2d 481 (1999) and Article VIII(1) of the Administrative Procedures Manual of 1990 for the Driver License Compact. lit/. ,~ ~~-.~ " .- ""Je, ~ o 7. Whether ~1586 of the Vehicle Code violates Appellant's procedural and substantive due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, ~~1 ,9, & 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because ~1586 fails to give adequate notice as to the type of conduct occurring in a member state which would trigger the provisions of Article IV of the Driver License Compact and is subject to discriminatory enforcement and is vague and overbroad, 8, Whether the Driver License Compact, as applied to Appellant, is unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment ofthe Federal Constitution and Article I, ~1 0 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because it violates Appellant's right to be free from double jeopardy insofar as Appellant has been punished twice for the same offense. 9. Whether the Driver License Compact violates Appellant's substantiative and procedural due process rights under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article I, ~11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Article IV of the Compact for imposing a sanction for conduct occurring outside the territorial borders of Pennsylvania, 10. Whether the Driver License Compact violates Appellant's equal protection rights under the Federal and Pennsylvania Consmutions when a first time DUI defendant is sanctioned more harshly if their offense occurs outside of Pennsylvania than in Pennsylvania under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article I, ~1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.. 11, Whether the Department's action violates the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution and Article IV(a) of the Compact in that the Department of Transportation has mandated a one year suspension under ~1532 of, the Vehicle Code when New York imposes a 90-day suspension of operating privileges. 12. Whether the Department's exhibit should have been admitted by the trial court insofar as the exhibit violates Appellant's rights under the United States Constitution's full faith and credit clause as applied to Appellant through the Pennsylvania Constitution when the Federal Driver Privacy Protection Act of 1994, as amended, 18 USCS ~2721, et sea. prohibits the disclosure of personal information in motor vehicle records and the information contained in the Department's exhibit qualifies as personal information under federal law. 13. Whether enforcement of the Drivers License Compact violates Appellant's rights because Article IV(b) has been suspended only in Pennsylvania so the Compact is not being uniformly enforced in violation of the contractual provisions of the Compact and in violation of Appellant's equal protection rights under the 14'" Amendment of the Federal Constitution, Article I, ~1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the New York Constitution. This appeal is based upon the denial of Appellant's appeal of the Department's proposed one year suspension of his operating privileges for an alleged equivalent offense to Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver License Compact occurring in the State of New York. A supersedeas has been granted by the trial court pending the outcome of all state court appeals. The relief requested is for this court to reverse the trial court's decision to admit the Department's exhibit or on the basis of the additional issues raised and order the Department to rescind the proposed one year suspension. 2 fJ.o, " o Date: 08/22/00 " , C) Respectfully submitted, " . " - ~8~ hey, Esquire ID# 43092 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/234-7051 3 jd,J ,"",~ ., _I" .." '~, o o .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tammy L Kelly, an employee of the law firm of Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document to the attorneys or parties of record in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depo~t~M copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the day of August, 2000, " i Harold Cramer, Esquire George Kabusk, Esquire PA Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 BY'~ -h ~ ' Tammy L Kel Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully 4 /Jdv -,.- b:; <i.... ij~~ CI: ',.-~ ,- .' ,-"'.-"" ~_.' .~ 1'-- ;:5 '-"I ?: -'-'" /- :::J<( (")~ o-)z 1-- <( cJ:::J ~~l~ :.UuJ ''"l-~ " ~~..- "'5 (.J ?'''~ ~"J: e"') ("'...I (!:; <i%::! C) Cj WE 0_0 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN IS A TRUE AND COR- RECT COpy OF THE ORIGINAL FILED IN THIS ACTION BY ATTORNEY , lfi"t",,_, V "'-., I, } ''''"'' r^'\ ' , -"LA\i\.iOFFICES " . '!1'.-..\(\ '-MANCKE, WAGNER, HERSHEY & TULL"'; .- ci>- W ..J t; 0 Z ..J ~- C):l.... [fi <( ~ ~ ... ~ S o(j ~ ~ ~ w' ~ ~ ~ ~ :.:: I 0 ill u U) ~ oc Za:~~ <( W N:C ~I '" YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE 'TO THE ""'COOED ~m 'W~';: W I'~1~:':Ecm MAYBE ENTEREDABAINSTYOU '" ATTORNEY ,-,."",',[. , ~ e (""\, "~' .~-..;",'--c-..,,",,,---,,L-~""~""'t,,,-,,,_ ,- _-'--,_L""""~'~'--""""-"-"',;,2","-,-'::.Jilli""".:!d_--",",-'_"'-'--_ "_.~_"-2_"""",_,,",,-,,,,<<~,';-," o ... ,.-.i, i~,) . JJ..3, ,- ~, "-.-- , - J ~. -. ~-lJ.t DL-326 (9/95) CERTIFICATION DATE; February 1, 2000 I hereby certify that Rebecca L. Bickley, Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, is the legal custodian of the Driver License records,of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. As the Director of the aforesaid Bureau, she has legal custody of the original or microfilm records which are reproduced in the attached certification. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS DEPARTMENT THE DAY AND YEAR AFORESAID. " 1--- BRADLEY L M LLORY, SECRETARY 0 TRANSPORTATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING AND ANNEXED IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT CERTIFIED PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF: 1) Official Notice of suspension dated & mailed 12/28/99, effective 02/01/2000; 2) Record of Conviction Detail, Out of State Driver Violations Report received from the licensing authority of the State of NEW YORK, operating under the influence of liquor or drugs, date of violation 10/16/99, and date of conviction 11/01/99, and 3) Driving Record, which appears in the file of the defendant DARRY L. SINGLETON, operator's no. 22606291, date of birth 01/27/72, in the Bureau of Driver Licensing, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. CERTIFIED TO as prescribed by Sections 6103 and 6109 of the Judicial Code, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. 996103 and 6109. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR AFORESAID. cg~~. SEAL REBECCA L BICKLEY, DIRE R BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING COMMONWEALTH'S E~rr I ;: ~= "' , . COMMONWI Al Iff ur PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAl/ON Buroau of Drlvor llconslnu Harrisburg, PA 17123 DECEMBER 28, 1999 DARRY L SINGLETON 815 FAIRFIELD ST 993SSb10~~4S1a5 001 12/21/199'1 226062'11 01/27/1'172 MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 Ooar Motorist: Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to treat certain. out of state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania. Therefore, as a result of the Department receiving notification from NEW YORK of your conviction on 11/01/1999 of an offense which occurred on 10/16/1999, which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pa. Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE, your driving privilege is being SUSPENDED for a period of 1 YEARCS), as mandated by Section 15328 of the Vehicle Code. The effective date of suspension is 02/01/2000, 12:01 8.m. In order to comply with this sanction yoU are required to return any current driver's license, learner's permit and/or temporary driver's license (camera card) in your possession no later than the effective date listed. If you cannot comply with the requirements stated above, YOU are required to submit a DL16LC Form or a sworn affidavit stating that YOU are aware of the sanction against your driving privi- lege. Failure to comply with this notice shall result in this Bureau referring this matter to the Pennsylvania State Police for prosecution under SECTION 1571(a)(4) of the Ve- hicle Code. Although the law mandates that your driving privilege is under suspension even if YOll do not surrender your license, Credit will not begin l..ltil all current driver's license product(s), the DL16LC Form, or a letter acknowledging your sanction is received in this Bureau. WHE:N THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES YOUR LICENSE DR ACKNOWLEDGE- MENT, WE WILL SEND YOU A RECEIPT. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS RECEIPT WITHIN IS DAYS CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY. OTHERWISE. YOU WILL NOT BE GIVEN CREDIT TQWARD SERVING THIS SANCTION. ~\ L "" ..: -,~--I ,.-- .. 9 q., r) I, 6 I 0 I (' (f~) 1 HI) Please see the cncln.cd AppllcatJon for restorntJon fee In- formation. You W t 11 b" fl" t I f I" II " r "'IV "u t 5 t "fl d J flll r " , t "r " tJ 0 n Quirements approximately 30 days before the eligibility of the restoration of your driving privilege. Vou follow those instructions very carefully in order to your driving privilege restored. rD- date must have l,PPEAL Vou have the right to appeal this action to the Court of Common Ple,)s (Civil Division) within 30 days of the mail date of this letter. DECEMBER 28. 1999. I~ you ~ile an ap- peal in the County Court, the Court will give you a time- stamped certi~ied copy o~ the appeal. Send this time-stamped certified copy of the appeal by certified mail to: PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL THIRD FLOOR, RIVERFRONT OFFICE CENTER HARRISBURG, PA. 17104-2516 Sincerely, ~~,~ Rebecca L. Bickley, Director Bureau of Driver licensing SEND FEE/lICENSE/DL-16lC/TO: Department of Transportation Bureau of Driver licensing P.O. Box 68693 Harrisburg. PA 17106-8693 INFORMATION (7:00 IN STATE OUT-OF-STATE TOO IN STATE TDD OUT-Of-STATE AM TO 9:00 PM) 1-800-932-4600 717-391-6190 1-800-228-0676 717-391-6191 , ,""-- - . ~ -, . . /' STATE OF NEW YORK qcr7<=:<=-: 1'. -1 r-'-~ DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR"VER1CLES~'.c ~=Lt:;"'.1.S5 RICHARD E. JACKSON, JR. Commissioner EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY NY 12228 BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES 1101 SOUTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17104-2516 11/15/1999 THE FOLLOWING 4 OUT-OF-STATE DRIVERS, CONVICTED IN NEW YORK, ARE BEING PROVIDED PER THE DRIVER LICENSE COMPACT AGREEMENT. SINGLETON,DARRY,L 815 FAIRFIELD ST MECHANICSBURG PA ZIP, 17055 VIOL DATE, 10/16/99 CONV DATE, 11/01/99 ACD CODE, A25 ANSI CODE: DI6 VIOLATION: DRVG WHILE IMPAIRED COURT: WYOMING COUNTY, VILLAGE OF WARSAW BATCH: 9110800140 COMMERCIAL VEH, UNKNOWN HAZ. MATERIALS: UNKNOWN TICKET NUMBER: LH6366614 ******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************** SIMRELL,MICHAEL,J DOB: 01/04/77 GENDER: M MI, 24305733 737 MOOSIC ST SCRANTON PA ZIP: 18505 VIOL DATE, 08/30/99 CONV DATE, 09/30/99 ACD CODE: S93 ANSI CODE: SP3 VIOLATION: SPEED IN ZONE ACTUAL SPEED: 075 SPEED LIMIT: 065 COURT, BROOME COUNTY, TOWN OF CHENANGO BATCH: 9110900130 COMMERCIAL VEH, UNKNOWN HAZ. MATERIALS: UNKNOWN TICKET NUMBER: LC9773573 ******************************************************************************** 2-- 'Z-- ? t1 { Z- f I DOB: 01/27/72 GENDER, M MI: 211608909 SISCO ,MARK ,A DOB: 10/28/55 GENDER: M MI,.16571080 5541 FIELDMILLER DR COCHRANTON PA ZIP, 16314 VIOL DATE: 09/14/99 CONV DATE: 09/28/99 ACD CODE. S93 ANSI CODE. SP2 VIOLATION, SPEEDING ACTUAL SPEED: 076 SPEED LIMIT. 055 COURT, TIOGA COUNTY, TOWN OF NICHOLS BATCH: 9111200130 COMMERCIAL VEH. UNKNOWN HAZ. MATERIALS: UNKNOWN TICKET NUMBER. LC9578936 ******************************************************************************** SMITH, BARBARA, D DOB, 03/21/28 GENDER: F MI. 062998888 201 SEWICKLEY RIDGE SEWICKLEY PA ZIP: 15143 VIOL DATE, 09/20/99 CONV DATE: 10/13/99 ACD CODE: S93 ANSI CODE: SP3 VIOLATION: SPEED IN ZONE ACTUAL SPEED. 064 SPEED LIMIT, 045 , COURT, CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY, TOWN OF PORTLAND BATCH: 9111000730 COMMERCIAL VEH, UNKNOWN HAZ. MATERIALS: UNKNOWN TICKET NUMBER: LF2095332 ******************************************************************************** 'tt'd-- , --.- " , . In '~< PAGE 1 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY JAN 27 2000 DRIVER: DARRY L SINGLETON 815 FAIRFIELD ST MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 DRIVER LICENSE (DL) ------------------------------- LICENSE CLASS : LICENSE ISSUE DATE: LICENSE EXPIRES : ORIG ISSUE DATE : MED RESTRICTIONS LEARNER PERMITS LICENSE STATUS C NOV 24 JAN 31 APR 13 NONE 1999 2004 1988 : PEND SUSPEND DRIVER LICENSE NO DATE OF BIRTH SEX RECORD TYPE : 22606291 JAN 27 1972 MALE REG LICENSE COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE (CDL) --------------------------------- CDL LICENSE CLASS CDL LICENSE ISSUED CDL LIC~NSE EXPIRES : CDL ENOORSEMENTS : NONE COL RE$T~~CTIONS NONE CDLLEARNE:J:fPERMITS : CDL LICE~S:ES':I.'ATUS PEND SUSPEND SB ENDbRS:E~NT . . PROBATION~~ LICENSE (PL) --------------------------------- PL LICENSE, .PL LICENSEJ, .~L LICENSe .'PL LICENS!!f :"':, " :~"'r PL LICENSE; : *** CONTINUED *** tfj >~ ~ '" - I,,, .,. ""'" , ~ ~ PAGE 2 CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - JAN 27 2000 - LICENSE NUMBER 22606291 CONTINUED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPORT OF VIOLATIONS AND DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: CONVICTION DATE: ACTION: VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: CONVICTION DATE: ACTION: VIOLATION DATE: VIOLATION: DESCRIPTION: CONVICTION DATE: ACTION: MAY 03 1994 VEHICLE CODE: 3323B STOP SIGN VIOLATION MAY 18 1994 ASSIGNED POINTS APR 04 19~8 ~~ VEHICIi~COB~: ~~ 3362 EXCEEE!'ING',MAXIMUM SPEED 07 5 MPH 11IlA 055 MPH tbNE APR 13 :J.~99i13c' ~ ~ ASSIQNE])P01NTS OCTl6'~1999 ,~, ~~~~~~~~~ ~ VEHi~:L.liJ((it;:ODE: 373i..~())Ir'VIOLATION DRIVI'N~i,~DER INFEtlE1Iie~ ~ :~~P~~~~~lIC C~~~~'J)..ljr~ii'" lYEAR(iSI EE'FECTIVE FEB 01 2000 OFE'~ICIAt..E~OTIQE<~:ifi~EJ:j..I)~!i;1~131999 ,~~ ~ ~ .,' > ',C .' ,-;~-:",-, " " ,'." . .", ,,' . "-- '.-- , ~ .- ," ----------------------~--~------------------------~--~---~---------------------- NO MEDICALS OR DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD *** CONTINUED *** . -.~" ~ ,~ " " "J --~, _ ,_~. ,""- " ." ~,' PAGE 3 CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - JAN 27 2000 - LICENSE NUMBER 22606291 CONTINUED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPORT OF ACCIDENTS AND DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO ACCIDENTS DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD *** END OF RECORD *** _.~ ~ "^ jJ. _,,," '"; . PAGE 4 CERTIFIED DRIVING HISTORY - JAN 27 2000 - LICENSE NUMBER 22606291 CONTINUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST, I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE CAUSED A SEARCH TO BE MADE OF THE FILES OF THE DEPART- MENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HAVE SET FORTH ABOVE AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF ALL RECORDS IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON INDICATED. SINCERELY, SEAL .~~,~ DI~EtTOR,BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING . ..... FOR .' SECREWARY OF TRANS~ORTATION COMMONWEALTH.'.OF PENNSYLVANIA!i.S: - ',< Y--,?,~S~:: ~ I HEREBY CEI~W;~ BUREAU OF D~' OF TRANSPOR~ LICENSING R~ THE DIRECT9R' '. OF THE OM:@IN OF THE AB<:)V'E' QATEI:~AN 27 2000 TOR OF THE DEPARTMENT :IVER ION. AS ..CUSTODY cllE uSOBJECT ~--,-:';':?;>--;:;--- , : IN TESTIMONY WHEREeF.. I HAVE HEREUNTO SE~M.YHAND AND SEAL OF THIS DEPARTMENT THE DAY AND YEAR AFORES~ID. . SINCERELY. ~ SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION SEAL ~ . . ~"fi COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL VEHICLE & TRAFFIC LAW DMSION RNERFRONT OFFICE CENTER-THIRD FLOOR 1101 SOUTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PENNSYL VANIA 17104-2516 TELEPHONE: (717) 787-2830 FAX: (717) 705-1122 May 5, 2000 Judge Kevin A. Hess Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, P A 17013-3387 Re: Darry Singleton v. Commw. ofPa., DOT, BDL, 2000-366, Cumberland County, License Suspension Appeal Dear Judge Hess: Please accept this letter as the Department's brief in the above captioned case. The Department notified Darry L. Singleton, O.L.N. 22606291, by notice dated and mailed December 28, 1999, that Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to treat certain out-of- state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania, and therefore, as a result of the Department receiving notification from New York of his conviction on November 1, 1999, of an offense which occurred on October 16,1999, which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, Driving Under Influence, his driving privilege was being suspended for a period of one year as mandated by Section l532B of the Vehicle Code. From that notice of suspension, the petitioner filed the above-mentioned appeal in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. A hearing in the above mentioned matter was held on April 7, 2000. The petitioner submitted the Petitioner's Trial Brief at the conclusion of the hearing. The Court allowed the Department thirty days to submit a brief. The Department's action involves the Driver's License Compact. The Driver's License Compact (Compact) was enacted into law by Act 149 of 1996 and is found at Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code.l Article ill of the Compact provides, in part, that the "licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party occurring within its 1. In Sullivan v, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 550 Pa. 639, 708 A,2d 481 (1998) the Court held that the Driver's License Compact had not been enacted so as to render it effective. The Compact was enacted by Act 149 of 1996, December 10, 1996. ' ~ ,. ~i jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee." Article N of the Compact provides, in part, as follows: . (a) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for: * * * (2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxication liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle; * * * (b) If the laws of a party state do not provide for the offenses or violations denominated or described in precisely the words employed in subdivision (a) of this article, such party state shall construe the denominations and descriptions appearing in subdivision (a) of this article as being applicable to and identifying those offenses or violations of a substantially similar nature and the laws of such party state shall contain such provisions as may be necessary to ensure that full force and effect is given to this article. 75 Pa. CoSo 1581. The Department's action was based upon a report of conviction received by the Department from the State of New York indicating that the petitioner had been convicted of Driving While Impaired, date of violation October 16, 1999, date of conviction November I, 1999. See Department's exhibit No.1. The petitioner raised numerous issues, including issues related to Articles III and N of the Compact. The undersigned directs the Court's attention to Gnazzo v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Cumberland County, 97-5408, wherein many of the same issues were addressed by this Court. 1. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT'S DOCUMENTS The petitioner argues that the Department may not act upon the report received from New York because Section 1532 of the Vehicle Code,requires the Department to receive a certified report. Other sections of the Vehicle Code and the Judicial Code provide for the admissibility of the Department's documents. The Department's documents were under seal and certification. Sections 61032 and 2. Section 6103 of the Judicial Code states: 6103. Proof of official records. (a) General rule. An official record kept within this Commonwealth by any court, district justice or other 2 _I -..-----'.~''-'!li- 61043 of the Judicial Code provide that such documents are admissible. Additionally, Sections 15164 and 15505 of the Vehicle Code provide that the Department's documents are admissible government unit, or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties with respect to the governmental unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of his office, or if there is no such officer, by: (I) The Department of State, in the case of any Commonwealth agency. (2) The clerk of the court of the common pleas of the judicial district embracing any county in which the government unit has jurisdiction, in the case of any government unit other than a Commonwealth agency, (b) Lack of record. A written statement that after an examination of the records of the government unit no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records designated by the statement, authenticated as provided in subsection (a), is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such records or entry. 42 Pa. C.S, ~ 6103. 3. Section 6104 of the Judicial Code states: 6104. Effect of official records generally (a) General rule, A copy of a record of governmental action or inaction authenticated as provided in section 6103 (relating to proof of official records) shall be admissible as evidence that the governmental action or inaction disclosed therein was in fact taken or omitted, (b) Existence of fact. A copy of a record authenticated as provided in Section 6103 disclosing the existence or nonexistence of facts which have been recorded pursuant to an official duty or would have been so recorded had the facts existed shall be admissible as evidence of the existence or nonexistence of such facts, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. 42 Pa. C.S. ~ 6104, 4. Section 1516(b) of the Vehicle Code states: 1516. Department records (b) Accidents and convictions. The department shall file all accident reports and abstracts of court . records of convictions received by it under the laws of this Commonwealth and maintain actual or facsimile records or make suitable notations in order that the records of each licensee showing convictions of the licensee, any departmental action initiated against the licensee regarding a reportable accident in which the licensee was involved, and the traffic accidents shall be available for official use. Court abstracts and certifications of conviction and accident reports submitted to the department under the laws of this Commonwealth shall be considered as records of the department and the department may store such docwnents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa. CoSo ~ 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records) and may enter into evidence copies of such docwnents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa, C.S. ~ 6103 (relating to proof of official records). Such cooies shall be admissible into evidence to sunnort the denartment's case in an anneal of a denartment action taken under Chanter 13 (relating to registration of vehicles). 15 (relating to licensing of drivers). 16 (relating to commercial drivers) or 17 (relating to financial resoonsibilitvl of this title. and the certification shall constitute vrima facie oroof of the facts and infonnation contained in the court abstract or certification of conviction or accident renort. These records shall also be made available to the courts for sentencing purposes. 75 Pa. CoSo ~ 1516(b). (Emphasis added). 5. Section 1550(d) of the Vehicle Code states: 1550. Judicial Review. . . . (d) Docwnentation. (I) In any proceeding under this section, docwnents received by the department from the courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government shall be admissible into evidence 3 ~........... , ~~ - _...._~~I - . -~'"I~.Ji- and constitute prima facie proof of the facts and infol1I1ation contained in the certification. Based on those sections, the documents are admissible. 2. ARTICLE III REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The petitioner argues that the report received from New York does not contain the required infol1I1ation by which the Department can act upon pursuant to the Driver's License Compact. Article III of the Compact6 issues generally relate to the reporting requirements. In Mazurek v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 717 A.2d 23 (pa. Cmwlth. 1998), the court held that in order for the Department to act upon a report of conviction, Article III of Compact requires the report of conviction to contain all the infol1I1ation as required by Article III of the Compact. 