Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-1599SHAUN LAUGHMAN Pe~doner COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IMPOSITION OF THE INTERLOCK REQUIREMENT AND THE IMPOSITION OF : AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF SUSPENSION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY) LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAl AND NOW, comes Peflioner, Shaun Laughman, by and through his altorneys, Mancke, Wagner, Tully & Spreha, and makes the following averments in support of this License Suspension Appeal: 1. Petitioner, Shaun Laughman, is a Pennsylvania licensed driver with a residence address of 19 Poplar Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, PA. 2. Respondent, Pennsylvania Department of Transporlation, Bureau of Ddver Licensing, has a mailing address at Riverfront Office Center, Third Floor, 1101 South Front Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17104-2516. 3. Pe~'oner received a notice of license suspension by way of letter dated March 14, 2003 from the Department of Transportation indicating, in pertinent part, "Before your driving privilege can be restored you are required by law to have all vehicle(s) owned by you to be equipped with an Ignition Interlock System. This is a result of your conviction for Driving Under the Influence. If you fail to comply with this requirement, your driving privilege will remain suspended for an additional year. You will receive more information regarding this requirement approximately 30 days before your eligibility date.' Said notice is attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein by reference. 4. The above-mentioned provision, as part of the Department's notice of March 14, 2003, is illegal, invalid, and improper for reasons which include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) At the time of PetilJoner's sentencing in Dauphin County, the trial court did not order that each motor vehicle owned by the Petitioner be equipped with an approved ignition interlock system and Penn Dot has no authority to order the ignition interlock or to extend the license suspension for an additional year. See Schneider v. Penn Dot, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). (b) The provisions of Act 63 of 2000 are unconstitutional in that the Act violates Ar'dcle III, §1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which provides, in perlJnent part ano law shall be passed except by Bill and no Bill shall be so altered or amended on its passage through either House as to change its odginal purpose.~ ConsL Art III, §1. (c) The provisions of Act 63 violate the Pennsylvania Constitution because no Bill shall be passed containing more than one subject by including provisions for reslitution for identity theft along with ignilion interlock requirements. Const. Art. III, §3. (d) The provisions of N:t 63 are unconstitutional in that it violates Article III, §4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which provides, in pertinent part "Every Bill shall be considered on three different days in each House ..." Const. Art III, §4. (e) The provisions of Act 63 violate Petitioner's equal protection and due process rights under the State and Federal Constitutions by treating similarly situated persons differenlJy without a rational basis. Said unequal enforcement of the law is not rationally related to the protection of the public from intoxicated drivers. The provisions of Act 63 violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine and procedural due process as the inledock requirement is not analogous to the imposilion of costs in a cdminal proceeding, is not adminisl]'ative in nature and interferes with the sentencing power of the court as it requires the court to certify to the executive branch (Penn Dot) whether the ignition interlock systems have been installed before Penn Dot will reinstate the operating privilege which necessarily requires the court to investigate whether or not the devices have been installed without procedural due process. See Commonwealth v. Uockaitis, 54 D&C 4t~ 155 (Cumb. 2001). (g) The provisions of Act 63 violate due process because Penn Dot has no authority or jurisdiction over vehicles owned by a motodst but not registered and not operated on a public highway. (h) The provisions of Act 63 violate due process because the statute is vague in failing to define ownership and is overbroad because, by its reach, it punishes constitutionally protected activity, i.e. ownership of a non-registered vehicle maintained and/or used solely on private property in viola'don of Petitioner's dghts under ArlJcle, I, §9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the 5th Amendment of the Unites States Consfitu'don. (i) Penn Dot has waived any perceived authorization to have the ignition interlock requirements and/or extend the license suspension by its failure to file an appeal, within 30 days of notice of the court's failure to impose such requirements on the Petitioner. (j) The application of the statute gives improper retroactive aclJon against the Petitioner effecting substantive rights. 5. Pe~oner requests the court take judicial notice of Senate Bill 849 and all of its pdor forms prior to becoming Act 63 of 2000 including the legislative summary obtained from the Pennsylvania State website, www.legis.state.pa, us, in chronological order beginning with the summary and printer numbers 952, 1225, 1814,1918,2038, and 2059. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court declare that the portion of the Department's notice of March 14, 2003 which reads: 'Before your driving privilege can be restored you are required by law to have all vehicle(s) owned by you to be equi~ with an Ignition Interlock System. This is a result of your conviction for Driving Under the Influence. If you fail to comply with this requirement, your driving privilege will remain suspended for an additional year. You will receive more information regarding this requirement approximately 30 days before your eligibility date= be declared illegal, unconstitutional, and stricken as part of the Department's notice and direct that the Department reinstate the Petitioner's driving privileges after the one (1) year suspension for the conviclion for ddving under the influence, subject to the payment of the restoration fee and providing proof of insurance. Resp~ John B. I~lancke, Esq., ID No. 07212 Mancke, Wagner, Tully & Spreha 2233 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-234-7051, Attorney for Petitioner VERIFICATION I hereby verify thatthe statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that fase statements herein are made subject to the penallJes of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relalJng to unsworn falsi§cafion to authorilies. Date Sh'~'un Laughm~¥''~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Driver Licensing Mail Date: MARCH lq, 2003 SHAUN LAUGHMAN 19 POPLAR STREET WORMLEYSBURG PA 17043 WID ~ 030666117929065 001 PROCESSING DATE 03/07/2003 DRIVER LICENSE ~ 20445453 DATE OF BIRTH 03/21/1964 LICENSE IN BUREAU Dear MR. LAUGHMAN: This is an Official Notice of the Susmension of y°ur Driving Privilege as authorized by Section 1532B of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. As a result of your 0i/I5/2005 conviction of violating Section 5751 of the Vehicle Code DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE on 06/20/2002: Your driving privilege is SUSPENDED for a Der±od YEAR(S) effective 01/15/2003 at 12:0! a.m. WARNING: If you are convicted of driving while your license is suspended/revoked the penalties will be a MINIMUM of 90 days imprisonment AND a $1,000 fine AND your driving privilege will be suspended/revoked for a MINIMUM I year period Before PennDOT can restore your driving privilege, you must follow the instructions in this letter-for COMPLYING WITH THIS SUSPENSION, PAYING THE RESTORATION FEE and PROVIDING PROOF OF INSURANCE. You should follow ALL instructions very carefully. Even if you have served all the tlme on the suspension/revocation, we cannot restore your driving priv- ilege untll all the requirements are satisfied. EXHIBIT 030666117929065 PRISON RELEASE REQUIREMENT (ACT151) The Court of DAUPHIN COUNTY, Court Number 3260, Court Term 2002 has sentenced you to serve a prison term for this vi- oiation. Pursuant to Section iSqI(a.1) of the Vehicie Code, you wilI not receive credit for this suspension/revocation or any additional suspension/revocation untii you compiete your prison term. The Court must certify your completion to PennDOT. You may wish to contact your probation officer and/or the Court after your release to make sure that PennDOT is properly notified. PAYING THE RESTORATION FEF You must pay a restoration fee to PennDOT to be restored from a suspension/revocation of your driving privilege. To pay your restoration fee, compIete the following steps: Return the enclosed Application for Restoration. The amount due is listed on the application. Write your driver's license number (listed on the first page> on the check or money order to ensure proper credit. Follow the payment and mailing instructions on the back of the application. IGNITION INTERLOCK Before your driving privilege can be restored you are re- quired by iaw to have all vehicie(s> owned by you to be equipped with an Ignition InterIock System. This is a result of your conviction for Driving Under the Influence. If you fail to comply with this requirement, your driving privilege will remain suspended for an additional year. You will re- ceive more information regarding this requirement approxi- mately 30 days before your eligibility date. PROVIDING PROOF OF INSURANCE Within the-last 50 days of your suspension/revocation, we will send you a letter asking that you provide proof of in- surance at that time. This letter will list acceptable documents and what wiii be needed if you do not own a vehicie registered in Pennsylvania. ~m~oPtant: Please make sure that PennDOT is notified if you move from your current address. You may notify PennDOT of your address change by calling any of the phone numbers listed at the end of this letter. 030666117929065 APPEAL You have the right to appeal this action to the Court of Common Pleas (Civil Division) within 30 days of the mail date, MARCH 16, 2003, of this letter. If YOU file an apPeai in the County Court, the CouPt will give you a time-stamped cePtified copy of the appeal. In order for your appeal to be valid, you must send this time-stamped certified copy of the appeal by certified mail to: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel Third Floor, Riverfront Offlce Center Harrisburg, PA 17106-2516 Remember, this is an OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SUSPENSION. Sincerely, Rebecca L. Bickley, Director Bureau of Driver Licensing INFORMATION 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. IN STATE 1-800-932-6600 TDD IN STATE OUT-OF-STATE 717-391-6190 TDD OUT-OF-STATE WEB SITE' ADDRESS www.dot.state.pa.us 1-800-228-0676 717-391-6191 2003 SHAUN LAUGHMAN Pe~oner Vo COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL (FROM IMPOSITION OF THE INTERLOCK REQUIREMENT AND THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF SUSPENSION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY) ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ! ~day of ~ ,200~, upon PelJlion of Shaun Laughman, a hearing is set on the License Suspension Appeal for the ~ day of ~ ,2002 at'~. OO ,p.m. in Courtroom No. c~ , Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. NolJce of said hearing shall be given by PelJl~oner's counsel to the Department of Transportation at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of said hearing. DistribulJon: Pmthonotary's Office · .