7 The court had overturned a suspension when the report failed to to support the department's case, In addition, the department may treat the received documents as documents of the department and use any of the methods of storage permitted under the provisions of 42 Pa. C.S, ~ 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records) and may reproduce such documents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa. C,S. ~ 6103 (relating to proof of official records). In addition, if the department receives information from courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government by means of electronic transmission, it may certify that it has received the information by means of electronic transmission and that certification shall be prima facie proof of the adjudication and facts contained in such an electronic transmission. (2) In any proceeding under this section, documents received by the department from any other court or from an insurance company shall be admissible into evidence to support the department's case, In addition, if the department receives information from a court by means of electronic transmission or from an insurance company which is complying with its obligation under subchapter H of Chapter 17 (relating to proof of financial responsibility) by means of electronic transmission, it may certify that it has received the information by means of electronic transmission, and that certification shall be prima facie proof of the adjudication and facts contained in such an electronic transmission. 75 Pa. C,S. ~ 1550(d). (Emphasis added). 6. Article III of the Compact states: 1581. Driver's License Compact . . . Article III, Report of Conviction The licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee. Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated, identify the court in which action was taken, indicated whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith. 75 Pa. C.S. ~ 1581. 7. In Mazurek the court held that the report of conviction must contain: (I) the identity of the person convicted, (2) a description of the violation including the section of the statute, code, or ordinance violated, (3) the identity of the court in which the person was convicted, and (4) an indication of the plea or whether the conviction resulted from a forfeiture of security. 4 .- " . "'" I.~ - '~~2" contain all the elements under Article III of the Compact. See also McCann v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 728 A.2d 1009 (Fa. Cmwlth. 1999). Additionally the court overturned a suspension where the court found that the report did not comply with Article Ill. See Boots v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 736 A.2d 64 (Fa. Cmwlth. 1999) (Department's certification did not indicate that report was received from the "licensing authority. "). The Department respectfully submits that the General Assembly disagreed with the strict construction of the Compact espoused by the Commonwealth Court in Mazurek. By amending Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code, the General Assembly provided its own interpretation of how Article III and IV of the Compact should be construed. In 1998, by Act 151 of 1998, Section 1584 was added to the Vehicle Code. Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code states: 1584. Furnishing of information to other states: The Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth shall furnish to the appropriate authorities of any other party state any information or documents reasonably necessary to facilitate the administration of Articles Ill, IV and V of the compact. The omission from anv report received bv the department from a party state of anv information required bv Article III of the compact shall not excuse or prevent the department from complying with its duties under Articles IV and V of the compact. 75 Pa. CoSo ~ 1584. (Emphasis added). Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to comply with its duties under Article IV of the Compact when the Department receives a report of conviction. The Department may suspend based upon a report of conviction even if does not comport with Article III in its entirety. Additionally, elsewhere in his brief, the petitioner cited the Longstreth case. In Longstreth, Judge Fomelli found that because Section 1532(b)(3) does not specifically reference Section 1584, Section 1584 was inapplicable. Commonwealth v. Longstreth, (No. 1999-821, Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, filed October 28, 1999). It respectfully is submitted that Judge Fomelli has construed the amendment to Section 1584 much too narrowly. The General Assembly clearly intended to "overrule" the Mazurek line of cases when it enacted the amendment to the Vehicle Code at Section 1584. The same legislation that amended Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code in 1998 also added the language in Section 1532 regarding suspending for out-of-state driving under the influence offenses. See Act of December 21,1998, PoL. 1126, No. 151 (Act 1998-151). Reading 75 Pa. CoSo ~~ 1532(b)(3)8, 1581 and 1584, in pari materia, it is clear that the General Assembly intended to require the Department to perform its duties in suspending a Mazurek v, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 717 A.2d 23 (pa. Cmw1th. 1998). 8, Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code states: 5 " - ~, ~t: ., . driver's operating privilege under Section l532(b)(3) whenever an out-of-state report was received by the Department pursuant to Article ill, even if the report contained minor omissions. 3. REPORT MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE LICENSING AUTHORITY The petitioner abandoned this issue at the hearing. 4. ARTICLE IV SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR Article IV of the Compact9 issues generally relate to the whether the reporting state's Dill 1532. Suspension of operating privilege. . . . (b) Suspension. . . . (3) The department shall suspend the operating privilege of any driver for 12 months upon receiving a certified record of the driver's conviction to section 3731 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) or 3733 (relating to fleeing or attempting to elude police officer), or substantially similar offenses reported to the department under Article III of section 1581 (relating to Driver's License Compact), or an adjudication of delinquency based on section 3731 or 3733, The department shall suspend the operating privilege of any driver for six months upon receiving a certified record of a consent decree granted under 42 Pa. C.S, Ch. 63 (relating to juvenile matters) based on section 3731 or 3733. ' 75 Pa. e.S. ~ 1532(b)(3). 9, Article IV of the Compact states: 1581. Driver's License Compact . . . Article IV, Effect of Conviction (a) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitation of the license to operated a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for: (\) manslaughter or negligent homicide resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle; (2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxication liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle; (3) any felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used; or (4) failure to stop and render aid in the event ofa motor vehicle accident resulting in the death or personal injury to another. (b) As to other convictions, reported pursuant to Article III, the licensing authority in the home state shaH give such effect to the conduct as is provided by the laws of the home state. (c) If the laws of a state do not provide for offenses or violations denominated or described in precisely the words employed in subdivision (a) of this article, such party state shall construe the denominations and descriptions appearing in subdivision (a) ofthis article as being substantially similar nature and the laws of such party state shall contain such provisions as may be necessary to ensure that full force and effect is given to this article. 75 Pa. CoSo ~ 1581. (Note: Pursuant to Section 10 of Act 149, that in recognition of the technical and 6 - . m>I"~'r ~~" statute is substantially similar to Pennsylvania's DUI statute. The Department's records indicate that the petitioner was convicted on November 1, 1999, ofa violation on October 16, 1999, ofa violation of Driving While Impaired. See Department's exhibit No.1. The petitioner argued that New York's Driving While ImpairedlO was not substantially similar to Pennsylvania's DUI statute. In Olmstead the Court held that the New York Driving While Ability Impaired, DW AI, is not substantially similar to Pennsylvania's DUI for purposes of the Driver's License Compact. Olmstead v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 677 A.2d 1285 (pa. Cmwlth. 1996), affirmed, 550 Pa. 578,707 A.2d 1144 (1998). Additionally, the Supreme Court held that a conviction of a New York DW AI was not substantially similar to the Pennsylvania DUI statute nor to Article N( a)(2). Petrovick v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 741 A.2d 1264 (pa. 1999).11 The Department respectfully submits that the General Assembly disagreed with the strict construction of the Compact espoused by the Courts in such cases as Olmstead and Petrovick. By amending Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code, the General Assembly provided its own interpretation of how Article III and N of the Compact should be construed. Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code was added by Act 151. Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code states: 1586. Duties of department The department shall, for purposes of imposing a suspension or revocation under Article N of the compact, treat reports of convictions received from party states administrative limitations under which the Department is currently operating, the effective date of Section 1581, Article IV(b) shall be suspended until the repeal of Section 10 of Act 149, 10. New York's statute is divided into three parts, defming various offenses, NY Veh. ~ Traf, Law ~~ 1192(1)-(3), provides: 1192. Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, L Driving while ability impaired. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol. 2. Driving while intoxicated; per se. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has.lO or one percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood as shbwn by chemical analysis of such person's blood, breath, urine or saliva, made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of this article. 3. Driving while intoxicated. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. II, The Supreme Court in Petrovick stated that 'the Compact does not call for a direct comparison of Pennsylvania's Dill statute with the party state's statute, but a comparison of the two states statutes to the Compact. The Supreme Court set forth a two-prong test for the substantially similar analysis. The first prong is to determine whether there is a Pennsylvania offense that is of a substantially similar nature to Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact. The Court in Petrovick determined that Pennsylvania's Dill statute is ofa substantially similar nature to Article IV(a)(2), The second prong is to determine whether the out-of-state offense is of a substantially similar nature to Article IV(a)(2). Both prongs must be. satisfied before the Department can sanction a Pennsylvania driver for an out-of-state conviction. In the second prong of the test, the court in Petrovick looked to the party state's statute and how that statute has been construed by the courts in the party state, The Court in Petovick recognized the existence of the newly enacted Section 1586 but did not apply Section 1586 to Petrovick. In this matter, the petitioner's conviction occurred after the effective date of Section 1586. 7 I __~ ow ~-,~, that related to driving, operating or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired by or under the influence of alcohol, intoxication liquor, drugs, narcotics, controlled substances or other impairing intoxication substance as being substantially similar to section 3831 (relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance). The fact that the offense reported to the department bv a party state mav required a different degree of impairment of a person's ability to operate. drive or control a vehicle than that required to support a conviction for a violation of section 3731 shall not be a basis for determining that the party state's offense is not substantiallv similar to section 3731 for purposes of Article N of the compact. 75 Pa. C.S. g 1586. (Emphasis added). The Court in Petrovick v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 741 A.2d 1264 (pa. 1999) acknowledged Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code but did not apply the section retroactively. In this case, Section 1586 would apply because the conviction date and the offense date occurred after Section 1586 was effective.12 Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to suspend upon receipt of a conviction of a New York DW AI. The Department directs this Court's attention to the case of Reiner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, wherein President Judge Cleland determined that a New York DW AI is substantially similar to a Pennsylvania Dill for purposes of the Driver's License Compact upon application of Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code. Reiner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 340 C.D. 1999, Mckean County. 5. CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPALS AND DUE PROCESS A. Contractual Principals The Driver's License Compact, enacted at Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code, provides for such amendments as 1584 and 1586 of the Vehicle Code. Section 1581, at Article N(c) states: 1581. Article N Effect of Conviction (a) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for: 12. Section 1586 was effective December 21, 1998. In this matter the violation date was October16, 1999, and the conviction date was November 1, 1999. 8 - " . ..~, . l~h * * * (2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxication liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle; * * * (b) If the laws of a party state do not provide for the offenses or violations denominated or described in precisely the words employed in subdivision (a) of this article, such party state shall construe the denominations and descriptions appearing in subdivision (a) of this article as being applicable to and identifying those offenses or violations of a substantially similar nature and the laws of such party state shall contain such provisions as mav be ' necessary to ensure that full force and effect is lriven to this article. 75 Pa. C.S. ~ 1581 (Emphasis added). By enacting Sections 1584 and 1586 of the Vehicle Code, the General Assembly did not unilaterally change the tenns of the compact. The Department directs this courts attention to Jaggi v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation wherein President Judge Millin examined the contract issue and detennined that the additions of Sections 1584 and 1586 to the Vehicle Code were not in contradiction to the tenns of the Compact as they were in approbation not reprobation of the Compact. Jaggi v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 195 of1999, Warren County. B. Due Process In addition to the contract issue, the petitioner argues that Sections 1584 and 1586 of the Vehicle Code violate the petition's constitutional right to due process. See discussion under Due Process under next section of the letter brief, issues 6 & 8. 6&8. DOUBLE JEOPARDY, EQUAL PROTECTION, DUE PROCESS Licensees have raised numerous other issues related to the Compact. A Pre-Act 151 case currently on direct appeal to the Supreme Court is McCafferty v. Department of Trailsportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 0001 E.D. 1998. In McCafferty the Department suspended the licensee pursuant to the Compact. The licensee appealed and the Court of Common Pleas declared that the operation of Article IV of the Compact violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and of Article I, ~ 10, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Department of Transportation v. McCafferty, (No. 971 0-0987, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, filed December 31, 1997, 9 L.:. ~Nl! 1 "-", Philadelphia County, 34 Phila. 462, 1997 Phila. Cty. Reporter Lexis 92). Additionally, the Court of Common Pleas ruled that the Department's documents did not comply with Article ill of the Compact. A. DOUBLE JEOPARDY A suspension imposed pursuant to the Compact does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and of Article I, 910, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The suspensions are mandated by Section l532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code and are col1ateral civil consequences based upon the Dill conviction. The Commonwealth Court has held that operating privilege suspensions imposed by the Department as col1ateral civil consequences of underlying convictions do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Urciuolo v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 684 A.2d 1094 cPa. Cmwlth. 1996), appeal denied, 547 Pa. 747, 690 A.2d 1165 (1997); Krall v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 682 A.2d 63 cPa. Cmwlth. 1996) (en bane). The Commonwealth Court has held that a suspension imposed under the Compact does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Pennsylvania or United States Constitution. Pepperling v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 737 A.2d 310 cPa. Cmwlth. 1999); Smega v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 727 A.2d 154 cPa. Cmwlth. 1999) (en bane); Correll v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 726 A.2d 427 cPa. Cmwlth. 1999) (en bane). B. EQUAL PROTECTION A suspension imposed pursuant to the Compact does not violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Licensees have argued that denial of ARD violates Equal Protection. A suspension under the Compact creates no classification. The Vehicle Code treats all licensees who have been convicted the same - a one year license suspension. The Commonwealth Court has held that the Compact is facially non-discriminatory and that denial of ARD does not deny a licensee Equal Protection. Kiebort v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 719 A.2d 1139 cPa. Cmwlth. 1998); Pepperling v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 737 A.2d 310 cPa. Cmwlth. 1999); Correll v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 726 A.2d 427 cPa. Cmwlth. 1999) (en bane). C. DUE PROCESS Another case on direct appeal to the Supreme Court is Harrington v. Department of Transportation, 0209 M.D. 1999. The Department imposed a one year suspension upon 10 .. .-'- , , Harrington based upon a report of conviction received from New Jersey. The motorist was convicted after Sections 1584 and 1586 were added to the Vehicle Code by Act 151. The Court of Common Pleas sustained the licensee's appeal ruling that Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code did not alter the reporting requirements under Article III of the Compact. In Harrington the court ruled that the suspension was unconstitutional as violative of Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. Commonwealth v. Ha/ll'ington, 47 Chester 142 (Fa. CoP. 1999). In Harrington, the court found that the provisions of Section 1584 were so broad and sweeping that it could circumvent the minimum notice requirements of due process provisions of both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. The Department submits the analysis in Harrington is flawed. It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that enactments of the legislative branch are presumed to be constitutional. See, e.g., 1 Pa. CoSo ~ 1922; Plowman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 635 A.2d 124 (Fa. 1993). An enactment of the General Assembly will be deemed to be constitutional unless the challenging party advances evidence that the statute clearly, palpably and plainly violates the constitutions of either the United States or of this Commonwealth. Plowman; Commonwealth v. Strunk, 582 A.2d 1326 (Fa. Super. 1990), appeal denied, 598 A.2d 283 (Pa 1991). The presumption of constitutionality of an enactment of the General Assembly is so strong and the requirements for rebutting that presumption are so exacting that a court can declare an act of the General Assembly as void only where it violates the United States or Pennsylvania Constitution clearly, plainly and palpably and in such a manner as to leave no doubt or hesitation in the court's mind. Rubin v. Baiiey, 157 A.2d 882 (Fa. 1960). Reviewing courts are to interpret enactments of the legislative branch in a constitutional manner, ifpossible. 1 Pa. C.s. ~ 1922(3); Commonwealth v. McDonald, 347 A.2d.290 (Fa. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 816 (1976). A reviewing court should take pains to avoid an interpretation of a statute that would create a conflict with a constitutional provision. 1 Pa. C.S. ~ 1922(3); Commonwealth v. Hude, 425 A.2d 313 (Pa 1980). Any doubts regarding the statute's constitutionality must be resolved in favor of the statute's constitutionality. United States v. Geller, 560 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Pa. 1983), affd, 745 F.2d 49 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 (1985); Commonwealth v. Blystone, 549 A.2d 81 (Fa. 1988), affd sub nom., Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299 (1990). Thelaw is well established that the ability to operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway or trafficway in this Commonwealth is a privilege and not a contract, property or constitutional right. Plowman; Maurer v. Boardman, 7 A.2d 466 (Fa. 1939), affd sub nom., Maurer v. Hamilton, 309 U.S. 598 (1940). As such, the Commonwealth has the right to control and regulate the exercise of that privilege under such terms and conditions as the General Assembly may see fit to impose. Plowman. Such regulation must be tempered by adherence to the principles of due process oflaw. Plowman, 635 A.2d at 126. It is also well-settled that the operating privilege, once granted, may not be suspended, canceled or revoked by the Commonwealth without affording the driver procedural due process. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 11 ~ ., '" 535 (1971); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Clayton, 684 A.2d 1060 (Pa. 1996). The use of an out-of-state conviction report that does not fully satisfy the reporting requirements of Article III of the Compact at the de novo hearing does not impinge upon any of a driver's due process rights. There is no question that the Department of Transportation has the burden of proof to establish the basis for its action at the de novo hearing before the Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas scope of review of the Department's action is limited to ascertaining whether the driver was in fact convicted of the offense giving rise to the Department's action and whether the Department complied with the applicable law when it imposed the suspension or revocation at issue. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Tarnopolski, 626 A.2d 138 (pa. 1993); Davidson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 530 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Cmw1th. 1987). It is well established that the details of the criminal proceeding leading up to the conviction are outside the scope of review of the statutory appeals court. Commonwealth v. Duffey, 639 A.2d 1174 (pa. 1994); Commonwealth v. Bursick, 584 A.2d 291(pa. 1990). In order to comport with due process requirements and to meet the Department's burden of proof, the out-of-state conviction report must be sufficiently informative to allow the Department to: 1) ascertain the licensee to whom the report refers; and 2) ascertain whether the offense for which the licensee is convicted is "substantially similar" to one of those offenses set forth in Article N of the Compact for which the Department is mandated to impose a suspension. The Department respectfully submits that the information in the report submitted to the Department was sufficient to allow the Department to satisfy its burden of proof and establish aprimafacie case to support the suspension of petitioner's operating privilege. The Department also directs this Court's attention to Judge McAndrews' decision in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v. Wenger, No. 99-4618-20-6, Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, filed November 23, 1999; see also Jaggi v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, No. 195-1999, Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, filed October 25, 1999. In Wenger, the motorist claimed that Section 1584 could not be applied citing Harrington. Judge McAndrews rejected the argument that Section 1584 was unconstitutional. The Court noted that the certification that was submitted by the Department must still be adequate to prove its case. Accordingly, there could be no due process problem. 7. TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY The Department's action to suspend the petitioner's operating privilege is a collateral civil consequence of the petitioner's New York DW AI. See Correllv. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 726 A.2d 427 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). The petitioner's argument regarding territorial applicability is irrelevant because the Department's action is a collateral civil consequence. Kiebort v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 719 A.2d 1139 (pa. Cmwlth. 1998). 12 -~ -. ., . Additionally a state's prosecutorial power is derived from its own inherent sovereignty. Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 106 S.Ct. 433, 88 L.Ed. 2d 387 (1985). "Where the same act gives rise to an offense against two sovereigns, each may punish." Levy Motor Vehicle Operator's Case, 194 Pa. Super. 390,393,169 A.2d 596,598 (1961) (upholding a Pennsylvania driver license suspension based upon a violation in New Jersey, under former 75 P.S. ~ 6l8(e) of . the Vehicle Code of 1959). The individual states within the United States have traditionally issued and denied driver's licenses. The Court in Koterba stated that "[t]here can be no question of the authority of any member state to decree that a driver's license it has issued shall be suspended if the licensee is convicted of a serious motor vehicle offense within or outside its boarders." Koterba v Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 736 A.2d 761 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). The Department properly suspended the petitioner's operating privilege for a violation and conviction of a New York DW AI. 9. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT The Department is giving full faith and credit to the New York conviction and is not violating Article N of the United States Constitution. The Department is treating the New York conviction as a conviction. Additionally, New York and Pennsylvania are independent state sovereigns who enacted their separate and distinct state constitutions. One sovereign state cannot bind another sovereign state nor can one sovereign pass a law dictating the actions of another state sovereign. The constitution and statutes of the state New York are not superior to the constitution and statutes of this Commonwealth. New York has no authority to pass laws prohibiting this Commonwealth from taking an action expressly mandated by our General Assembly. 10. UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT The Department's action is not taken pursuant one of the provisions under which enforcement is suspended; therefore, the petitioner has no standing. 11. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND THE FEDERAL DRIVER'S PRN ACY PROTECTION ACT OF 1994 This is not the proper forum to argue that New York has violated aNew York statute. 13 - I_,~~ .~~ - ~~ i"v;,. , . . . . Additionally, New York and Pennsylvania are independent state sovereigns who enacted their separate and distinct state constitutions. One sovereign slate cannot bind another sovereign state nor can one sovereign pass a law dictating the actions of the another state sovereign. The constitution and statutes of the state New York are not superior to the constitution and statutes of this Commonwealth. New York has no authority to pass laws prohibiting this Commonwealth from taking an action expressly mandated by our General Assembly. Moreover the Federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994 specifically mandates the disclosure of "personal information" in connection with matters of "driver safety" and permits the information to be disclosed for use by any government agency in carrying out its functions. See 18 U.S.C. 2721(b). License suspensions are matters connected with driver safety. See Pepperling v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 737 A.2d 310 (pa. Cmwlth. 1999). The Department is a government agency carrying out its function in suspending the petitioner's operating privilege. The Department acted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and did not violate the Full Faith and Credit provision of the United States Constitution when the Department acted upon a report received from New York. Based upon the aforementioned, I respectfully request that the appeal be dismissed and the suspension reinstated. Sincerely, ~~[~~ George H. Kabusk Assistant Counsel cc: David E. Hershey, Esq., Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully, 2233 North Front Street, Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 14 ~, . . A ( DARRY SINGLETON, Petitioner v, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 2000-366 CIVIL LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent PETITIONER'S TRIAL BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE KEVIN A HESS, JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-SAID COURT: I. RULE 1. SECTION 1532(B)(3) OF THE VEHICLE CODE, AS AMENDED BY ACT 1998-151, REQUIRES THAT PENNDOT RECEIVE A CERTIFIED RECORD OF A DRIVER'S CONVICTION OF A SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR OFFENSE REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT UNDER ARTICLE III OF ~1581 OF THE VEHICLE CODE. SEE GENERALLY, HOOVER v. COMMONWEALTH. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, _ PA.CMWL TH. _,725 A.2D 1254 (1999). Section 1532(b)(3) reads as follows: (b) Suspension -... (ifi) The Department shall suspend the operating privilege of any driver for 12 months upon receivina ~ certified record of the driver's conviction of 93731 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) or 93733 (relating to fleeing or attempting to elude police officer), or substantially similar offenses reported to the Department under Article 11/, 91581 (relating to Driver Ucense Compact), or an adjudication of delinquency based on 93731 or 93733, The Department shall suspend the operating privilege of any driver for six months upon receiving a certified record of a consent decree granted under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to juvenile matters) based on 93731 or 93733. Emphasis added, "- - ",f~~ ( .:' .. , Any argument that PennDOT may advance that this out-of-state record is DOT's own record and need not be certified pursuantto ~1550(d) is misplaced. Section 1550(d), reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Out-of-State Documentation - In any proceeding under this section, documents received by the Department from the courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government shall be admissible into evidence to support the departmenfs case. ... In addition, ifthe department receives information from courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Govemment by means of electronic transmission, it may certify that it has received the information by means of electronic transmission and that certification shall be prima facie proof of the adjudication and facts contained in such an electronic transmission. See 75 Pa,C.S, ~1550(d), The Legislature, in its lengthy amendments to the Vehicle Code under Act 151 of 1998, elected to modify ~1532(b)(3) which is the section which empowers the Department to suspend an in-state resident's driving privileges related to information received pursuant to Article III, ~1581, the Driver License Compact. In amending ~1532(b)(3), the Legislature retained the modifying language "upon receiving a certified record". This section modifies the clause pertaining to substantially similar offenses reported to the Department under Article III, ~ 1581. Section 1550 pertains to judicial review and the Department's use of out-of-state documentation generally. Section 1532(b)(3) pertains specifically to suspensions arising out of the Driver License Compact. Therefore, ~1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code is the specific operative section authorizing Penn DOT to suspend a license relative to the Driver License Compact. Had the Legislature intended ~1550(d) to be controlling in license suspension proceedings pursuant to the Driver License Compact, ~1532(b)(3), it would have been amended to remove the phrase "certified record" as a modifier to the new clause, 2 - I' ( A. In Hoover v. Commonwealth. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina. _ Pa.Cmwlth. _,725 A.2d 1254 (1999), the Commonwealth Court addressed the relationship of s1532(c) of the Vehicle Code with s1550(d) of the Vehicle Code, In Hoover, the Department attempted to suspend his operating privilege for a violation of the Drug Device & Cosmetic Act. During the hearing pertaining to Hoover's appeal, the Department was unable to produce a certified record of his conviction of the underlying offense, That record was necessary, according to the Hoover court, based upon the plain language of s1532(c) of the Vehicle Code which reads, in pertinent part: The department shall suspend the operating privilege of any person upon receiving a certified record of the person's conviction of any offense... See 75 Pa,C,S. s1532(c). See Hoover, supra, at A.2d 1257, The Hoover court referenced s1550(d) which, prior to the amendments of Act 151, was the only specific provision referencing records from out-of-state courts or administrative agencies, See 75 Pa,C.S, s1550(d), See Hoover, supra, at A2d 1258-1259, In particular, the Hoover court stated: Thus, the Vehicle Code provides that documents received from out-of-state courts and federal courts are deemed to be those of DOT, there is no provision that documents from the Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas are deemed to be those of DOT. Because the Vehicle Code makes this specific provision, and because the documents of the Pennsylvania courts are not included within this provision, the omission should be understood as an exclusion. See Hoover v, Commonwealth. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina, 725 A,2d 1254 at 1259 citing the Statutory Construction Act at 1 Pa.C.S. 91921 and Jenninas v, Commonwealth. Department of Transportation, _ Pa,Cmwlth, _' 715 A2d 552 (1998). 3 . F ~ " "i"-~.' i ( . "- Hoover's hearing was held in 1997 and the Opinion filed by the Commonwealth Court was based upon the status of the law at that time. Subsequent to Hoover, the amendment to ~ 1532(b )(3) was made in Act 151 of 1998 effective December 21, 1998. The amendment to ~1532(b)(3) was to take effect immediately. Hoover has indicated that the Statutory Construction Act at 1 Pa.C.S. ~1921 controls, and, where certain items are specifically designated in a statute, all omissions should be understood as exclusions, Section 1532(b)(3) therefore supersedes and modifies ~1550(d) generally because it pertains specifically to driver license suspensions pursuant to the Driver License Compact under Article III of ~1581, 2. ARTICLE'" OF THE DRIVER LICENSE COMPACT AND THE DRIVER LICENSE COMPACT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES MANUAL REQUIRES THAT THE REPORT MADE TO PENNDOT CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: (i) Clearly identify the person convicted including name, driver license number, state of origin, date of birth, sex, home address, height, weight, and eye color; (ii) Describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code, or ordinance violated; (iii) Identify the court in which action was taken; and (iv) Indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or that the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail bond or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith, See 75 Pa.C.S, ~1581, Article III; see also, Administrative Procedures Manual at Exhibit B, ~2.4.4.1 page 15, Section 1584, as amended by Act 151, now reads as follows: 4 ,~~ "" .~.-~ -1--- ~~ , i ... Section 1584 is entitled Furnishino of Information to Other States. The Deparlment of Transporlation of the Commonwealth shall fumish to the appropriate authorities of any other parly state any information or documents reasonably necessary to facilitate the administration of Arlicles III, IV, and V of the Compact. The omission from any reporl received by the Deparlment from a party state of any information required by Arlicle III of the Compact shall not excuse or prevent the Deparlment from complying with its duties under Arlicles IV and V of the Compact. See 75 Pa,C,S. ~1584. This amendment purportedly allows the Department to suspend a drivers license when any information is omitted from the report as required by Article III of the Compact See 75 Pa.C,SA ~1581, Article III). This amendment violates Petitioner's due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, ~~ 1, 9 & 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Section 1584, as amended, fails to meet the minimum notice requirements that due process requires for the reasons that follow: The 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution operates to extend the same protection against arbitrary state legislation affecting life, liberty, and property as it is offered by the 5th Amendment A drivers license once issued is essential to the pursuit of a livelihood and the suspension of a license once issued thus involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensee which requires procedural due process and Petitioner is entitled to the proper constitutional notice as set forth in Article III of the Compact at 75 Pa.C,S. ~1581. Therefore, ~1584 of the Vehicle Code is unconstitutional, See Commonwealth. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina v. Harrinaton, Chester County, June 30, 1999, Judge MacElree, attached as part of the Appendix for the court's convenience. 5 I 4. Jt.J.dI';""'" 'I I ..~~ - DOT's record fails to identify the section of the statute, code, or ordinance violated, fails to indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was indicated, or that the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail bond or other security, Finally, the driver's height, weight, and eye color are omitted. 3. THE DEPARTMENT'S EXHIBIT MUST COMPLY WITH ~ 81 J ARTICLE III, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE "LICENSING AU ORITY" OF A PARTY STATE SHALL REPORT EACH CONVICT OF A PERSON FROM OTHER PARTY STATES OCCURRING WIT ITS JURISDICTION TO THE LICENSING AUTHORITY OF THE ME STATE OF THE LICENSEE. SEE 75 PA.C.S. ~1581, ARTIC III. ~~?' v, De artment of Trans There must be evidence submitted by the Depart t that the documents were sent by the licensing authority of New York, This issue was addr sed by the Commonwealth Court in Boots f the Appendix for the court's convenience. The It as a arent at the trial court found that the Department failed to sustain its burde of sh ing that the documents upon which it sought to base Boots~ susp sion w re received from the Indiana licensing authority. We note that this req remen is not onerous in that the Department can always request the n ssal)f, nformation be sent from the licensing authority of party states. See oots v, e artment of Trans ortation Bureau of Driver Licensin ,supra at slip opinion, p. 5. In the case at bar, the licensing authority for the State of New York is the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, PennDOT's record must show that it originated from the New York 6 { '" De_ of Moloc V,ht"',. Olho,,""'~"""" 'od""", ..pm, lho '"",moo" are not admissible. 4. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR OFFENSE IN NEW YORK AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE IV(A)(2) OF THE COMPACT. The New York DUI statute, NY Veh. & Traf. Law, 91192, provides, in pertinent part as follows: S1192 - Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs f tV t' ? 1. Driving while ability impaired - no person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol. 2. Driving while intoxicated; per se - no person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has .10 of one percentum or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood as shown by chemical analysis of such person's blood, breath, urine, or saliva, made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of this Article. 3. Driving while intoxicated - no person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. NY Veh. & Traf. Law, 91192(1) through (3), We finally have the benefit of a comprehensive analysis provided by our Supreme Court in analyzing conduct in other states for purposes of the Driver License Compact. That pronouncement has come in the case of Petrovick v, Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina, _ Pa, _, 741 A,2d 1264 (1999),The Petrovick court indicates that the appropriate analysis in a proposed suspension for a violation of the provisions of the Driver License Compact is determined by applying a two prong test. First, the court must evaluate whether there 7 " - "~~~: ,: '" is a Pennsylvania offense which is of a substantially similar nature to the provisions of Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact Second, the court must determine whether there is a New York offense which is of a substantially similar nature to Article IV(a)(2). Both prongs must be satisfied before PennDOT can sanction a Pennsylvania citizen for an out-of-state conviction. See Petrovick v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina, _ Pa. _,741 A.2d at 1267 (1999), Petrovick has determined that ~3731(a)(1) of Pennsylvania's DUI statute is substantially similar to the provisions of Article IV(a)(2), incapable of safely driving, and therefore Penn DOT is entitled to treat violations of Article IV(a)(2)as if they were violations of 75 Pa,C.S,A. ~3731. Petrovick reaffirmed the holding in Olmstead v.. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina. 677 A.2d 1285 (Pa,Cmwlth, 1996), affirmed per curium, 550 Pa. 578, 707 A.2d 1144 (1998). Petrovick has confirmed that Pennsylvania has no offense that was essentially similar to New York's DWAllaw, NY. Veh, & Traf. Law, ~1192(1), The Petrovick court held: To the contrary, Pennsylvania's OUt statute, 75 Pa.C.S.A. 93731 was substantially akin to a different provision, New York's driving while intoxicated (OWl) law. Although Petrovick rejects the type of analysis the Commonwealth Court used in Olmstead, Petrovick focused on case law in the State of New York interpreting the distinctions between the various subprovisions of New York's drunk driving statute and reached the same result Petrovick, therefore, concluded that the Commonwealth Court correctly determined that New York's DWAI law does not provide a basis for reciprocal suspension for purposes of Article IV of the Driver License Compact, 75 Pa.C,SA ~1581. This analysis was also applied by the Supreme Court in a sentencing appeal in deciding whether or not a conviction of the New York offense of DWAI was equivalent to the Pennsylvania 8 .,. ~ . oj; ~"I>'~; , . offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol for purposes of sentencing enhancement. That case was Commonwealth v. Shaw, _ Pa, _, 744 A.2d 739 (2000). Shaw quotes Petrovick, in contrasting the burden of proof with respect to the two different state laws, Shaw finds specifically that New York State's DWAI offense protects the public from a broader range of reckless behavior than does Pennsylvania's DUI offense. This is due to the fact that New York State's DWAI offense casts a wider net of criminal liability, making it criminal for individuals to drink to the point of any impairment and then proceed to operate a motor vehicle, while Pennsylvania's DUI offense only makes it criminal for individuals to drink to the point of substantial impairment and then proceed to operate a motor vehicle. Thus, there is an appreciable difference in the elements of the in-state and out-of-state offenses at issue and a corresponding difference in the conduct prohibited by the offenses which preclude a finding that the offenses are equivalent. See Commonwealth v. Shaw. supra at A.2d 744-745. The court should be aware that another subsection of the New York DUI law has been deemed equivalent to Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver License Compact and that is ~1192(2). See Barrett v, Commonwealth. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver LicensinQ, No, 365 CD 1999 (Cmwlth,Ct. opinion dated 1/31/00). The opinion is attached as a part of the Appendix for the court's convenience. The Department will likely direct the court to the amendment to the Driver License Compact at 75 Pa,C.SA ~1586 to argue that Petrovick and Shaw are inapplicable to the present case since the Compact was amended in 1998, See Qenerallv Act 151 of 1998, The effect of this amendment was not addressed by the Petrovick court; however, it is addressed in the next section of this brief. 9 . I 8.h..); I I~ 4 5. SECTIONS 1584 AND 1586 OF THE VEHICLE CODE, AS AMENDED BY ACT 151 OF 1998, VIOLATE ARTICLE'" OF THE COMPACT, ARTICLE III OF THE BYLAWS OF THE DRIVER LICENSE COMPACT COMMISSION, AND THE CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPACT AS REQUIRED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN SULLIVAN V. COMMONWEALTH. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, 550 PA. 639, 708 A.2D 481 (1999). SECTIONS 1584 AND 1586 VIOLATE PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS. SEE COMMONWEALTH. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING V. HARRINGTON, No. 99-02476, CHESTER COUNTY, FILED 6/20/99; MARTIN V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 472 OF 1999, PIKE COUNTY, OPINION FILED 9/29199, Section 1584, as amended, reads, in pertinent part, as follows: The omission from any report received by the Department from the party state of any information required by Article 1/1 of the Compact shall not excuse or provide the Department from complying with its duties under Articles IV and V of the Compact. See 75 Pa.C,S, 91584. The above amendment directly contradicts Article III of 91581 of the Compact previously adopted in Pennsylvania which requires, in pertinent part: The licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee ... such reports shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code, or ordinance violated, identify the court in which action was taken, indicate whether plea of guilty or not guilty was entered, or whether the conviction was the result of the fotfeiture of bail, bond, or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith. See 75 Pa,C,S, 91581, Article III. The above mentioned statutes cannot be read harmoniously in pari materia. 10 ~~ .- . ~ "'" ~'J,) i " Moreovsr, Article III of the bylaws of the Driver License Compact Commission, which is attached as Exhibit B to Petitioner's appeal, states, in pertinent part: The purposes for which the Commission is organized, and for which it shall be perpetuated, are: 1. To administer the provisions of the Driver Ucense Compact, hereinafter referred to as the Compact... 5. To provide and promote a reasonable and uniform reporting system among member jurisdictions. See Article III, ~4,0 of the Driver License Compact at p, 20, marked as Exhibit B and attached to Petitioner's appeal. The addition of ~1584 in Act 151 of 1998 therefore contradicts the plain meaning of Article III of ~1581 as well as the bylaws of the National Driver License Compact as indicated above, Section 1584 also violates the contractual principles pertaining to the Driver License Compact as outlined in our Supreme Court's holding in Sullivan v. Commonwealth. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina, 550 Pa. 639, 708 A2d 481 (1999) because ~1584 constitutes an amendment to the Compact which was not authorized by the AAMVA, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, or NHTSA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or the Executive Committee of the Driver License Compact Commission. By way of further explanation, the Driver License Compact requires that: This Compact shall enter into force and become effective as to any state when it has been enacted the same into law. See Article VIII(1) of the Driver License Compact Administrative Procedures Manual at p, 4 in Exhibit B of Petitioner's appeal. Nowhers does the National Compact indicate that it can be enacted piecemeal or with revisions, ft ~' "\ -t- C tl"~~' "l~' \{~ >fk'::' V' ..~ .. ~ ",.<>" tj\. I'I~ L ~ .......~'>." v- .......____.~ " 11 ~ .",;.