~gflice of Chief Counsel, PA Department of Transportation 1101 S. Front St, Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 ~ohn B. Mancke, Esquire 2233 N. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17110 IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA having been called on an appeal of Transportation, and the parties being in agreement that continued generally to the call of either party, it is so ordered. SHAUN LAUGHMAN, : Petitioner : V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,: BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, : Respondent : NO. 03-1599 CIVIL TERM ~RDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of 3uly, 2003, this matter from an order of the Department it be By the C~u~t~ ~eorge H. Kabusk, Esquire Edgar B. Ba)~l~. For the Department of Transportation ~hn B. Mancke, Esquire For Petitioner prs 07-31- SHAUN LAUGHMAiX COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF T BUREAU OF DRIVEl AND NOW, filed in the above refe~ petitioner's appeal is 1532(b) as a consequ Pa.C.S. 3731(a) on J~x and the Department st REQUIREMENT TI OF THE IGNITION imposed without a co as a result of the petit 20, 2002. The Depa~ from January 15, 200 DISTRIBUTION: George H. Kabusk, Harrisburg, John B. Mancke, Est TITIONER PENNSYLVANIA, ~NSPORTATION, LICENSING, ~ESPONDENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, pENNSYLVANIA No. 03-1599 LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL s _~ day of ,2003, the appeal ~nced matter is DENIED in part and REMANDED in part. The gNIED regarding the one year suspension imposed under 75 Pa. C.S. ~ce of the petitioner's conviction on January 15, 2003, for a violation of 75 e 20, 2002. The petitioner's appeal is REMANDED to the Department ri CORRECT THE RECORD AND RESCIND THE kT THE PETITIONER COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS TERLOCK LAW, 42 Pa. C.S. 7001-7003, that the Department : order as a condition to the restoration of the petitioner's driving privilege ~er's violation of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, violation date June ~ent represents that the petitioner is due credit for the one year suspension to April 7, 2003. BY ~ J. uire, PennDOT, Riverfront Office C~ter, 1101 South/Front Street, 17104-2516 ~ire, 2233 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 The Honorable Edgar ] The Court of Commo~ Cumberland County C 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania Re: Shaun Comm~ Dear Judge Bayley: This is an appe imposed without a cou Transportation (the "D the absence of a court, This matter wa Additionally, tl pursuant to Section 15 Section 3731 of the V{ Section 1550 o£the V~ pursuant to Section 15 Based on the p~ influence and ignition with respect to the imF interlock requirement i was adopted the Supre (Pa. 2003), posted on regarding the issues cz aforementioned policy feel ethically bound to GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSE TELEPHONE: 717.787.2830 FAX: 717.705.1122 w',vw.dot.stat e.pa. us OFFICE OF CiHIEF COUNSEL - Vehicle & Traffic Law Division Riverfront Office Center I101 South Front Street Harrisburg PA 17104-2516 .. Bayley Pleas of Cumberland County urthouse October 31, 2003 7013 ,aughman v. Cmwlth. of Pennsylvania., Dept. of Trans., Court of Pleas of Cumberland County, 03-1599, License Suspension Appeal of the imposition of the ignition interlock which the Department order. The petitioner challenged the authority of the Department of ~artment") to require the installation of an ignition interlock system in 'der directing such installation. See 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 7001-7003. continued generally. appeal acted as a supersedeas of the one year suspension imposed 2(b) of the Vehicle Code as a result of the petitioner's conviction of >icle Code. The petitioner was restored pending appeal pursuant to ticle Code. The petitioner is not contesting the one year suspension 2(b) of the Vehicle Code. >visions of the recently-enacted law addressing driving under the ~terlock, the Department adopted a policy in which it revised its position ~sition of the ignition interlock system and agreed to remove the ignition t those cases where it had not been ordered by the court. Since that policy ~e Court issued Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mockaitis, _ A.2d ctober 17, 2003, which upholds several of the Department's positions tceming the ignition interlock. I made representations of the o Attorney Mancke regarding this case which had been continued and I bllow through with my representations. Please find en~ Order denies the appe, one year suspension pt petitioner's conviction appeal in part to the D. requirement which wa Additionally, tl credit from January 15 I spoke to Mr. i and the proposed orde~ Cc: John B. Manck Enclosure ased a proposed Order for the above-mentioned matter. The proposed in part and remands in part. The proposed Order denies the appeal of the :suant to Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code as a result of the ~f Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code. The proposed Order remands the partment to update its records and remove the ignition interlock imposed by the Department without a cx~urt order. ~ order notes that the Department represents that the petitioner is due 2003, to April 7, 2003, for the one year suspension. lancke, attorney for the petitioner, and he concurs with such a disposition Very truly yours, Esquire, 2233 North Front Street, Hamsburg, Pennsylvania 17110