-'.. - t,,: i { .. Our courts have finally addressed the issue of our Legislature issuing piecemeal amendments which conflict ~Iaal..c . This issue has been addressed in ------- P.e,nrfl5t)T v, Longstretch, 43 D&C.4th 213 (Mercer County 1999). Department raised the ~__,., rgue that any shortcomings in the otherwise required information from the sister state would not preclude the Department from suspending a Pennsylvania motorist under the Compact. The Longstretch court held as follows: The Coutt finds the amendment to 9 1584 constitutes an impermissible attempt by the legislature to unilaterally modify the Compact. See Penn DOT v, Longstretch, 43 D&C.4th at 221. The Longstretch court went on to rely upon the language of Aveline v. Pennsvlvania Board of Probation & Parole, _ Pa.Cmwlth, _' 729 A.2d 1254, 1257 (1999) which held: In general, interstate compacts are multi-state agreements made with congressional consent which arise when two or more states enact essentially identical statutes goveming an area of mutual state concem that transcends state lines. ... The terms of an interstate compact normally contain the obligations of the states, provisions or enactment and amendment, clauses vesting some authority with the promulgation of a uniform application of the compact, and procedures for termination or withdrawal. ..' Because interstate compacts are agreements enacted into state law, they function simultaneously as contracts between the states and as statues within those states, and must be interpreted as both. See Penn DOT v, Longstretch at 43 D&C.4th 221 quoting from Aveline v, Pennsvlvania Board of Probation and Parole (citations omitted). Longstretch further quoted the Aveline court in that: This means that upon enacting a compact, it takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide. Quoting Aveline v. Pennsvlvania Board of Probation & Parole. Longstretch specifically rejected the Department's argument that 31584 of the Compact was designed to address the manner in which the Department administers its obligations as opposed 12 - -I, ~ , -'~:i .. to an attempt to unilaterally alter the terms of the Compact. See Lonastretch, supra at 222. Lonastretch went further and indicated that the title of 81584, Furnishing of Information to Other States, violates Article III, 83 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because the amendment to 81584 is clearly misleading and does not give notice that it also deals with reports received from party states, Section 1586, as amended, also violates pre-existing law. That section reads as follows: The Depattment shall, for purposes of imposing a suspension or revocation under Article IV of the Compact, treat repotts of convictions received from patty states that relate to driving, operating, or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired or under the influence of alcohol... as being substantially similar to 93731. The fact that the offense repotted to the Department by a party state may require a different degree of impairment of a person's ability to operate, drive, or control a vehicle than that required to support a conviction for a violation of 93731 shall not be a basis for determining that the party state's offense is not substantially similar to 93731 for purposes of Article IV of the Compact. See 75 Pa.C,S, 81586. The above amendment is patently contradictory towards Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact which reads: The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation, or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this Compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for: (2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle. See 75 Pa,C,S. 81581, Article IV(a)(2). To illustrate the problem with the language of 81586, a person under New York's driving while impaired statute could be convicted solely of having a blood alcohol concentration of .049% and, in following the plain meaning of 81586, that person would be suspended in Pennsylvania under the provisions of the Compact even if the person could not be prosecuted for DUI under 13 - '-' - . existing Pennsylvania law. The effect of g1586 violates the National Compact because it purports to circumvent Article IV(1)(b) pertaining to effect of convictions noted at page three of the Compact attached as Exhibit B to Petitioner's appeal. It further contradicts g 1581, Article IV, and it violates Petitioner's due process rights under the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions because it fails to give Petitioner fair notice as to what conduct would result in a suspension of operating privileges in the State of Pennsylvania. Our Supreme Court has indicated that, in cases involving provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code, a statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute and further that due process requirements are satisfied only if a statute provides reasonable standard by which a person may gauge their future conduct. See Commonwealth v. Barud, _ Pa. _' 681 A.2d 162, 165 (1996), Additionally, our Supreme Court has indicated that a statute is overbroad if, by its reach, it punishes constitutionally protected activity as well as a legal activity. See Commonwealth v. Barud, supra, atA.2d 165. Petitioner contends that the plain language of g1586 violates the due process clause of the US Constitution (US Constitutional Amendment V) and Article I, gV1I1I of the Pennsylvania Constitution', A person under New York's Driving While Impaired statute, g1192(1) The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution provides, in pertinent part: No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberly, or properly without due process of law ... u.S.Const.Amend. V; Article I, 99 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, in relevant part: Nor can an accused be deprived of this life, liberty, or property unless by the judgement of his peers or the law of the land. Pa.Const.Art. I, 99; equal protection clause of the 14" Amendment to the US Constitution states, in pertinent part: 14 """""~ . 't .. could be convicted if he consumed any alcohol and drove. If we follow the plain wording of ~1586, that person would be suspended in Pennsylvania under the provisions of the Compact even if that person could not be prosecuted for DUI under existing Pennsylvania law which requires a person to be rendered incapable of safe driving due to alcohol. See Commonwealth v. Griscavaae, 512 Pa, 540, 517 A.2d 1256 (1986). The Griscavaae court indicates that, in analyzing the sufficiency of evidence under ~3731 , there must be proof that alcohol: substantially impairs his judgment, or cleamess of intellect, or any of the normal faculties essentially the safe operation of an automobile. See Commonwealth v. Griscavaae, supra at A.2d 1258, l The constitutionality of ~1586 has been challenged successfully in the Pike County Court (" of Common Pleas in the case of Darren P. Martin v, Commonwealth of Pennsvlvania. Department t' / of Transportation, No. 472-1999-Civil (filed Sept. 29, 1999). A copy of that Opinion is attached to ( the Appendix for the court's convenience, The court held that: \,_.....~_~...",~_,r . - - While !i1586 is not vague or ambiguous in meaning, the court cannot ignore the conflict it presents with the similarly clear terms of 75 Pa.C.S.A. !i1581. This case specifically addresses New York's DWAI statute which is the statute at issue in the case before this court, The court found that: Since the case law has explored the meaning of the New York DWAI statute and found that the statute is not substantially similar to the Pennsylvania statute, !i3731(a)(1), which requires a driver to be under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safe driving, it would similarly not fit under the category of the Compact's Article IV(a)(2) which requires a degree of impairment No state shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. See U.S.Const. XIV, !i1. 15 'I , ,; . ~. , ,~~- ~ , . which renders the driver incapable of driving a motor vehicle. So while the coult may, through the use of the new definition find the OW AI and OUI statutes similar, it cannot find that the OWAI falls within the category defined in (a)(2). See Martin v. Commonwealth. Department of Transportation, slip opinion at p. 6 attached in the appendix, The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that the suspension of a person's drivers license is subject to due process protection. See Bell v, Burson, 402 US 535,541-42 (1971). Not only is ~1586 unconstitutional, it also violates the contractual principles of the Compact as indicated by our Supreme Court, Our Supreme Court, in Sullivan, supra, has held that: The Compact is a contractual agreement among states intended to promote compliance with each party state's driving laws and regulations. See Sullivan v. Commonwealth. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, _ Pa, _,708 A,2d at 482 (1999), Sullivan went on to hold that: The Compact is a contract between states. Accordingly, we are bound to interpret its terms according to their plain meaning. See Sullivan, supra, at A,2d 484. The Compact, as drafted, pursuant to Exhibit B of Petitioner's appeal, does not indicate that any member state has the authority to unilaterally revise those terms which the home state is interested in enforcing, 16 """ "'~'-~'-i . 6. THE INTERSTATE COMPACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS A VIOLATION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSES WHERE THE PENNSYLVANIA MOTORIST IS PUNISHED TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE2. The regulation of automobiles and their use has, and will continue to be viewed, as so important to the welfare of the public that it will always fall within the state's police powers. But, the state's police powers must have limits so that injustice and unfairness such as generated here is prevented. In order to prevent such injustice, a long standing legal fiction needs to be discarded, That is the notion that a suspension of one's driver's license is not punishment, but some type of remedial civil collateral action imposed to address the general problem of driving under the influence. It is false in the extreme and the several cases that have held to the contrary are quite simply wrongly decided. It is a further fallacy that the suspension of a driver's license is somehow separate from other consequences, Where else does the suspension stem from other than the criminal conviction for the crime of driving under the influence? How else can the suspension be imposed in the first instance in cases such as this? Rather, it is dependent on the conviction for its very existence, While this is not to suggest that certain suspensions are not remedial, such as the suspension for failure to maintain proper registration, or insurance or suspension of a license for the non payment of a money judgment based on an accident, or for failure to answer an open citation in this or another state. But suspensions imposed as a result of criminal convictions are purely punishment and have no remedial aspects at all. All one need do is ask the simple question, 2 Issues 6-8 have been decided in favor of the Department in Correll v, Commonwealth. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina, _ Pa.Cmwlth, _, 726 A,2d 427 (1999) (but have not yet been decided by our Supreme Court), 17 - , - ........~ ~~- 11 I ; I . "What does the suspension after conviction remedy?" The answer is absolutely nothing. The offense is consummated, the offender is punished criminally, and any rehabilitative needs, if any, are addressed; one hopes. Therefore, the post-conviction suspension of a driver's license is not remedial in any way, shape, or form and is purely punishment. The refusal of the appellate courts to recognize this, and their continuing to cling to this outdated, illogical and just plain false notion that a license suspension after a conviction is not punishment, is as troublesome as it is amazing for it is simply not true that a post-conviction suspension remedies anything or that it is collateral in nature, It is a direct consequence of the DUI conviction. To be sure, Petitioner must look to the state constitution since the United States Supreme Court has indeed retreated from its noble but brief experiment with common sense and logic in deciding in Hudson v. U,S., _ U.S. _, 118 S.Ct. 448, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997) which essentially overruled U,S. v, Halper, 490 U,S. 435, 109 S,Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), Therein, the Supreme Court continues to embrace one of the greatest legal fictions of the 20th Century that double jeopardy protection need not be conduct-based, While there is a glimmer of hope that in some tortured way the U,S. Supreme Court could view a driver's license suspension as punishment, that is not likely to happen after the Hudson decision, But, within the context of the state constitution, we need not be so bound, The Commonwealth quite clearly perpetuates the fiction that a loss of one's driver's license after conviction is not punishment. Yet, we must look to the nature of the sanction to determine if it is indeed punishment. The case of Artway v, The Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. 81 F,3d 1235 (1996) is a prime example of the tortured analysis engaged in when the courts close their eyes to 18 <~> ~ "' ~' -I '~~.'iI~illlMi!.'" . the obvious and attempt to perpetuate this fiction that any sanction imposed after a conviction is somehow not punishment but merely collateral and civil in nature. In that case, the Third Circuit spends 10 pages synthesizing the pre-Hudson law on punishment only to arrive at the test set forth recently in Commonwealth v. Gaffnev. 702 A2d 565 (Pa,Super. 1997), There, the court held that a civil measure will be deemed punishment if the legislature's actual purpose is punishment, (2) if the "objective" purpose is punishment, or (3) if the effect of the statute is so harsh that as a matter of degree it constitutes punishment. (emphasis added). Thus, there is hope for the Pennsylvania motorist when we assess the nature of a license suspension, its degree of negative impact, and whether it constitutes punishment in order to receive double jeopardy protection. Surely it goes without question that the loss of a driver's license is devastating with a true collateral consequence far beyond the suspension itself, Often it portends the loss of employment and, like a collapsing house of cards, the loss of a home, In short, serious financial loss on a grand scale. A family structure can be ruined. Children can be placed in want and financial dreams deferred or extinguished. And for what? For a driving under the influence conviction. A misdemeanor offense. This is not to belittle a driving under the influence offense or minimize it in any fashion. However, it should not entail such draconian and drastic financial consequences either. While there is no way this counselor anyone in their right senses can ignore the stupefying societal cost of driving under the influence in all its forms, for a basic first offense, loss of license is often the harshest penalty; totally aside from the two days in jail and the $300 fine, which are avoided if ARD is granted, 19 - ~ .J . Thus, under Artwav, supra, the loss of a license must be seen as punishment since no 1 ! 1 " " :i i , 1 I I I I I I I I \ I II 'I As indicated above, the Commonwealth makes much of its claim that the suspension is remedial in nature. The transparent nature of this claim is easily revealed by asking again the simple question, "What does the suspension of a person convicted of driving under the influence remedy?" The obvious answer is that it remedies absolutely nothing, It only creates the severest consequences. matter what it is called it is just that, a punishment by virtue of its harshness. To be sure, Petitioner does not argue that there should be no suspension for a driving under the influence conviction. He only argues for the logical comr.lon sense interpretation of that suspension as the punishment it clearly is, When that is done, one can easily see persons in his situation have a valid argument that ~1581 of Title 75 is unconstitutional as imposing double punishment when the motorist has already been punished or sanctioned in the state of the offense especially where that sanction has already included a loss of driving rights, This court can take judicial notice of the nature of the criminal sanction in New York attached to a OWl conviction there. It includes the loss of operating privileges within New York, When one recognizes this for what it clearly is, a punishment, the double jeopardy argument crystalizes, To cling to the illogical view that the one year Pennsylvania suspension is not punishment or that it remedies anything, is akin to embracing a vapor. It cannot happen, Because the instant suspension constitutes a second punishment for the same criminal conduct which occurred in another sovereign state, the Interstate Compact clearly violates the double jeopardy rights enjoyed by Petitioner under at least the state constitution, Article I, Section 10. 20 ~-<= "! . 7. IS THE INTERSTATE COMPACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS A DENIAL OF FUNDAMENTAL AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS FOR IMPOSING ANY SANCTION FOR CONDUCT OCCURRING OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL BORDERS OF PENNSYLVANIA? Would Pennsylvania be permitted to prosecute someone for a murder committed in New York? Would Pennsylvania state law enforcement officials be permitted to prosecute a person who had committed a rape or an assault or any of the myriad crimes which make up Title 18 in any of the other 49 states? Or in a foreign country? More to the point, is a statute which authorizes a Pennsylvania license suspension for a criminal act in another state constitutional? As most recently set forth in the case of Commonwealth v, McPhail, 692 A.2d 139 (Pa,1997), a sovereign state derives its power, indeed its very jurisdiction to punish from it constitution, and the commission of an act which offends its laws and which occurs or at least has some impact on events occurring within its borders, Yet Petitioner was sanctioned, indeed, punished with a suspension of his license, for an act which took place entirely within the borders of another sovereign state. Normally, a crime can be punished only in a state where committed, Commonwealth v. Shook, 236 A.2d 559 (Pa,Super. 1967). In that case, a father was prosecuted for the failure to support a child in another state. An arrest of judgment was affirmed since !j506 of the Penal Code was strictly construed and the court found there was an insufficient nexus with any act within the borders of Pennsylvania to justify a prosecution. The Supreme Court held in 1973 that even an act outside the state can only be prosecuted here if it causes a harm within the Commonwealth or whether a harm is intended. Note Commonwealth v, Biahum, 307 A.2d 255 (Pa.1973). 21 ".. .~M"_~' . Thus, it becomes the grossest violation of procedural and fundamental due process to attempt to sanction Petitioner with the loss of his license to drive through a legislative enactment for criminal actions which took place entirely beyond the borders of Pennsylvania in the sovereign state of New York, Therefore, any statute attempting to grant jurisdiction or authority on the Department of Transportation to act on the basis of actions and criminal acts committed totally outside the .borders of Pennsylvania is unconstitutional. While the Commonwealth will no doubt argue that the Interstate Compact does not impose a criminal penalty, that is simply not so as the penalty springs from a criminal act in another state. The reality of the relationship of the suspension to an out-of-state criminal act is obvious. This is particularly true where the sovereign state of New York has dealt effectively and traditionally with the criminal act committed within its borders. To be sure, Petitioner was clearly prosecuted and sanctioned in accordance with New York law. The sanction included a criminal penalty as well as a period of suspension of his operating privileges within New York, This constitutes another ground upon which to find the Interstate Compact, 75 Pa.C,S.A. ~1581 et. sea, offends the Pennsylvania Constitution as conferring jurisdiction upon the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to punish Petitioner with a license suspension for a criminal act which took place totally outside the borders of Pennsylvania. This clearly violates fundamental and procedural due process, and permits unfettered power in the Pennsylvania legislature to punish any conduct no matter where it occurred for any reason; a power forbidden to them by Constitutions. If this procedure is permitted, where does it end? Indeed, should this foothold be allowed, to what end can this procedure be carried? The answer is virtually anywhere and it must be stopped here, 22 ~~~ffil~~'i I . 8. IS THE INTERSTATE COMPACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL BASIS WHERE A FIRST TIME DUI DEFENDANT IS SANCTIONED FAR MORE HARSHLY IF THEIR OFFENSE OCCURRED OUTSIDE PENNSYLVANIA THAN IF THE OFFENSE OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BY VIRTUE OF SUCH A DEFENDANT'S ELIGIBILITY FOR THE ARD PROGRAM? Even underthe rational basis or any legitimate state interest test', the Compact falls due to there being no basis to treat out-of-state and in-state DUI offenders so vastly differently, In Pennsylvania, a first time DUI offender is eligible in most cases for the ARD program, In fact, !31552 of Title 75 mandates the creation of any ARD program statewide, and only certain first time offenders are statutorily excluded. See 75 Pa,C,S, !33731(d). In this regard, This Honorable Court may take judicial notice of two things. First, it may take judicial notice of the ARD program in Cumberland County. Under that program, a qualified first offender must undergo a license suspension of either six months or one month. Second, if the Commonwealth are admitted, it is clear Petitioner is a first time offender, having no prior or subsequent DUI convictions in this or any other state as of the date of his hearing. Thus, he would be fully qualified for the Cumberland County ARD program, Yet, he is treated differently by the statute as to the length of his suspension solely by virtue of where his conviction for DUI occurred, To be sure, the department has no discretion and, pursuant to the Interstate Compact, is in fact, treating all DUI offenders equally. But, it is in that application that the equal protection flaw 3 There can be little doubt out-of-state DUI offenders are not a suspect class requiring the statute be reviewed with strict scrutiny. 23 ~. -" __-lI IllIIIlI\4:Ui>c-,: . in the Compact is revealed. Thus, it is not the Department's actions which violate the Constitution, it is the provisions of the Compact itself. Therein, the Commonwealth can point to no basis whatsoever for treating Petitioner differently under the Compact than some other person whose first offense occurred within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and who received a reduced period of suspension through the ARD program. For equal protection purposes, the focus must be on out-of-state first offense DUI offenders versus in-state first offense DUI offenders and, as stated above, how the statute treats those two classes of persons. In that regard, we must focus on all first offense DUI offenders in the Commonwealth, This is because it is only through committing the DUI offense that a suspension is imposed, If there is no criminal offense there is no suspension. Therefore, the location of the offense is the only factor which determines the Department's conduct pursuant to the Interstate Compact. There can be no basis, rational, or otherwise for such different treatment where it is merely the location of the offense which determines the type or length of sanction imposed, The right to equal protection is violated when a determination is based solely on place or location. As noted in St. Maraaret Memorial Hospital v, Aspinwall Borouah Counsel, 641 A.2d 1270 (Pa, Cmwlth 1994), a statutory enactment, while enjoying the presumption of constitutionality is clearly unconstitutional as violative of equal protection where the only basis for differing treatment is geographic location. That is precisely what we have present in application of the Interstate Compact to out-of-state first offense DUI offenders with regard to imposing a license suspension. Clearly, Petitioner would be subject to a vastly reduced license suspension were his conduct to occur in his home county of Cumberland because of ARD, Merely because his offense occurred in the sovereign state of New York is no reason to treat him two times, and as much as six times, 24 ~I more harshly than he would be otherwise in relation to his license suspension, Moreover, since a proceeding which would mandate imposing a suspension equal to the suspension required by the motorist's home county ARD program is unworkable, the only clear remedy is to declare the Interstate Compact unconstitutional as in violation of the equal protection clause of the Federal and State Constitutions. To then add to his punishment with a second suspension of a length as much as 12 times longer than he would face were his offense to have occurred in Pennsylvania4, is simply wrong as far as equal protection is concerned and there can be no basis whatsoever found either in the state's police powers or in the right to regulate the use of automobiles on public highways to justify this differing treatment. 9. ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VIOLATES THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS MANDATED A ONE YEAR SUSPENSION UNDER ~1532 WI'IEN NEW YORK HAS IMPOSED A 90-DAY SUSPENSION OF OPERATING PRIVILEGE IN NEW YORK. The Department, under the Driver License Compact, is to "give the same effect to the conduct reported as if pursuant to Article III as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state ..," See Driver License Compact Administrative Procedures Manual 1990, US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration attached as Exhibit B to Petitioner's appeal and incorporated herein by reference, The Department is retreating from the 4 To be sure, admission into an ARD program is subject to approval of the local District Attorney, but neither may a District Attorney reject arbitrarily, However, there was no evidence presented to suggest he would not be admitted to the ARD program in Cumberland County were his offense to have occurred there, Surely he did not have any statutory bar to such admission, See 75 Pa,C,S. ~3731(d), 25 IL " ,~~I clear meaning of the wording of the National Driver License Compact in its attempt to impose a one year suspension, The one year suspension further violates the Driver License Compact and the Administrative Procedures Manual in that Petitioner's Pennsylvania privileges will not be restored at the expiration of any suspension which may be imposed by New York. There is no mechanism for the Department to ensure that Petitioner's Pennsylvania privileges would be reinstated at the expiration of any suspension to be imposed in New York. 10. ENFORCEMENT OF THE DRIVER LICENSE COMPACT VIOLATES PETITIONER'S EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA, NEW YORK, AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS IN THAT THE DRIVER LICENSE COMPACT AT 75 PA.C.S. S1581, ET SEQ. IS NOT BEING UNIFORMLY ENFORCED IN PENNSYLVANIA INSOFAR AS ARTICLE IV(B) OF THE COMPACT AS PRESENTLY SUSPENDED. The Department is reporting out all violations to sister states whose motorists are convicted in Pennsylvania and, for the Legislature to suspend Article IV(b) for technical reasons without the consent of the Compact administrators, is a clear violation of the contractual principles of the Compact. See Sullivan v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensina, _ Pa. _,708 A.2d 481 (1998). 11. THE DEPARTMENT HAS VIOLATED THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER THROUGH THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION IN THAT THE FEDERAL DRIVER PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 1994, AS AMENDED, 18 U.S,C.S. S2721, ET. SEQ. PROHIBITS DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION IN DMV RECORDS. Federal law prohibits release and use of certain personal information from state motor vehicle records, That statute defines "personal information" as: Information that identifies an individual, including an individual's photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address, (but not the five digit 26 =w~ ~ .' , 1 ~ , -"""'-_" ~. ~ , zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver status. See 18 uses s2725(3). While evidence of a driving violation in New York is not encompassed in this definition, the other identifying characteristics like social security number, driver identification number, and name otherwise make available to any person or entity personal information about any individual obtained by the Department in connection with a motor vehicle record. See 18 uses s2721. Permissible uses as set forth at 18 uses s2721 (b) include: In connection with matters of motor vehicles or driver safety and theft, motor vehicle admissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories, performance monitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by motor vehicle manufacturers and removal of non-owner records from the original owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers... See 18 USCS s2721 (b), The federal law does not specifically indicate that the information may be disclosed for purposes of a Driver License Compact. The phrase "driver safety" does not specifically indicate that personal information related to convictions would fall under the ambit of a permissible use under 18 USCS S2721 (b), If the court finds that this disclosure is a permissible use pertaining to driver safety, then the federal law indicates that it may be disclosed "for use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on behalf of a federal, state, or local agency in carrying out its functions", The Department is not an authorized recipient of personal information as per 18 USCS s2721 (c). Neither the Department nor the New York authorities have followed the mandate of 18 uses s2721(d) pertaining to waiver procedures, Based upon the above, an attempt by the 27 ". - ,..,L,-,-,. ' -" Department to introduce personal information about Petitioner to the court is in violation of the above-mentioned Act. Accordingly, the Department's records should not be allowed in evidence. For the court's convenience, the Federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, as amended, is attached as part of the Appendix. Respectfully submitted, MANCKE, WAGNER, RSHEY, & TULLY Dated: 04/07/00 By David E, ey, Esquire Attorney J.D. No, 43092 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 (717) 234-7051 Attorney for Petitioner , " ) ( 14. 7 );/ ~ A J+' //" G t!'^/J P ~{t ~r< fl. _ ^"'''' ., \PI 'i,:!f IF f~" , r'" ~r'" -,~ . I' 1--, ~ -;", CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David E. Hershey, Esquire of the law firm of Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document to the attorneys or parties of record by hand delivery on the 7th day of April, 2000: George Kabusk, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel PA Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 By: David . ershey, Esquire Mancke Wagner Hershey & Tully - 11/~!lS99. 16:44 6185658548 L~I>,REJo.CE Dr AN::iELCIS , L,,,-~, _', P'lCE 81 """"""" .- Ii ,I' " ,. ;} II ,I COMMONWEAL TR O~ :l"trlNSYL V AN1A ; IN THE COURT OF COMMOl'l :rLEAS 'I DEPARTMl:l''TOFl1lANSl'ORTATIO~ : I !SURE'" \1 OF DJUVER LICENSING : Cm:sn:.'R courrrY. l't:fflSYL Y ANlA :i " VS. : C!VIL AerIOl'! : .t..~WR.ENCE J_ KARl:tCiGTQN, m II 11 II I : No. 99-0U16 !! Michelle Fioravanti, Esquire. for Office ofChiefCounse!, Commonwealth of Pl' ennsy,vama " Timothy p, Wile, Esquire, for Depa:'t!l1.ent ofTranspor..arion. Commor:wealth of , , Pennsyivania II, John] Kerrigan, Jr. Esquire, for Defendant LawTence J. Harrington, m OPINION This case comes before me as aresult of the s:.:spension ofDefendanr's , " driver's license. 0:1. May 6, 1999 I sustained Defendant's statutory appeal, and '! reins~ate.; his driving privileges, T.'le Cor.:monwealth now appeals the ruling complaining that our int~etation ef75 Pa.C.S.A. 91581, A..-ricIe III of the " Driver's Licer>.se Compact and 75 Pa.c.S.,A., 91584 was unduly restrictive, was in , violatjo~ of the mandates under the Driver's Lic=c Compact, and beyond the limited scope of review ofa Bureau conviction-based suspension. We found the New Jer;cy notice to be deficient in that it lacked some "fthe information required by Article m of the Compact, and that 75 Pa.C.S.A. 9 1584 was not a cure for the lack of information required under Article m of the Compact. '. :' I: i ji I , ,I 11/0~/1999 16:~4 6i85638548 LA\o.REN::: D I AN3S..US I PAG::: 02 ~. -. On ALlgust 9, 1998 Defendant, a resident of Pennsylvania, was arrested in New Jersey and :harged with Driving Under the Influence.' Subsequently, New Jersey se:1t no:ice to the Commonwealth ofPermsylvania regarding the Defendant's conviction for violation of the New Jersey DUl Statute. Upon e:>>:amination I found that t.lJe Notice provided the following information: n...ft u ....,...c..,,. #1"'1"~_ oar _T~ WHICl.tf ~f 0# l'''~ al'lv,. "1~lJQIiot. Ie"" "0""_ "'Jc!'..... .-,. Oltl'tU HUI' ~I.'~ _I .4ST ..., ... '('U ~ 'I't.."..n~ /lIIV .......' .""'. ~_H:: U"'III 'Sri c:a"OIr ....11. 0"." n..,,,,, IrI1J ....f !(lIt.,.,,, ..~--_... ....~.....--.-. ~"".~"'" . ...-----------..~.. ........... ~_..... -.-------- ---....... .........~............. ... ....-... L<l_~{ ~ ""''',''''',0.0 nr ""2.'", It..o_ ".~ ....'",.. H;w.....". In' "Itt.~... I;o.no::noo. 1I'00o'lo'Sl.rr =--tC:':'IGloo l..GCltoe .., DUC_'''''"'' .CD..... ,i 111..-0-'5::: iW ,,__ l;!Pt'lI'art lMGllf '''''\.....lC'<< \,10/0""111 (X, T, 5/6/99. p.:2). The Notice failed to identify the convicting court, and failed to indicate whet.~e:' there was a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction resulted from forfeiture ofbaii or security. On Feb:-.;ary 26,1999, following the COI:lffionwealth's receipt of the above Notice. Defendant was notified by the Department that his Pennsylvania driver's lic::nse and ope:o.ting privileges would be suspended for one (1) year pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. g373 I oft.~e Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. The Defendant appeaied the license suspension. On May 6, 1999 I sustained Defendant's Statutory appeal, and reinstated his driving privileges. The Commonwealth now appeals this decision pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. g155{}. I NJ.SA 939:4-50(a). z I -- 11/B4/19g9 lE:~~ :;:85558548 L~;,p.8-CE D1 AN3ELlJS PAGE fl3 " , The Drive~'s License Compact found at 75 Pa.C.S.A. g15111, reads in perti.nem part: Article III The licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another patty state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home s-.are of the licensee. Such repon shall deariy identify the person convicted, describe the violation ,. specifying the section of the Statute, code or ordinance violated, identify the court in which action was taken. indicate whether a plea of \ruilty or not i\liltv was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond Or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith. (emphasis added) A.-~jc!e f\.' (a) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitatio:l of the license to operate a motor vehicle. shall give the same effect to the conduct r:ported . . . as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convjcuonS for:... (2) d:iving a motor ve!!icie whiie unde: :he mfluence of intoxicating liquor. . . . The Drive:" s License Compact is recognized by New Jersey under NJ.S.A. 39:5D- 1 to 39:5D-;4, The Commonwealth Court has ruled that the reporting requirements oflhe , Compact are mandatory and not subject to the discretion of the reporting state. Mazurek v. Commonwealth ofPennsvlvanill.. D~artrnent ofT ramoortation. Bureau of Driver LicensiIllz. 717 A.2d 23 (pa.Cmwlth. 1998); Kiebort v, Commonwealth or Pennsylvania. Department oftrans.porration. Bureau of Driver Licensini. 719 A.2d 1 i39 (pa.Cmwlth. 1988). The report of conviction from the ,0 ;, reporting State must contain: , Ii :\ I, :1 3 , , I , ....- 11(84(1999 16:44 " 6185658548 LAf'DCE D I ANSaLE P~GE 84 II ~ ! Ii 1': il " 11 'i (I) tile identiLy of the person convicted; (2) a descriotio;; of the violation including the section of the staOlte violated: (3) the identity afthe court in which .the person was convicted; (4) and an indication afme plea (g"..Lilty or not pIlty) or whether the conviction resulted from a forfeiture of security, " ji ,; Kiebon, 7] 9 A.2d at 1143 (emphasis added). In Kieboa, a Pennsylvania driver i' I: was charged and convicted by a New Je:-sey court of violating N.J.S.A. 939:4- I',' i! 50( a) relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The Pennsylvania i' i! Department of Transponatior: was notified and suspended the driver's license, The [. " i: Commonwealth Com-: reversed, holding that New Jersey's re1'ol'1 of conviction " II I failed to identitY the court in whicn the defendant ..'as convicted and failed to II 'I i I indicate the nature of the plea or whether the conviction resulteG from a forfeiture ;i of securit}'. After Kiebo;!, a legislative amend."1lent under 75 Pa.C.SA. SL584 pu"l'or".s to ,; !; relax the reporting requirements of A,"ticle ill ;s :1 eliminated the need for :, reporting states to report all of the information required under Article III. 75 Pa.C.S,A, S 1584 now reads in pe~ent part: I, , 1 , I: . , . The omission from any renon received by the deparonent from a part)' state of my information requi~ by Alticle ill of the compact shall not excuse or prevent the department from complying with its duties under Article IV and V of the compact. Z ,I I, " The Amendment violates the soecific reauirernents of Article !IT of the . , !, Compact and it violates due process requirementS under the United States and 1- ,; Pennsylvania Constitutions. The purpose of due process notice is founded on the ., " ,I :: il I, II 4 --- 11/e~!1999 16:'4 I. 5165658548 LAlo.R8-CE Dr AN3a.US L _ ~"' . ;~........L. %; PAEE tJ: ,,- , 'i " i ,I !i ,'" conCept of fundamental fair~ess. Due process requir~s that the defendant have 1! !! enough information to responc to the charge. .A..n examination of 75Pa.C.S.A. 1584 " reveals a broad and sweeping provision which permits Pennsylvania to suspend a drivers license where "anv inrormation" is omitted from the reoort recuired by . . . ..; !: Article m oftbe Compact. Applying !584literelJy could result in Pennsylvania suspending the license of a drh'e:, where the report only contained the licensee' 5 " name or operator's lic=e number. Such notice would be really no notice at all :: because it '~oujd lack fu.!1damental facts sufficient to advise the licensee of who. I, i' what. where or when an alieged violation occurred. It wouid be r~e equivalent of a c:-imimtl il'lformatio;: which read enly "John jones. , vou violated the iaw" or a civil cO!:lDlaint 1!.7lich read only "Jon.-: Jones owes me . . " money. " , i The F i f"J1 A:r.endment to the United States COI".5t:rution ma."1dates that 00 pe~on s::al: "be depr.ved of!ife, liberty, or prope~, without due i'rocess of law . , The FClurtee:1tb Amendment to the Constitution "operates to exte:ld . . . the same protection against arbitrary srate legislation, affecting life,liberty, and property, as is offered by the Fifth Amendmen:." Hibben v. Smith, 191 U.S. 310, 325 (1903). "The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the ext.."nt to which he J:1ay be 'condemned to suffer grievous i i loss,'.., and depends upon whether the recipient's interest in avoiding that loss i: 2 Amended Oeeembe:' 21, 1998, Ii H , - 11/8411999 lE:~4 1 ;:eS6S8S48 LAY.P.EJ.CS D i AN3ELUS PAG:: ee Ii I! I: II I', out\lleighs the fOvemment:a.l interest in summlL)' adjudication. n I' I Qsllilbenz v Kelt:. I :: 397 U.S. :;54, 262-63 (J 970)(quoting Joint Anti-Fas<;:isf Refu~ee Committee v, ! ~ I' McGmth. 34; U.S. 123, 168 (1951) (Justice Frankfurter conc~)). I', "ldentification of the specific diC'..ates of due process generally requires consideration ofchree distinct factors: first, the private interests t!utt will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of erroneous depravation of such imcres;: through the procedures used. and probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Govemrnenr's int<=res:, including the function involved and the fisa[ and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail." Mathews v. Eld:idge, 424 U.S, 319, 335 (1976). it 'i :; If :i I, l' \1, ~ : In Betl v. ~u!'Son, 402 TJ.S, 535,541-42 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Coun , , I; ruled mat :.'le State of Geo:gi, \'iolaIe~ due process under the state's Motor Vehicle' I: Safety Responsi:,iliry Act by requiring suspension of an uninsurec' s drive:' s i! license and rets::atior: ll.'lless t..ftey posted security to cover damages claimed by ,) i: aggrieved pa."ties afk- an accident. In striking down the statute, the Supre:ne " (oun stated: ;l , " i II Once licenses are issu~c . . . their continued possession may become c33ential ir: the PUnsU.iL or a llveUhood. Suspension of lSsued licenses thus involves S-L3.te action that adjudicates important inte:'ests of the licensees, In such Ca:les the licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process TetlUired by the Fourteenth Amendment. ,. " ,I j, " :! ld. at 539 (citations omined) '. I i The Defendant is entitled to the proper cOl13titutional notice as is set fol"Jt in I Article III of the Compact. !I 'I " II Ii :i II 6 I I ll/e4!1999 16:44 5:85558548 L~CI'CE rr I Al'G2...:.E .' -I ~, " ~ pc,GC: 87 'I .:.. ~ i! !, " " i. ., 75 Pz.C.S.A. Sl58l A.!'tic1e ill reporting ::=quireme:1tS satisry due process : under Bell v. Burson. However, the amendment under 75 Pa.C.S.A. g!584. .' relaxing the reporting requirements or the Drive;-'s License Compact dilutes the , notice n:auirement to the point where Article ill and due process are both violated. '. . ; Absent all the infonnation required under Article m, the notice is defective for " purposes of enforcing the Compact. We believe that if75 Pa.C.S.A. g!584 is allowed to stand and thus modify :: the Compac: t'Ien the Compact would fail to mee: the r=inimum notice : reauirer.:ents due process demands. However. if we strike down 9 1584 then the . . " unmodIfied Compac1: is left in ta~: as cOnstimtionally sound. We choose the path ,i ; ofIeast des:ruc:ior; al"!d strike down 75 Pa.C.S.A. S I58A. as unconstitutional. b 22~f( ...., Date . '. 7 Ii f';",- \ ---' IN'THE COMNfOi'fWEAl. TH COCRT OF PBfNSYL V Pu'-llA RANDY W. BOOTS v. No. 1930 C.D. 1998 Submitted: January 22, 1999 COrvfMONw'EAl TH OF PENN'SYL V M1A, DEPARThfENT OF TRAL'J'SPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSIN'G, Appellant BEFORE: HONORABLE JPuv[ES GARDNER CaLmS, President Judge HONOR-ABLE illIf FLAHERTY, Judge HONORABLE ENlll E. NARICK, Senior Judge OPThil0N BY JlTDGE FLAHERTY FILED: Augusr 5, 1999 The Department of Transporrarion, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order or the COUIt of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) which susrained the sraturory appeal of Randy Boots (Boots). We affirm. The facts of this case as gathered from the record are as follows.! On April 19, 1997, Boots was arrested for driving while intoxicated in the srate of Indiana. He was charged with violating Indiana Code ~9-30-5-2.: Subsequently, on September 25, 1997, Boots was convicted in the state of Indiana. The I The trial court did not issue a formal opinion with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Instead the trial court simply issued an order briefly explaining its rationale. z Section 9-30-5-2 of the Indiana Code provides tbat "(a] pe!son which operates a vehicle while intoxicated commits a Class A misdemeanor. " .....~'1 Department received from Indiana an "1J.formation and Summons" (Reproduced Record (R,R.) at 38a) and on the reverse of the fnformanon and Sur-unons an "Abstract of Court Record" (RR. at 39a) and an "Order of Conditional Probation." (R.R. at 40a) Following its receipt of these documenrs, the Department sent an official notice to Boots, indicating that it was treating Boors' Indiana conviction for driving while intoxicated as if Boots had been convicted under Section 3731 of tbe Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. ~3731.j The starutory authority permitting the Department to do so is found in the Driver's License Compact (Compact), 75 Pa. C.S. ~9 1581 - 1585. The Deparnnent's official notice indicated that it was suspending Boots' license pursuant to "Section 1532B [sic] of [he Vehicle Code," 15 Pa. C.S. ~1532(b). Boots filed a statutory appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. At the de novo hearing on the statutory appeal, the Deparnnenr sought to introduce the records which Indiana had sent to the Deparrmenr. Boots obiected to rh~ admission of those documents on the grounds, inter alia, that they did not comply with the requirements of75 Pa. C.S. ~1581 ArLo ill which provides in relevant pan that the "licensing autbo~ty of a parry scare shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within irs jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee." (Emphasis added.) Boots essentially argued to the trial court that there was no evidence that these documents which the - Department soulffit to admit were sent by the licensing authority of the state of Indiana which is the bureau of motor vehicIes and therefore the Compact was not complied with. The trial court apparently accepted Boors' argument and on July 1, 3 That section prohibits licensees from driving or operating a motor vehicle while, inter alia, under the influence of alcohoL 2 "'~~~ ., - -~l.;,,__ _ .,' " --lll1;;{ [998 issued the following order which sustained the appeal and provided In relevant pan that [t]his case came before the Court under the Interstate Compact Agreement. 75 Pa. C.S. ~1581, .'\rticle III specifically states: "it is the licensing authority of a party state that shall report each conviction of a person from a party state." In order to avoid complications and misunderstandings It IS necessary that Article III be strictly adhered to so that unifonnity in reporting to party states will be established. Any documents from a party state that are not from its "licensing authority" should not be accepted mro evidence. Our decision in the instant case is based UDon the failure of the Commonwealth to provide a document from me Licensing Authority of the Stare of Indiana in accordance with 75 Pa. C.S. ~581, Article ill. R.R. at 28a. The Denartment filed this time Iv aooeal to this court. .... , .. ..J. Appellate review over an order of the trial court ill a license suspension case is limited to determin:ing whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed or whether the court abused its discretion. Fisher v. DeDartment of Transoortation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 709 Ald 1008 (Fa. Cmwlth.. 1998). The sole issue which the Department raises is a question of law: whether the trial court committed an error of law in finding that the documents which the Department sought to admit were inadmissible since, according to the 3 ~~ -, ' _I " , " Deparrment, they were in full compliance with 75 Pa. C.S. ~ I550( d)(1), as well as the mandates of the Compact'Jo The Deparnnenr initially argues that the documents were admissible pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S. ~I550(d)(1) which provides in relevant part that "[iJn any proceeding under this section (granting a person whose license has been suspended a right of appeal to a court] documents received by the deparnnent from the courrs or ariministrative bodies of other states or the federal government shall be admissible into evidence to support the department's case. n We agree that S 155 O( d)(l) states the general rule that such documents are admisslb Ie in statutory appeals. Section 1550(d)(l) provides that documents sent from any courtS or administrative agencies of another state or federal 2'overnrnenc are admissible. , ~ ' - However, 75 Pa. C.S. ~1581, Article III specifies from which agency documents must be sent in proceedings initiated under the Interstate Compacc "the licensing authority of a party s-..ate shall report each conviction of a person ;'om another party state...."(emphasis added). Thus, the more specific provision of75 Pa. C.S. S 1581, which addresses proceedings initiated under the Compact as is the case here, controls over the more general provision of 75 Pa.C.S. ~ 1550( d)(I). See ! Pa. C.S. 9 1933 ("the special provision shall prevail and shall be col15tr1led as an exception to the general provision. "). Ibis disposition comports with our recent interpretation of75 Pa. C.S. 91581 Article III in Mazurek v. Deoarnnent of Transuortation.. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 717 A.ld 23 (Fa. Cmw!th. 1998) wherein we construed the word "shall" · Si!lce this appeal presents a pure question of law, this ccurt's standard of review is plenary, that is to say, we owe no deference to the trial court's legal conclusions. Deuartment of Transoorratioll. Bureau of Driver Lic..'"llSing v. Clavroll. 546 Pa. 342, 68~ A.2d 1060 (1996). 4 .,- i, '''''''-O\t in .'\.rticle III as being mandatory. In \-!a.c--urek, we held thar the word "shall" evidences a legislative inrent that requires the report sent by the Iicensi.i1g authority to contain certain infonnation and if that report lacks 5>1ch infonnanon, it is incompetent to support the Department's suspension of a license. Here, we likewise hold that the words "the licensing authority of a party state shall report" evidences a legislative intent to require that the licensing authority be the reporting body. In this case it is clear that the "licensing authority" of the state of Indiana is the bureau of motor vehicles. Indiana Code ~9-:Z8-1-:Z ("[a]s used in this chapter, with reference to Indiana, 'licensing authority' means the bureau [of motor vehicles]."). The trial colut concluded as a matter of law that the licensing authority of the state of Indiana had to supply the report to the Department. Given its ultimate disposition of the srarutory appeal, it is apparent that the trial court found that the Department failed to susrain its burden of showing that the documents upon which it sou!Zb.c to base Boors' suspension were received from the . - . Indiana licensing authority. We note that this requiremem is not onerous in that the Deparnnent can always request the necessary information be sent from the licensing authority ofpany stares. Namely, 75 Pa. C.S. ~1581 Article VII provides that (a) The head of the licensing authority of each party state shall be the adminisrrator of this compact for his state. The administrators, acting joinriy, shall have the power to formulate all necessary and proper procedures for the exchange of information under this compact_ (b) The "drninistrator of each party state shall furnish to the administrator of each other party state any 5 ~~ '"lL~ information or documenrs reasonably. necessary to facilitate the administration of this compact We note that the Pennsylvania legislarure has designated the Department as the "licensing authority" of the Commonwealth within meaning of the Compact.. 75 Pa. C. S. 91583 . We further note that the Indiana legislature has provided that "[t]he bureau shall furnish to the appropriate authorities of any other party stare any information or documents reasonably necessary to facilitate the administration of A.rticles 3,4, and 5 of the compact" Indiana Code g9-28-1-2. As it is the burden of the Department to comply with the legislature's mandates set forth in the Compact and the' trial court determined that the Department failed to do so, the order of the trial court is affirmed.' Jllvl FL<lliER TY, Judge Senior Judge Narick dissents. S Boots, in lIis brief to this court, requested an award of counsel fees, pursuant to Pa. R.AP. 2744. We find no basis for dle award of counsel ~s in this matter and therefore deny the request. 6 :,- - . -'~ 'j IN THE COlYITvfOl'-iw"E.AJ. TH COURT OF PRINSYL V A1"l'TA Ri~JIDY W. BOOTS v. No. 1930 CD. 1998 CO:tv11vfONW"EAL TH OF PENNSYL VANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRPu'\TSPORTATION, Bl.JREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellant ORDER NOW, August 5, 1999, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of /-\lle2:henv County, Civil Division, docketed at No. S.A. 0189 of 1998 and dated -. . July 1, 1998, is hereby affirmed. JIM FLA.HER TY, Judge , 1. IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYL V..o\1'!IA tvrrCHAEL BARRETT, Appellant v. No. 365 C.D. 1999 COM:MONWEAL TH OF PENNSYL V Al'IIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRA1"fSPORT ATION, BUREAU OF DRNER LICENSING Submitted: July 2, 1999 BEFORE: HONORABLE JOSEPH T. DOYLE, President Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGA1.'l"CE LEADBETTER, Judge OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE DOYLE! FILED: January 31, 2000 ~fichael Barrett appeals an order of the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas upholding the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing's (Department), suspension of Barrett's motor vehicle operating privileges. On December 22, 1997, Barrett was convicted in New York of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .10 percent or more, in violation of New York's Driving While Under the Influence (DWl) statute. N.Y. Vea & Traf. Law S 1192(2). By notice dated April 9, 1998, the Department informed Barrett as follows: 1 This case was reassigned to the author on September 10, 1999. - ----- ~_..._- Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to treat certain out of state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania. Therefore, as a result of the Deparrment receiving notification from NEW YORK of your conviction on 12/22/1997 of an offense which occurred on 121191I997, which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pa. Vehicle Code, DRTVING UNDER THE INRUENCE, your driving privilege is being SUSPENDED for a period of 1 YEAR(S), as amended by Section 1532B of the Vehicle Code.f2J After a hearing, the Common Pleas Court sustained Barrett's suspension, fmding New York's DWI offense to be "substantially similar" to Pennsylvania's Driving Under the Influence (DUl) offense for purposes of Article N of the Driver License Compact of 1961 (Compact). Barrett appeals that decision. On appeal, Barrett argues that because Pennsylvania, in enacting the Compacr, omitted Article IV(b) of that Compact, a suspension cannot be based on an out-of-state offense such as his, where impairment by alcohol is not proven.; Tne relevant enacred portions of Article IV are set forth below: (a) the licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shan give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for: 2 Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa.C.S. S1581, sers forth the Driver's License Compact of 1961. Section 1532(b)(3) of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. ~1532(b)(3), provides that the Department shall suspend a driver's operating privilege for one year upon receiving a certified record of that driver's conviction of Section 3731 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. S3731 (driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance). J Our standard otrevlew of acommon pfea:f court decision in a ficense suspension appeal is limited to a determination of whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed, or the court abused its discretion. Deoartment of Transcorration. Bureau ofDriver Licensing; v. Fellmem, 528 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). 2 _...1"'_ (2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely dn'ving a motor vehicle. (c) If the laws of a party state do not provide for offenses or violations denominated or described in precisely the words employed in subdivision (a) of this article, such party state shall construe the denominations and descriptions appearing in subdivision (a) of this article as being applicable to and identifjring those offenses or violations of substantially similar nature and the laws of such party state shall contain such provisions as may be necessary to ensure that full force and effect is given to this article. (Emphasis added.) Article N(b) states that 'laJs to other convictions, reported pursuant to Article ill, the licensing authority in the home state shall give such effect to the conduct as is provided by the laws of the home state." Compact Article N(b) (emphasis added). The Pennsylvania legislature suspended Article N(b) because of the "technical and administrative limitations, under which the Department of Transportation is currently operating. . . ." Section !O of the Act of Dec. 10, 1996, PoL. 925, as amended. Barrett argues that by excluding this language, the legislature intended to bar out-of-state convictions for per se violations such as his. Barrett's reliance on Article N(b) is misplaced. TIris court ~dressed a similar issue in Ellis V. Denartment of Transnonation. Bureau of Driver Licensinl!, 732 A.2d 1290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). In Ellis, the Licensee argued that Dill offenses based solely on a driver's blood alcohol concentration did not full within the nurview of the Com11llct hec.allM. nnder th~ _~~o_ ~f' Compact, a Pennsylvanian's driver's operating privilege could only be taken away if he committed an offense substantially similar to driving under the influence "to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving," rd. 732 A.2d at 1292, quoting 75 Pa.C.S. *3731. There, this Court rejecred Licensee's argument, reasoning that [a]n understanding of the entire statutory scheme [confirms] our interpretation of those provisions currently in effect. Under this scheme, the home state licensing authority was charged to accord the same collateral effect to a foreign conviction as to a local one in two instances: 1) where the conviction is based upon conducr prohibited by the two member states in substantially identical or equivalent statutes [subsection (b)] or 2) where both states prohibit conduct substantially similar to one of the offenses enumerated in subsection (a) and the conviction arises therefrom [subsections (a) and (c)]. Plainly, the "substantially similar" statutory language of subsection (c) permits a more rela.'{ed standard of comparison than that prescribed by subsection (b). (Parenthesis in original.) (Cirations omitted.) In light of the above, we must detennine whether the language of New York's DWI statute is substantially similar to Pennsylvania's Dill statute. New York's DWl statute provides: ~1192. Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs 2. Driving while intoxicated; per se. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has .10 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood. . . . N.Y. Vea & Traf. Law gll92(2). By comparison, Pennsylvania's Dill stttute provides: 4 L-,~'", ", , ~3731. Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance. (a) Offense Defined.-A person shall not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle in any of the following circumstances: (1) While under the intluence of alcohol to a degree which renders the person incapable of safe driving. (4) While the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of: (i) an adult is 0.10% or greater; . . . . 75 Pa. C.S. g373 I (a)(4) (emphasis added). In Ellis, this COUIt was presented with a Wyoming statute that prohibited driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent. Tms court held the two statutes to be substantially similar. It based its holding, in part, on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in Commonwealth v. Robertson, 555 Pa. 72, 722 A.2d 1047 (1999) (Opinion in support of affirmance) and Commonwealth v. Nfikulan, 470 A,2d 1339 (1983). Specifically, this Court in Ellis said: Our Supreme Court has stated that '[I]t is clear that . . . the Pennsylvania legislature...view[s] driving with a .10% level of alcohol in the blood to be inherently unsafe.' Robertson, 722 A.2d at 1051 (opinion in support of affinnance). Funher, in Commonwealth v. MikuIlm, 504 Pa. 244, 250-251, 470 A2d 1339, 1342 (1983) that court detennined that 75 Pa.C.S. g373 1 (a)( 4) rationally and reasonably furthers the Commonwealth's compelling interest in protecting highway travelers against drunk: drivers, and quoted with approval the American Medical Association policy statement that blood alcohol content of 0.10% should be accepted as prima facie evidence of intoxication and testimony that an individual with O. 10% blood alcohol content is incapable of safe driving. 5 rd. 732 A.2d at 1293. Barrett would have this Court hold that the Department cannot proceed lUlder the Compact because the New York statute in question enmnerates a per se violation based on evidence of blood alcohol content, whereas our Pennsylvania statute enmnerates a conviction that can be based on rebuttable, prima facie evidence. However, for purposes of comparing the two statutes to ascertain whether they proscribe conduct of a substantially similar nature, Ellis makes it clear that such a distinction is not material. Based on our decision in Ellis, we find New York's DWI statute, N.Y. Vell. & Traf Law ~1192(2), to be substantially similar to Pennsylvania's Dill offense, 75 Pa.C.S. ~3731(a)(4). 4 Accordingly, for purposes of Article N of the Compact, Pennsylvania must give the same effect to Barrett's New York conviction as if the conduct had occurred in Pennsylvania. For the reasons set forth, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford COlUlty is affinned. JOSEPH T. DOYLE, President Judge 4 Our decision tOday is distinguishable from Olmstead v. DeDamllent of Transoortation. Bureau of Driver Licensing. 677 A.2d 1285 (Pa. Cmwith. 1996). That case dealt with New Yotk statute glI92(!), Driving While Ability Impaired, which provides rhat lnlo petSon shall openne a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol" (emphasis added), which was inrexpreted by this Coun to mean any impairment. Hence, we found the statutes not co be substantially similar. See also Petrovick v. Deoartment ofTransoortation. Bureau of Driver Licensinll. _ Pa. -,741 A.2d 1264 (1999). The New York Statute before us tOday, by CODlI3St, is virtually identical to the language in Section 3731(aX4) of the Vehicle Code. 6 :~. ~ ~ ~ -_ 'I: "' , IN THE COJ.\llJ.'\10NWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYL V Ai~l.'-\ rvrrcHAEL BARRETT, Appellant v. No. 365 C.D. 1999 CGMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA. DEP ARThfENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER UCENSING ORDER Ai'fD NOW, January 31, 2000 , the order of the Court of Common Pleas of the 42 Judicial District, Bradford County, at No. 98DL000248, filed December 17, 1998, is hereby affirmed. JOSEPH T. DOYLE, President Judge - ,.loJ ""~^- , . . U1f!A /L1) qq~;q 1&~ ~ 3-00 (~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ; Darren P. Martin. Petitioner, vs. No. 472-1999-CrvIL Commonwealt~ of Pennsylvania, Department af Transportation, Respondent. m ~ ~ : ""O-f ~ 0- -'" r- .....................................................:rc-~....~..~ .......................................,........^"~...=":':"'" '-I "''''00 ~~ ~-t -;::'-. -.." ~..~: W c.......~ ""'_, -.,0_ .....;- t.n ~....... "",;:.: t:) ::')~r't1 Subsequent to receiving a report of ft~vL-:!h ~j;:Qo "0 = S~.." ~ -:::l Impaired" from the s':ate of New York the ~enn~v~:ra OPINION Department of T::;a."lsportation 5uspe~ded the drive::;' s licence of the petitioner. This Licence Suspension Appeal of Darren P. Ma::;tin (ft?etitioner"J has been broug~: ~~al1enqinq the power of the Depart:nent of Transportation (ftDeparbtent"} to suspend his licence under the Driver's ~icence Compact (75 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 1581) ("Compact"). and also cb.allenqinq the const1tu.tionality and legality of the recent addition to the code of 75 Pa. C.S.A. S 1586. That sec<::.ion, as enacted, provides for au interpretation of the Compact whereby when consideriZlq whether a pazoty state's law is substantially similar to a Pennsylvania OUI that the level of impaiment shall not be considered as a 1 - L~':.\. . fac~or in such a determination.' Substantial similarity is a prerequisite to the suspension i~ these circumstances. While the New York DWAI statute has been found dissilnilar in the past (see inf:a, Olmstead, Panacena, Frantz), the Department asserts the new interpz:etive statute as reason for now finding it similar. The petitioners argue that the statutory interpretation of the compact as represented by 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 1586 is violative of the contracts clause o.f the Constitution. The Court rejec::s this argument as it is not apparent that any rights or obliqations under the compact are impaired or altered._ In fae':, it appears :.n this eircumstar.:::e that the compact is beinq used to further enhance road safety by, rat.'1er charitablYr seeking to er_'lance the goals of the compact (which is by its te::::ns to be liberally construe.:!). Despite rej'ectinq this argcent, the Court still has substantial 1 Dutiu of depar:mmt ~e- department ~hall, !O& p1U'POSQ5 of imposinq a. 3u.:!pe=.ion ell: revoc:a-c:i.OtI. undor Ac'ticllit IV of me compact, 1:%eae l:eporu of cenv1Ct;:!.OM r8cei".d. t:rom party stac~ that :::e.l....e '.:0 d:ivillq, operad.n'1 or beinq in actual pb.ysieal . =~"'OJ. of a. velU.cle "l1i18 lJopdftd l>y or umler t!:le influence of alcollol. intox1<:a'Cillq liquo.r, clrug.llJ n.a.xeo'tic::t, =OD:t:~QUed. .ubs'CanC8S 0:: O'ther apairinq or in~oxi.c:a1:inq .ubstal\Cll as beint!r sUbstanti..lly .illl:i.lar ~o soOCtion 3731 (ralatinq to <1riv.i.nq \lZl1l-..: the influence of alo:=lIcl or conu~eCl substancel . tAll :t:aC1: that the offense reported co 1:he ctllpucl\Wlt l>y a. party .tate ltlay .:equire a cf1<<ereaC ~ 04 _'!!Ooi -t: of. ii per.3on.'s abiliq to operate, <i.d.ve or control .. _0:1. 1:llal1 that requ1red. to $UppOtt a ecmricU= fo" .. violation of oec:tion 3731 .tlIaU DOl: be .. bU.U ~ ......-.-."'" - eIla p>a1:r ~t:a_'" ~.DII. j.6 lIOe subtlt:aati.all.y sV'il::r.r to tlaetion 3731 tor pu%POse~ of A..-d.cJ.- IV of the cOlllpaCt. 7S h.C.S.1.- S 1!8~. t~i. alllladl 2 I ~ ~ifficulty reconciling this new ~iefir.itionn of ~sub5tantial similarity" with the law as i~ stands. The petitioner challenges whether the Compact empowers the Depart=t to suspend under the circumstances presented; under this analysis the Court finds that 75 Pa. C.S.A. 5,1586 creates an absurd result which requires :indir.~ the Department's actions tall outside of the confines of the COtlpact, and are 1:hereby void. I. The appl.ication of 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 1586 creates an irrational result leading to conflict between statutes. Several cases occurring prior to the er~ctment of S 1586 present a hackdrop to the current <...'lal1'sis in that they had determined whe1:her other states laws are ~subs:~~tially similar" for the pu-~o5e 0: license suspensior.. See e.g. ~ v. Com.. Deot of Tr'nsoortation, 713 A.2d 744 (?a. Cmwlth. 199B); Olmstead v. Com., Dent of Transnortation, 677 A.2d 1285 (Fa. Cawlth. 1996); Fisher v. C~.. Dept of Tran~porta~ion, 709 A.2d 1008 (Pa. cmwlth. 1993); Pavacena v. Com.. Devt of Transtlot'tation, 716 A.2d 714 (Pa. D1wl~h. 1998); "'r",n1:Z v. Com.. Oect of Trans'Oortation, 7:.3 A..2d 1744 (Fa. cmwlth. 1998). The~e cases have used level of iJllpair.nen-c as the yardstic::k by which to compare statutes for the purpose of determininq substantial similari~y. The compact provides for 3 "" '~ ~ - -. . . sw>pensions for conduc;-z which is substantially silnilar to pennsylvania's DUI statute.~ In the cases which have shown that Ne'" York's DWAI statute to be dissilnilar (albeit decidad prior to 'the amended statute ~1586J, it: is clear that certain conduct is not prohibited in Pennsylvania, although it is prohibited in New York: thac is, while illegal in New York, one may legally drive here while impaired (though only to a degree that does 11QJ;, render them incapal)le of safe driving). through this analysis it' is clear that conduct which is prohibited in ?ennsylvania is conduct w~ch is actually ,.j~1"tnad bv a certain le.rel of imnai!'ttlent. The difficulty . 2 Saft Smeaa V, Coma, Oeot. of !:a!U'Cortation. i2i A.2ct 154, 159 (pa.~1~.1999) _ 3 Ar-:i ole rv ztfe~~ of COcvi~io~ (a) n.e lic:en;5inq a.uthority in e..-:.a home 2tate, for me ?ll..-pose!5 of ,,~pen5ioD., revoc;.a;c1o= 0: li:Dita'tic:rn of the lic:e!Ue to opoara'te a mot:oJ:' ve!Ue1e, shal~ g:1ve t:be "ale d~ed: Co tbe ~ r~c::ted.t PW:.3uaQt 'to Ard.cle I:I of 1:h1.s c:cmipac1:, a.s it. would if .au:h c:ouduc:e had. occu.r.:ed. in t11e home sta,=e in e. ca3e of canvict'ions for: 12) dl:.i.vinq & lIIOto" fth.j,cJ.. -..bile 1lnCl." !:he intlUllDCe of intoxicating liqu~ or a nar;cotic dJ:uq or uncia" the in..'luena of my o~tr dr~q to a. deq.ree. wbich xende%,s the d.:c'iver i:capable of safely d..-:iv:i.nq a :a.o1:Q:- vehi<:l.o; (e) If ';he lav. of a ~ .tate do not provide r..," ..t!eMe3 0," vi.olaeior... <I-l"""i "a"od or ae.cribed in pr;oci.eJ.y the ".,:do _loyed in 5Ubcb.vi.i-m (al o! UU5 arr:icle, ddI. ~ sta1:e .1ball ~ f:U 1I_....;-~ti.OlU' acd .w.,~p~ 4.1=l.::l~....4'1'1'T J4.ftfb1:fi.~ (:iJ} G€ 'dL1.I 2rf::I.e1. all ~ iIpp~1..~h1. to aDd JdflIad.(y1Dg """". ou-. Q~ yj,oJ,aCloJls o~ a _i:lmt:tAZ.1y,,~ _ture aDd tI10I :Law of: ......,. ,pazty ..tate .olL;IU coataia _ ~- ;uJ MY be .....,..-zy to __ t1azt: flZ.U _ =<I _LEece i.s ~..... to w.. ~. 75 Pa.C.S. 51581 (EmphaSis Added! 4 " ~ . ~resented to the Court is that by eliminating the level of impairment as a criteria for determining whether statutes are substantially similar is to remove from consideration the very nature of the prohibited conduct. To sweep up conduct which is not prohibited into t.'lat which is prohibited requires the taxing of reason which the Court finds to be unworkable because any llleaningful comparison becomes i.mpossible. II. On thB level that the statutes =e siln.ilar thBY do not define prohibi.ted. conduct in pennsylvani.a. Alternately, 1t' t..1:Ie Court were to remove the level of impairment from :he equa':ion, what of the stat'Jtes would there remain to consider as "sI,;,bstantially s''"i.lar?" The answer would necessarily be that the stat'Jtes are similar on the basis that: they both encompass driving while impaired. Driving while i:tlpaired (without a. specified leve:' of impairment) is :lot prohibited conduct i~ Pennsylv~~;a. License suspension therefore could not be pe=itted si:'.ce the compact does not provide tor suspension unless the conduc~ is prohibited. While 7S Pa.C.S. S 1586 is not vague or ambiq'':'ous in meaninq, the 'Court cannot ignore the conflict it presents with the similarly clear terms of 75 Fa.C.S. S 1581. 5 t ~Ir. The Compact does not empower the Department to suspend licences, because the lanquaqe of the cal1pact (which closely lllittors 75 pa.C.S.A. 3731 (a.) (1)) cannot aJ.low ror suspension for a New York DWAI, provided that interpretation of 1:he express language of the Compact remains consistent with interpretation of the virtually identical language in the Pennsylvania DtrI statute. Lastly, since the case law has eX?lored the meaning of the New York DWAI statuts! and f:lund t..'lat the statute is not substantially similar to the l?ennsyl1.-ania stat1.lte s3731 (a) (Ii, which requires a dr~ver to be ~~der the influence of alcohol to a degree whie:" renders the driver incapable . of safe driving" it 'oIould sinila:::ly not fit u:'lde.: ~he category of the compact' 5 Art. IV (a) (2) '<Ih.::..ch .:equi!:es "a degree [of impai::::m.ent] which renders the driver incapable of driving a motor vehicle.'" So while the Court may, th.t'ouqh the use of the new definition find the DiiAI and Dur statutes s:.milar, it cannot find that t..'le DWAI falls within the category defined in subsection (al (2) . WHEltEBY the Court concludes that the Depar1::l1ent lacks the power to suspend in these circumstances as it relates to New York's DWAI stat;.J.te. FurtheDllOre findin9' 'that the application 6 '"'"'-- . ~ . ., I" ^- \ ~f ~ 1586 creates an irrational result (requiring either the finding that the department is acting outside of the compact when the section is elllployad; or, requiring the Departmer.t, ~nd the Cou=t, to ignore the most essential defining characteristics of the conduct at issue) the Court finds the statute unconstitutional. AND NOW, this OImD ~'i'~y of September, 1999, ~pon consideratio::. of the petitioner's Appeal of License Suspension, the Court GRANTS the. appeal. HAROLD A. '" ~ '- THCMSON~,:;::rR. I ~ ,.,,;;n '" m C,Q ~~ c;' .,,- ..,'" ""'" . m ~ '" '" ee: Michael Weinstein, Esquire John Ronnsky, EsqUire William G. Rice, Es~Jire ...; C.Q :or the Pa. D'C Reporter 7 c.J "';;:' '::0<:) ""-4.,., co;,;.... ~oo <:l ::!:". 00 c::;!O =:;,;::,"" -4~ Y <n "" ~ 18 USCS S 2710 CRIMES & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ~ 2710(c). where internal affairs inveStigation. con. ceming:' alleged removal by police office:" of pom~ graphic videotapes and magazines from d~ent' s apartment during investigation of his dc::nh. led to lieutenant's obtaining and disclosing in discipJinary proceedings names and rental dates of ccnain porno- graphic videotapes previously rented ~. police officer and his wife from public video store. because impor- tance of mainCJ.ining privacy of individual's person- ally identifiable information mandates that people who obtain such infonnation from videotape service providers aJso be held as proper defendants. Dirkes v Borough of Runnemede (1996. DC NJ) 936 F Supp 235. 11 BNA IER Cas 1818. CHAPTER 123. PROHIBmON ON RELEASE AND USE OF CERTAIN PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM STATE MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS Sec. 2nl: Prohibition on release and USe of certain personal infonnation from State motor vehicle records Additional unlawful actS Penalties Civil action Definitions 2722. 2n3. 2724. 2725. HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES Amendments: 1994. Act Sepc 13. 1994. P. r.. 103-321. Tide xxx. ! 3oooo1(a). 108 Slat. 1099. added the chapter -heading. 1996. Act Occ 1I. ]996. P. L. 10.:.294. Tide VI. ! 604(a)(3). 1I0 SlaC 3506 (e!'feedve on 91 13/94. pursuant [0 S 604(d) of such Ac-.. which appears as IS uses ~ 13 note). added the: chapter analysis. g 2i21. Prohibition on release and, use .oC certain personal infonnation from State motor vehicle recordS [Caudon: See note below with respect to the effective dale of this section.] ! ; (a) In general. Excepl as provided in subsection (b), a State depmment of motor vehicles. and , any officer. employee. or contractor. thereof. shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make avail- 1 able to any person or entity personal imbnnation about any individual obtained by the depamnent , in connection with a motor vehicle record. (b) Permissible uses. Personal iniormation referred to in subse.."lion (a) shall be disclosed ior use in connection with matterS of motor vehicle or driver saierv and theft. motOr vehicle emissions. I motor vehicle product illt~ons. recalls. or advisories". perionnancc monitoring 'of maror vehicles I and dealers bymolor vehicle manuiactnr=, and removal of DOn-<lWOer records from the original owner records oimolor vehicle manufactUrers to carry OUI the purposes of titles I and IV of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992. the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 u.s.e. 1231 et seq.). I the Oean Air ACI (42 U.S.c. 7401 et seq.). and chapters 301. 305. and 321-331 Df title 49 [49 .1 uses H 30101 et seq~ 30501 el seq~ 32101 el seq.-33101 el seq.J.and may be qiselosed as fol- lows: (1) Foruse by any government agency. including any cout! or law eniotCel!lenl agency. in car- rying oul its functions. or any private person or entity ecting on behalf oi a Fedetal. Slate, or local agency in carrying OUl its functions. (2) For use in connection with mam:tS of moter vehicle or driver safety and theft; motor vehicle emissions; motor vehicle product altet2tions. recaIJs. or advisories; petfimnance moniroting of moter vehicles, mOlor yebicle pans and dealers; molor vehicle markel resean:b activities. including survey research; and removal of non-<lwner n:cords from the original owner n:cords of motor vehicle manufactilretS. (3) For use in the nonnal coutSC of business by a legitimate business or its agents. employees, or conltaClors, but only- (A) 10 verify the accur.u:y of personal iniormation submitted by the individual to the basi- I ness or its agents. employees. or COllItlIClOrs; and (B) if such infcinnation as so submitted is DOt CQtreCI or is DO longer comet, to obtain the COtTeCl inionnation. but only for thc' purposes of preventing fraod by. pursuing legal ! remedies against, or recovering ona debl or security interest against. thc individual. (4) For use in connection with any civil. criminal, administrative, or arbittal proceeding in any,! Federal. Slate, or loeal court or agency or before any self-regulatory body. including the service of process, investigation in anticipation of litigation. and the executiOD or enf=ement of judg- mentS and otdets. or pUlSWlllt to an order of a Federal. State, or Joeal colllt. (5) For use in research activities. and for use in producing statistical repottS. so long as the personal information is not published. redisclosed, or used to cOntaCI individoaJs. 32 CRIMES , ! [ i , I I I (6) For use by any insurer or insur:mc aeents. emolovees. or contractors. in ~ aCtivities. r.lti~g or underv..fitinc. (7) For use in providing notic.: -to the (8) For use by any licensed private ;: purpose permined. under this subsectic (9) For use by an employer or its age: bolder of a commercial driver's licens, ~931301 et seq.J. (10) For use in connection with the oc (lI) For any other use in response to r vehicle depanment has provided in a renewal of operator's permitS. titles. r inionnation collected by the depanme provided in a clear and conspicuous disclosures. (12) For bulk distribution for survevs, ment has implemented methods and' pr (Al individuals are provided an oPF such uses; and (B) the iniormation will' be used. marketing. and solicitations. and directed at those individuals who h: ar them. (13) For use by any requesler. if the re of the indhiduaJ to wbom the infenna: (14) Par any other use specifically aot' if such use is related to the operation ' (c) Resale or redlsclosure. An authorize under subsection (b)(1 I) or (12)) may rese under subsection (b) (bUt not for uses unL under subsectioo (b)(1 I) may resell or authorized reciDienl under subsection (b)( anI to subsectiOn (b)(] 2). Any authorizec that resells or redisc!oses cersonal inform' must keeo ior a oetiod or' 5 vears records tioD and dte pemi;tted purpoSe for which tJ- available to the mOlor vehicle depmment (d) Waiver procedures. A State motor ve, under wbic!l the denanmenl or its a.ents. does nOI fall wiUtiD' ODe of the exceptions individual aboDI wbom the inionnation " together with a statemenl to the effecI thaI' waives such individual's righl 10 privacy , (Added Sept. 13. 1994. P. L 103-322. Tit L 104-287. ~ I, 110 Stat. 3388; Oct. 11. 3509.) HISTORY; ANcn.l References in text: The "Naliona1 Traffic and Motor Vehlc, 563, 80 Slat. 718,whi.;h appears g= of such Act. consuIl uses Tables yolurr "Tides I and N of the Anti-Cat Theft r N of Act Oct. 25. 1992. P. r.. 102-51' Tables volumes. . Effective date ot section: This scaion is eff'ectivc 3 years after caa Tide xxx. ! 3??oo3, 108 Stat. 2102. We Amendm""ts: 1996. Act Oct. 11. 1996. P. r.. 104-287, ..tides I and N of the Anli Car Theft A (IS US.C. 1131 et seq.~ lbe Clean Air and 321-331 of lide 49" for ..the AUIOr 'RE :>or- ;on- }pJe ,'ice ~s v "PP ,tor ,] md ail. lent use )n5. :Ies ina! the u.). [49 fol- ::ar. , or ide ~ of ies. >rds ~S. l1si- the ~gal any lice ldg- the CRIMES 18 uses 9 2721 (6) For use by any insurer or insurance support organization. or by a self-insured entiry. or jrs agents. employees. or contractors. in conne::tion with claims investigation activities. antifraud activities. rating or underwriting.. (7) For use in providing notice to the owners of towed or impounded vehicles. ($) For USe by any licensed 'privOlte investigative agency Of licensed security service for any pUlJ'ose permined under this subsection. (9) For use by an employer or itS agent or insurer to obtain or verify infonnation relatin2' to a holder of a commercial driver's license that is required under chapter 313 of title 49 (49 uses gS31301 et seq.j. (10) For use in connection with the operation of pnv3lc loll tr3n.SpOl13Don facilities. (11) For any other use in response to requests ror individual motor vehicle records if the motor vehicle deparonent bas provided in a cle3! and conspicuous manner on: fonns for issuance or renewal of oper:1tor's permitS. tides. registrations. or identification card,s. notice that personal infonnation collected by me depanmenz zna.,r be disclosed CO any business or person. and has provided in a clear and conspicuous manner on such forms an oppommiry to prohibit such disclosures. (12) For bulk distributio~ for surveys. marketing or solicitations if the motor vehicle depart- ment bas implemented methods .and procedures to ensure chat- (A) individuals are provided an opportUnit)'. in a clear and conspicuous manner. to prohibit such uses: and (B) the inionnation will be used. rented. or sold solel)' for bulk disuibution for surveys. marketing:. and solicitations. and cha( surveys, marketing. and solicitations wiU not-be directed at those individuals who have reauested in a timelv fashion that: thev not be directed at them. ... (13) For use by any requester. if the requester demonstrates it has obtained the written consent of the individual to whom the information pertains. (14) For any other us<: specifically authorized under the law oi the Scate that holds the record, if such USe is related to the op::rarion of a motor vehicle or public safety. (c) Resale Or redisclosure. An aUdlorized recipient of personal infonnatioD (except a recipient under subsection (b)(lJ) or (12)) lt1lly resell or redisciose the inionnation only ior a use pennitted Mder subsection (b) (bUt not for uses Mder suhsection (b) (II) or (12)). An authorized recipient under subsection (b)(ll) may resell or redisciose pmonal inibnnation ior any putpos<:" An authorized recipient under subsection (b)(12) ma)' resell or rediscios<: personal iniOlIllation pursu- ant to subsection (b)(l2)_ An)' authorized recipient (exc..-pt a recipient under subsection (b)(ll)) that resells or rediscloses oersonal inionnation covered hv this ci1aoter [18 uses g~ 2701 et S<:Q.] mUSt keep "for a period o{ S years records idcntiiying eadh person 'or entiry that receives informa- tion and the permitted pwpose for which the iniormation will he lISed and must make such records available to the motor vehicle depamnent upon request. . (d) Waiver procedures. A Scate motor vehicle deparnnent may establisb and <::my out procedures under which the depamnent or itS agents. upon receiving a request for personal information that does not fall within one of the exceptions in subsection (b), may mail , copy oi the request to the individual abont wbom the iniormation was requested. inionning such individual of the request. together with a statement to the effect that the iniormation will not he released unless the individual wa1ves such individual's right to privacy under this section. (Added Sept. 13. 1994. P. L. 103-322. TItle xxx. S 300002(a). 108 SiaL 2094; Oct. 11, 1996. P. L. 104-287. g I. 110 Stat. 3388; Oct. 11. 1996. P. L. 104-294. Title VI. g 604(b)(46), 110 Stat. 3509.) HISTORY; ANCILLUlY U WS AND DIRECTIVES References in rat; The "Natiooal Traffic and Motor Vehicle SUet)' Act of 1966", is Act Scp<. 9, 1966. P. L. 89- 563, 80 Stat. 718. which appealS gencnJly as 15 uses Ii 1381 et seq. For full c1assiJieatioo oi such Act. coosult uses Tables volumes. . "Titles J and IV of the Anti-car Theft Act of 1992". ,.ferred 10 in <Iris section. an: Title 1 and IV of Act Oct. 25. 1992. P. L. 102-519. For full classification of such Tides. consult uses Tables volumes. Ell'eetl.. date or _on: This seetion is c:lfective 3 yom aIicr enacunelll. pursuant to Act sept. 13. 1994. P. L. 103-322- Tide xxx. f 3??oo3, 108 Stat. 2102. which appears as a nOll: to Ibis section. Amendmeuts: 1996. Act Oct. ll. 1996. P. L. 104-287. in subscc. (bl. in the intrOduaory maner. substituted ..tides J and IV oi Ibe Anti Car Theft Act or 1992. the Automobile Infoll113lion Disclosure Act (\5 U.s.c. 1231 et seq.). the 0.... Air Act (42U.s.C.'7401 et seq.~ and cl1apters 301. 305. and 321-331 of tide 49" for ''\be Automobile Information Disclosure Act. the Motor Vehiele 33 18 uses g 2721 CRIMES & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Information and Cost Saving Act, the National Traffic and MOlor Vehicle Safer)' Act of 1966. the Anti..car Theft Act of 1992. and the Oean Air Act" and. in para. (9), substiruted "chapter 313 of?,de 49" for "the: Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act or" 1986 (49 U.S.c. App. 2710 et seq.) . Act Oa. 11. 1996. P. L 104-294 (effective on 9/13194. pu,,"uanllo , 604(d) of SllCh Act. which .ppears lIS 18 uses , 13 IIOce). in sub=. (e). substinued "covered by tItis ehapter.. for "covered by this title". Short tille: Act Sepe 13. 1994. P. L 103-322. TItle xxx. ,3??oo1. 108 Sue 2094. provides: "This title [18 uses 112721 et seq. gene:ally: for full eJIISsifi""tion. eonsult uses Tables volllllleSl may be cited as the 'Driver's Pri....acy Protection Act of 1994':', Other provisions: Eft'ecth-e dale oC 18 uses U ml-27~ implementation. Act Sept. 13. 1994. P. 1... 103-322. TItle;ax i 3??oo3. 108 Stat., 2101,. provides: "The amendments made by section 3??oo:2 [adding 18 uses Ii 2721-27"..5 and amending che :able of chapterS Jl=<'Iing 18 uses 11) shall become eifcaive on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. After me effective dare. if a Stafe has implemented a procedure under section 2721(b) (11) and (I2) of tide 18. UnilCd Scares Code. as added by section 2902 [3000021. for prohibiting disclosures or uses of personal infomzation. and the procedure otherwise meets th~ reqtlRmcms of subsec- tion (b) (11) and (12). the SUte sballbe in eomplian.. wich subseetion (b) (ll) and (12) even . if the proccdl1I"C is not available to individuals until they rcnC\\' their: license. tide. rcgistt:ttion or identification card. so long as the State provides some other procedure for individuals to contact the Stare on their own initiative to prohibit such uses or disclosures.. Prior to the effec- tive date. pco:ooaI information covered by the amendment made by section 3??oo2 may be released consiS'tCIII with State law or practice. .. . INTERPRETIVE NOTES AND DECISIONS U.S. is pennancntly enjoined from enforcing Driv- er's Privacy Proll:elion Act of 1994 (18 uses H .::li21 et seq.} in Slate of Souch Cwlin.a. whl:te Act re2Ulates dissemination and use of certain irlfonna- tioo cootained in stale motOr vehicle records. bcc:ause Act is not justifiable cxerc::isc of Congress's power 9 27ll AdditiODal11DIawful acts [CaDtion: See Dote below with respect to the eifective date of this seelion.] , , (a) Procurement for unlawful purpose. It shall be unlawful for any po:;on knowingly to obtain or disclose pe:rsonal inionnalion. from a mOtor vehicle record. for any use DOl pe<mitted under sectiOD 2721(b) of this tide. (b) False representation. It shall be unlawful for any person to make false representation to ObtaiD any pe:rsODal information from an individual's mOIOr vehicle record. (Added Sept. 13. 1994. P. L. 103-322, Title xxx. 93OOOO2(a), 108 Scat 2101.) under Commerce Clause or itS power to enforce tight to cri\'acY marantced bv S 5 of Fourteenth .~eod- meiIc. au', rnmer is in~on of stat: sovereigncy protected by Tenth Amendment. Condon v Reno 0997. DC SC) 972 F Supp 977. 2S Media L R 2313. ., ,HISTORY, ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES Eff'ec:tive date of section:. . .. This seetion .; effective 3 years after enaament pllrSuant to Ani Sept. 13. 1994. P. L 103-322. TIde xxx. 1300003, 108 Slat. 211l2. which appears lIS 18 uses, ! 2721 'Ole., RESEARCH GUIDE La,.. Review Artides: Loving. DMV Seaeey: stall:ing and suppression or speech rights. 4 CommLa.., Conspeet 203. SIUlUIIer 1996. ' ~ 2'723. Penalties {Caution: See Dote below with respect to the eifeclive dale of Ibis seeliGn.] (a) Criminal fine. A pe:rson wbo knowingly violates this chapter (18 uses 992721 et seq.] slWl be fined UDder 1bis lide. (b) Violations by Stale department of motor vehicle.. Any Sl3le department of molor vehicles that bas a poliey or ptllCtice of substantial noncompliance with this chapter (18 .uses ~~ 2721 et seq.] shall be subject to a civil penalty imposed by the Anorney Genetal of not mtn than $5.000 a day for each day of substanllal noncompliance. (Added SepL 1.3. 1994. P. L. 103-322. TIde xxx. ~ 300002(a). 108 Stat. 2101.) HISTORY, ANCll.LARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES Ell'ective dale or section: This seetiOll is effective 3 years after enaetmelIt pumwtt to Act Sept. 13. 1994. P. L 103-322. '!ille xxx. ! 300003. 108 Slat. 211l2. whidl appears lIS 18 uses 12721 nole. 34 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RESE. Law Review Articles: Loving. DMV Secrecy: stalking and suppr: Summer 1996. ! Z724. Civil action (Caution: See note t lion.] (a) Cause of action. A pe:rson who knowi: from a motor vehicle reCord. for a purpose r. seq.] shall be liable 10 the individual to whc tion in a United StateS district CQUr... (b) Remedies. The coun may a"..ard- (I) actUal damages. bUl nOl less than Jig" (2) punitive damages upon proof of willf (3) reasonable anomeys' rees and other 1 (4) such otiler preliminary and equitable (Added Sept. 13. 1994. P. L. 103-322. TIde HISTORY; ANcn.LA Effective date or section: . This section is effeCtive 3 vears after enac: ,TIde xxx. 13??oo3. 108' Stat. 2102. whi RESE Law Rel~w Artides: Loving. DMV Secre..."1': stalking and supp: Summer 1996. ! 2jzS. DeJimtions [CautioD: See note t lion.] In this chapter [18 uses ~~ 2721 el seq.]- (1) "motor vehicle recordu means any re motor vehicle title, motor vehicle regisu- mO[Qr vehicles; (2) "persoo" means an individual. arg3.I:. thereof; and (3) "oersona! information" means jnje individual's photograpb. social security (but not tile 5-digit zip eode). telephone n not include information on vehicular ac::- (Added Sepe 13. 1994. P. L. 103-3ll Tide HISTORY; ANCIJ.L.. Efred:ive date of section: This sectiOD is effe:ctivc 3: VC2I'S after enac TItle xxx. ~ 3??oo3. 108' Sw. 2102. wlL RES7 Law Review Articles: Loving. DMV S=y: stalking and supp SlmIl1ler 1996. PART IT. eRr . f Chanter 204. Rewards for infonnaion CODcem 228. Death sentence.. . . . . . .. . .. .. . HISTORY, ANClLL.' Amendments: 1994. Act Sept. 13. 1994. P. L 103-3:!:: analysis or chis Part by adding itelll 228. Act 0... 14. 1994. P. L 103-359. TIde \ of this Part by substirucing "Rewards (01 for "Rewards for information COnc:cminl -- ~-----~~--------- --- - ~--- --------- :E.DURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE " RESEARCH GUIDE " G Law Review Artides: Loving. DMV Secrecy: stalking and suppressioQ of speech rights. 4 CommLaw Conspca 203. Summer 1996. h 'r 92724. Civil action [Caution: See nole below with respect to the efl'ective dale of this sec- tion,] (a) Cause of action. A person who knowingly obrains. discloses or uses personal infonnation. from a motor vehiele record, for a pwpose not pcnniaed under this chaptcr [18 uses 992721 et seq.] shall be liable to the individual to wbOlD the infol1llatioopertains, who may bring a civil ac- tion in a. Unired Stares district court. (b) Remedies. The court mayaward- (I) actUal damages, but nor less than liquidated damages in the arnoun[ of S2.5OO: (2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or "",ldessdisregard of thc law; (3) reasonable anomeys' fees and other lirigation costs re:lSOIlably incurred; and (4) such other preliminary and equitable'relief as the court determines [0 be appropriate. (Added SepL 13. 1994.P. L. 103-321. Tide XXX, 9300002{a). 108 StaL 21.01_) HJSTORY; ANCILLARY LA. WS M'D DIRECTIYES Effective date DC section: This ~OD is dlc:ctive 3 ye:m: after enactment, pursuant to Act Scpt. 13. 1994. P. L 103.322, ,Tid. xxx. i 3??oo3; 108 SIaL 2102. wbi.b appcus as 18 uses i 2721 note. RESEARCH GUIDE , , ) s ,"C: right .-'Ulend. ~reignty v Reno R 2313. Law Rel'iew Articles: Lolo-iag. DMV Semcy: stalking and SUppressiOD of speech rightS. 4 CommI....3w Conspec:t 203. SlllIIIller 1996. o'e dale 92725. Definitions [Caution: See note below with respect to the efl'ective date of this. sec. tion.] , In this cbaprer []8 uses 99272] et seq.]- (I) "momrvehiele record" means any record that pertains m a motor vehicle opermor's pennit. motor vehicle ti~e. motor vehicle registration. or identification card issued by a deparanent.of motor vehicles: (2) "person" means an individual. orgunizarion or entiry. bur does nor include a S_ or agency thereof; and (3) "oersonal infonnation" means information that identifies an individual. including an individual', phorograph. social securityoumber, driver identification number. name. a4~ (bU[ nor the S-digiI zip code). telephone number, and medical or disability information. but does not include information on vehicular accidentS, driving violations. and driver's stalDS.. (Added SepL ]3, 1994, P. L ]03-321. Tide XXX, 9300002(a), ]08 Stat. 2102.) . . HJSTORY; ANcn.LARY LA. WS AND DIRECTIVES '. Effective date or section: This section is elfective 3 years aftol'..aaDt= porsoao[ to Aa. Sept. 13. 1994. P. L. 103-322, . , Tid. x;x. 9 3~ 108 S=.2I02. wbidl appears as 18 uses 92721 ,note. obtain i under obtain .... ._" RESEARCH GUIDE . , Law ReYlew Arildes: Loving. DMV Seaocy: _g and suppression of speecb rigJos. 4 CommLaw Conspea 203., Summer 1996. ' ,. , ction.] ] ,ball PART II. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :hieles 12] e[ ;5.000 , . Chaprer BeginDing Section 204. Rewards for information concoming terrorist acrs and espionage. . . . . . . . . . 307] 228. DeaIh SeD,""""... ..._...................... .............._...... 359\ HISTORY; ANCILLARY LA. WS AND DIRECTIVES Amemlmeals: 1994. Act Sept. 13. 1994. P. L. 103-322. Tnle VI. i6OOO2(b). 108 Sw. 1968. amended the analysis of dIis Part by adding i.... 228. , Aa. Oct. 14. 1994. P. L. 103-359. Tnl. vm. i 803(c)(I). 108 StIt. 3439, amr:nde<i the analysis of dIis Pan by subsliDl1ing "Rewards for infonnatioocaDccming _ actS and espionage" for "RewanIs for informalioo COllCl:IDiog lct1'Orists actS" io the item relating to chaprer 204. 35 - - " ~ j , PYS510 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Inquiry 2000-00366 SINGLETON DARRY (vs) PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF Page Reference No..: Case Type.. ...: APPEAL - LICENSE SUSP Judgment. .....: .00 Judge Assigned: HESS KEVIN A Disposed Desc, : ------------ Case Comments ------------- i i \ \ Filed........ : Time......... : Execution Date Jury Trial.. . . Disposed Date. Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: 1/20/2000 2:05 0/00/0000 0/00/0000 1756 CD2000 ******************************************************************************* General Index Attorney Info SINGLETON DARRY 815 FAIRFIELD STREET MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING 1101 SOUTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG PA 17104 2516 APPELLANT HERSHEY DAVID E APPELLEE ******************************************************************************* * Date Entries ******************************************************************************* R ~ 64 1/20/2000 1 1/25/2000 55 - 75 6/30/2000 77 - 82 7/21/2000 76 7/25/2000 83 - 87 7/27/2000 88 8/08/2000 89 - 90 8/11/2000 91 - 118 8/14/2000 119 - 123 8/23/2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS LICENSE ------------------------------------~------------------------------ ORDER - DATED 1/25/00 - IN RE LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL - HEARING 4/7/00 9:30 AM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 1/25/00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATE 6/30/00 - IN RE APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS LICENSE - OPINION AND ORDER - DENIED - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 6/30/00 PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR SUPERSEDEAS ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/25/00 - IN RE PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR SUPERSEDEAS - GRANTED - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 7/25/00 NOTICE OF APPEAL ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATED 8/8/00 - IN RE APPEAL - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 8/8/00 COMMONWEALTH-COURT-OF-PA-NOTICE-OF-APPEAL-OOCKETING-#-i756-CO-2000- -----------------~------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDING BY KEVIN A HESS J ------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *******************************************************************************j * Escrow Information > * Fees & Debits Beq Bal Pvmts/Adi End Bal > ************************************************~******************************i 35.00 35.00 .50 .50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 30.00 30.00 ------------------------ 75.50 75.50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ------------ .00 APPEAL LIC SUSP TAX ON APPEAL SETTLEMENT JCP FEE APPEAL / *******************************************************************************i * End of Case Information * *******************************************************************************~ 124 Exhibit and Briefs Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Inquiry 2000-00366 SINGLETON DARRY (vs) PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF Reference No..: Case Type.....: APPEAL - LICENSE SUSP Judgment.. . . . . . : .00 Judge Assigned: HESS KEVIN A Disposed Desc. : ------------ Case Comments ------------- ~n'" PYS510 - >'1 ':1; !It Page 1 Filed. . . . . . . . : Time......... : Execution Date Jury Trial... . Disposed Date. Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: 1/20/2000 2:05 0/00/0000 0/00/0000 1756 CD2000 ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info SINGLETON DARRY 815 FAIRFIELD STREET MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING 1101 SOUTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG PA 17104 2516 APPELLANT HERSHEY DAVID E APPELLEE ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries * ******************************************************************************** 1/20/2000 I 1/25/2000 6/3_0/~ 66 -,->> 7/21/2000 7/25/2000 10 7/27/2000 8/08/2000 ~ 8/W_2tf80 8/r;J/2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - ~~~~~~_~~~~_~~~~~~~~~~_~~_~~~~~~~_~~~~~~~___cl_:_~~___________~__ ORDER - DATED 1/25/00 - IN RE LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL - HEARING 4/7/00 9:30 AM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 1/25/00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATE 6/30/00 - IN RE APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS LINENSE - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 6/30/00 ~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~=~~~~~~~~~~~===1}[~=~================== ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/25/00 - IN RE PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR SUPERSEDEAS - GRANTED - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 7/25/00 ~~~~~~=~~=~~~~~~===Jr3===8Ci======================================= ORDER - DATED 8/8/00 - IN RE APPEAL - BY THE COURT KEVIN A HESS J COPIES MAILED 8/8/00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING # 1756 CD 2000 ~~~~~~~~~~=~~=~~~~~~~~~~=~~=~~~~~=~=~~~~=~===q]==~ll~~~~=~~~~===== CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8/23/2000 "4- {'0 ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * * Fees & Debits Beq Bal Pvmts/Adi End Bal * ******************************************************************************** APPEAL LIC SUSP TAX ON APPEAL SETTLEMENT JCP FEE APPEAL 35.00 35.00 .00 .50 .50 .00 5.00 5.00 .00 5.00 5.00 .00 30.00 30.00 .00 ------------------------ ------------ 75.50 75.50 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information * ******************************************************************************** bM6i h L ~riefs i-L.C_ I ~ ~ I f""t:: . J>> . .~ ~ ~~~~~ =. -~ ~~. ,-- < <"'. 'rn. , IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Darry Singleton, Appellant t{ lJD - 3(P(" ~ v. No. 1756 C.D. 2000 Submitted: January 19,2001 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing BEFORE: HONORABLE JOSEPH T. DOYLE, President Judge HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH, Judge HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FLAHERTY '"',.., FILED: April 26, 2001 Darry Singleton ("Licensee") appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County denying the appeal of a one-year suspension of his motor vehicle operating privileges by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing ("Department") pursuant to Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code which sets forth the Driver's License Compact of 1961 ("Compact"). I For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the Order of the Court of Common Pleas. I Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. S 1581. The Compact is an agreement among the states to promote compliance with each party state's motor vehicle laws. Pennsylvania became a party state to the Compact in 1996 by adopting Sections 1581-1585 of the Vehicle Code, ~~V.~~'"'-''''~-.ilili~~~_ ~~"~iIOa'lIi:!li~~ __~!."" ~ ~ ~ ......J..~ ~''"''"'Illii!M~l''"'oilIl" "~ ",""j~dJ ,~ 1 '~-- ......"--, On November 1, 1999, Licensee was convicted in New York of driving while ability impaired (DW AI) under NY Vehicle & Traffic Law S 1192(1). Pursuant to Article III of the Compact, to which bothPeoosylvania and New York are parties, New York notified the Departtnentof Licensee's conviction.2 The Department then notified Licensee that it wassuspendihg his operating privileges for one year under Article IV of the Compact, treating Licensee's New York conviction as it would a conviction under Section 3731(a) of Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. S 3731(a) (driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance).3 At a de novo hearing, the Department 2 Article III of the Compact provides: The licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee. Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated, identify the court in which action was taken, indicate whether a plea of guilty or not .. guilty was entered or the conviction waS a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond, or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith. 75 Pa.C.S. S 1581, art. III. 3 Article IV of the Compact provides: (a) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact, as it would ifslich conduct . had occurred in the home state in the case of a conviction for: 2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle[.] 75 Pa.C.S. S 1581, art. IV. 2 'M , ~ fu> presented documents under seal consisting of the official notice of suspension, record of Licensee's New York conviction, and a certified copy of Licensee's driving record. Licensee raised amultitude of issues at the lower court; many of which are asserted sub judice. The Court of Common Pleas denied Licensee's ~ statutory appeal and this appeal ensued.4 Licensee presents thirteen questions before this Court, five of which he concedes have been resolved by Department of Transportation v. McCaffer1y, 563 Pa. 146, 758 A.2d 1155 (2000).5 Therefore, we will address those remaining issues raised by Licensee seriatim. 4 Our review of a trial court's determination in a license suspension appeal is limited to a determination of whether the requisite findings of fact are supported by record evidence and whether the trial court committed legal error or abused its discretion. Pappacena v. Deoartment of Transoortation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 716 A.2d 714, 715 n2 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998); Commonwealth v. Danforth, 530 Pa. 327,608 A.2d 1044 (1992). ~ 5 We pause to note that the Rules ~ of Appellate Procedure provide specific guidance regarding page and spacing':limits for the Statement of Questions Involved. "See Pa,R.A.P, 21l6(a). Licensee has failed to comply with these~rules, however we will exercise our discretion by excusing the improper form. We concur with the learned Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, who has explained the value of selecting appellate issues carefully by stating: With a decade and ~a half of federal appellate court experience behind me, I can say that even when we reverse a trial court it is rare that a brief successfully demonstrates that the trial court committed more than one or two reversible errors. I have saiJin open court that when I read an appellant's brief that contains ten or twelve points, a presumption arises that there is not merit to any of them. I do not say that it is an irrebuttable presumption, but it is a presumption nevertheless that reduces the effectiveness of appellate advocacy. Appellate advocacy is measured by effectiveness, not loquaciousness. (Footnote continued on next page...) 3 ~. '.~"WlI.~milibo,".~' ~~iIJilllBj~~~",-~' . ,'" "~~,-~ ~ ^ ~,~ <~ ~.....~.~~- ~ ~"- -~ . , ;;a___, Licensee's first issue is whether the Department was required to receIve a certified record of the New York conviction in order to suspend his operating privileges.6 The basis for this argument is Licensee's construction of Section1532(b)(3),which states: . The department shall suspend the operating privilege of any driver for 12 months upon receiving a certified record of the driver's conviction of ... substantially similar offenses reported to the department under Article III of section 1581 (relating to the Drivers License Compact) (continued... ) R. Aldisert, "The Appellate Bar: Professional Competence and Professional Responsibility-A View From the Jaundiced Eye of One Appellate Judge," II Cap.D.L.Rev. 445, 458 (1982) (as quoted by 2 G. Ronald Darlington, et aI., Pennsylvania Appellate Practice 2d ~ 2116:6 n.68 (2000)). 6 The certification requirements of official records for admissibility purposes are found in 42 Pa.C.S, ~ 5328, which states: (a) Domestic record,--An official record kept within... any state .,. when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custooy of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by a judge of a court of record having jurisdiction in the governmental unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of the court, or by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties in the governmental unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of his office. 42 Pa.C.S, ~5328(a). 4 III I "Ii I' 75 Pa.C.S. S 1532(b)(3) (emphasis added). Licensee relies on this Court's pronouncement in Hoover v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 725 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), that theuncertifiedreport of conviction from the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas to the Department did not satisfy the certification requirements of Section 1532(c). We do not agree with Licensee's argument because to do so would require us to ignore our prior holdings concerning the admissibility of out-of-state documentation permitted under Section 1550(d).7 See also Hoover, 725 A.2d at 1259 (noting distinction between admissibility of Pennsylvania documents as opposed to out-of-state court documents). In Mackall v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 680 A.2d 31, 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), we determined that Section 1550(d) relaxed the certification requirements of out-of-state, documents in Section Out-of-State docurrtentation,--In any proceeding under this section, documents received by the department "from the ,,' courts or' administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government shall be admissible into evidence to support the department's case. In addition, the department may treat the received documents as documents of the department and use any of the methods of storage permitted under the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. S 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records), and may reproduce such documents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. S 6103 (relating to proof of official records). In addition, if the department receives information from courts or administrative bodies of other states or the Federal Government by means of electronic transmission, it may certify that it has received the information by means of electronic transmission and that certification shaH be prima facie proof of the adjudication and facts contained in such an electronic transmission. '.,1'",1 I. ::,1, 1-', I':i ',I " II fl., , 1"1 F! " !'I 'I I II II II 11 7 Section 1550(d) states: 75Pa.C.S. S 1550(d). 5 ~ir;'''''''''"''-~. ~~- ~~'-'~.ri--E.&:LJli'llLlJl~ilIfIi.ill6UJl'l\Il -JIItlIJ~.~~ _.."~ ~.........~ . ~---- . - ~~ - . _. .... tIlIL ,I 5328(a). See also Koterba v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 736 A.2d 761, 766-67 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)( essentially reaffirming Mackall). Therefore, when the Department receives the out-of-state conviction report, by operation of Section 1550(d), the Department may certify the report and submit it to support its case. This procedure is sufficient to create a prima facie case of admissibility, such that the Licensee would have the burden of rebutting the correctness of the document under Section 1532. Mackall, 680 A.2d at 34. In the matter sub iudice, the Department did in fact certify and submit Licensee's record of conviction in accordance with Section 1550(d). See Hearing Exhibit 1. Accordingly, we conclude that the Department's actions complied with the requirement of Section 1532(b)(3). Licensee next devotes several arguments suggesting that Section 1586 of the Compact" which allows the Department to rely on incomplete reports of partYcstates, is an impermissible attempt to unilaterally modify the requirements of the Compact, under Section 1581. We have previously addressed these issues by stating: Ultimately, we concluded "without hesitation that the [Compact] is not the sort of interstate agreement for which the compact clause mandates congressional approva1." Koterba v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing. 736 A.2d 761, 765 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Further, we concluded that "[n)either the sharing of information among states regarding serious motor vehicle offense convictions nor the regulation by each individual state of the driving privileges of its own citizens threatens the supremacy ofthe United States." Id. Moreover, as noted by DOT in its brief to this Court, the entire Compact is set forth in Section 1581 of the Code. The subsequent sections of the Code, including Section 1584, are simply interpretative and implementing provisions designed to guide DOT in the conduct of its 6 " duties under the Compact. See Harrington v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, _ Pa. _, _ A.2d _ (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, No. 209 M.D.App. Dkt.1999, filed December 22, 2000). The General Assembly was free to amend these provisions and we cannot" say ,that such amendments constitute impermissib1ellni1atera1 amendments to the Compact. Zalewski v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 767 A.2d 19, 25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); see also Renna v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 762 A.2d 785, 788 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (dicta concernmg merits of impermissible unilateral modification argument). Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1586 did not unilaterally amend the Compact. 8 Licensee's third issue is whether a conviction in New York for driving while ability impaired is an offense substantially similar to an offense described in Article IV(a) and Pennsylvania's statute prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, as required' by the Compact. Licensee contends, "under the second-prong Of the Petrovick test, that New York's DwAI statUte IS not substantially similar to Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact.9 Despite a well-reasoned dissent, this Court has recently determined that the statute in question is 8 Licensee also argues that Sections 1581 and 1586 cannot be read in pari materia. We disagree based, on the Zalewski Court'~ interpretation of Harrington v," Department of Transportation. BUreau of Driver Licensing, 563 Pa. 565, _, 763 A.2d 386, 393 (2000). See supra. 9 The two-prongs to be established are: (I) does Pennsylvania have an offense similar to Article IV of the Compact; and (2) does the foreign state have an offense that is substantially similar to the provisions of Article IV of the Compact. See Petrovick v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 559 Pa. 614, 620, 741 A.2d 1264, 1267 (1999) 7 ;!1~ --"'''-~~IIiiIi1III1B,~';'''''''''''~'''''~~_Ii!li~~''' "-~'-'-~ ''1' ~..~ I*J substantially simi1ar.1O See Squire v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, _ A.2d _, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2754 C.D. 1999, filed February 16,2001). , We cannot ignore the plain language of Section 1586 mandating that New York's DWAI offense be treated as substantially similar to theDUIoffense of Pennsylvania under Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact. We recognize that Petrovick held that New York's DWAI statute was not substantially similar to Article IV(a)(2)of the Compact, 559 Pa. at 623-24, 741 A.2d at 1269, but the Court's pronouncement did not reflect an amended Section 1586 of the Compact because the amendment was enacted after the case was heard. I I Commenting in its 10 We are bound by stare decisis to follow decisions of our own court until they are either overruled by the Supreme Court, or compelling reasons persuade us otherwise. countv of Armstronif v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Ross and Borough of Kittanning), 473 A.2d 755, 757 (Pa. cmwlth. 1984). Since neither of those circumstances has occurred here, we must reverse. II The department shall, for purposes of imposing a suspension or revocation under Article IV of the compact, treat reports of convictions received from party states that relate to driving, operating or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired by or under the influence of alcohol, intoxicating liquor, drugs, narcotics, controlled substances or other impairing or intoxicating substance as being substantially similar to section 3731 (relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance). The fact that the offense reported to the department by a party state may require a different degree of impairment of a person's ability to operate, drive or control a vehicle than that required to support a conviction for a violation of section 3731 shall not be a basis for determining that the party state's offense is not substantially similar to section 3731 for purposes of Article IV of the compact 75 Pa.c.S. S 1586. 8 III ~~ -_I analysis of the retroactive application of this amendment, the Court stated that "this amendment would likely affect the substantive rights of [licensees]." Id. at 625, 741 A.2d at 1269 (emphasis added). We have interpreted this statement as the Court's tacit recognition the amendment does affect' the substantive rights of licensees (i.e., obviates the substantial dissimilarity between the statutes for purposes of the Compact). See Squire, _ A.2d at _ (slip. op. at 3-4). Therefore, Petrovick is not controlling and the amendment must be applied in this circumstance. We conclude that under Section 1586, the New York DWAI statute is substantially similar to Article IV of the Compact. Next, Licensee argues that Section 1586 violates the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions because there is no rational relationship between the Section and the legitimate state interest.12 Preliminarily, we note that "since a driver's license is a privilege and not a fundamental right, legislation affecting it must be evaluated under a 'rational basis' analysis." Plowman v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 535 Pa. 314, 318, 635 A.2d 124,126 (J993)(citations omitted). To wit: Any party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears a heavy burden of establishing the lack of a rational relationship between the statute and a legitimate state interest. This rational basis test mandates a two-step analysis[:] ... The first step is to consider whether the 12 Licensee also asserts that Section 1586 is overbroad, vague, violates the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, violates Article 1, Sections 1, 9, and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and fails to give adequate notice. However, Licensee has neither developed these arguments nor complied with PaRA.P. 2119(a). We cannot substitute ourselves as Licensee's counsel and develop these issues on behalf of Licensee. See Rapid Pallet v. Unemplovrnent Compensation Board of Review, 707 A.2d 636, 638 (pa. cmwlth. 1998). 9 :. I lHO:k.AI1tM;l/~~~~~'iliI!"'~.~;"''''''''''~ -;.... , challenged statute seeks to promote any legitimate state interest or public value. The second prong of the analysis mandates an evaluation of whether the statute is reasonably related to accomplishing the articulated state interest or interests. , Id. at 319;635 A,2d at 126-27 (emphasis in the origina1)(citations omitted). Licensee concedes that the Compact serves a legitimate state interest, see Department of Transportation v. McCafferty, 563 Pa. 146, _' 758 A.2d 1155, 1161 (2000), however he contends that under the second prong of the analysis there is no rational relationship between Section 1586 and "the state interest of protecting our highways from drunk drivers." Appellant's Brief at 34. We do not agree with Licensee's characterization of the state interest under the Compact. In Occhibone v. Department of Transportation, 542 Pa. 588, 592, 669 A.2d 326, 328 (1995), the Court iterated that the Commonwealth had a compelling interest in protecting its citizens, and citizens of our sister states, from Pennsylvania-licensed "drunk drivers." In McCafferty. the Court extended this interest to "protecting citizens of the Commonwealth from Pennsylvania-licensed drivers who have been convicted while under the influence of alcohol on the highways of our sister states." 563 Pa. at _, 758 A.2d at 1161 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Court stated, "[t]he driver's licensing procedure represents an attempt to ensure that the use of Commonwealth highways will be afforded only to persons who can and will drive safely." Id. Therefore, by operating a motor vehicle in violation of New York law under N.Y. Vehicle & Traffic Law S 1192(1), the Licensee has effectively demonstrated an unwillingness to comply, with the vehicle and traffic laws of Pennsylvania. See id. (citing Sheehy Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 173 A.2d 752, 755 (Pa. Super. 1961) ("The conviction is evidence of a state of mind. It indicates a lack of concern for the 10 l! "' - rules of the road ... the relationship between the safety of our highways and the control over our own licensed operators who have been convicted of motor vehicle violations in other states is self-evident"). Synthesizing the holdings of Occhibone 'and McCafferty, we conclude thatthe state interest being served is the protection of Pennsylvania citizens, and ,citizens of our sister states, from Pennsylvania- licensed drivers, whether convicted in the Commonwealth of DUl or in a party- state of driving impaired or under the influence. Next we consider whether there is a rational relationship between this state interest and Section 1586. Although Licensee wishes to characterize Section 1586 as a "fishnet" to catch this type of conduct, we conclude that Section 1586 is reasonably related to the state interest. In fact, it is Section 1586 that enables the Commonwealth, through the Department, to deter Pennsylvania-licensed drivers from operating a motor vehicle in a party-state in derogation of that state's laws designed to protects its citizens.13 Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1586 is " .,. 'ratIonally related to the state interest. Next, Licensee contends that the Department violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution by imposing a longer 13 It is certainly not "absurd" or "irrational" to recognize that different stateswil! allow for different levels of impairment, and the Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation should defer to the level of impairment found by New York's legislature to be unacceptable for driving on New York's roads. See Sauire v. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Driver Licensing, _ A.2d _, (Pa. cmwlth., No. 2754 c.D. 1999, filed February 16,2001) (slip. op. at 4). 11 ~~~~ . .~.._- ~'-~~'ililil:lIl!itili!i~~allil.i..~1','ilo!lt!~~-' ..~ ,..~ ~, -'-'~'~'~'" ~ '.=b -'"lI:iO."-"iJ suspension than mandated by New York law for a conviction in New York. We have recently addressed this argument: [W]e emphasize that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, this Commonwealth must honor another state's determination of guilt or innocence. However, the civil consequences following conviction, which that state chooses to impose need not be given the same deference. Such consequences are, at best, a public policy decision of that state. Zalewski, 767 A.2d at 26. Accordingly, we reject Licensee's contention that the Full Faith and Credit Clause was violated when the Department imposed a one year suspension for his New York DW AI conviction. Finally, Licensee suggests that the Department's exhibits were admitted by the lower court in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. SS 2721-2725. The Act restricts a state's ability to disclose personal information about a driver, unless the driver consents to the release of such data. Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141, 144 (2000). However, this prohibition of nonconsensual disclosures is subject to a number of statutory exceptions, id. at 145, the most relevant of which for our purposes is: For use in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self- regulatory body. . . 18 U.S.c. S 2721(b)(4).14 Consequently, we conclude that the Department's introduction of exhibits, which included personal information about Licensee, was not prohibited by the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. 14 Citation to this particular exception should not be construed to exclude other exceptions that may be applicable for reasons of driver and public safety or execution of agency functions. See 18 D.S.C. S 2721(b)(I), (2), (14). 12 ,. " '"~, - -, , Accordingly, we affirm the Order of the Court of Common Pleas denying Licensee's appeal. Judge Smith dissents. y c; 13 ~""'~~"''''''''''''~Iiiadw~~IIWiii<.lfii~'iI\to--'1-1it'''iiilli. L~ ~M -- ~ ~:Ylilll ~i~ ~~ -~"'" ,~_.- ..-. IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Darry Singleton, Appellant # Df>- 3~r:o ~ v. No. 1756 C.D. 2000 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2001, the Order of the Court of Qommon Pleas of Cumberland County, at Docket No. 00-0366, dated June 30, 2000, denying the statutory appeal of Darry Singleton is hereby affirmed. Qdfed from the ReconJ APR 2 6 2001 and Order Exit o C) c- ob",_,." ,~", -t, -_~,,~,,_ ~-~,~'ll:"lO<lll"'''''''''''' i~ .~ .~f ~o ::;;: ;:\:;;-.n ,,"C) :,~o ~C:: - C)rn ?; ~ =< (.u' -< "