HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-3542JESSE D. KRATZER
Petitioner
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING
Respondent
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: LICENSE REVOCATION APPEAL (FROM
: IMPOSITION OF THE INTERLOCK
: REQUIREMENT AND THE IMPOSITION OF
: AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF SUSPENSION
: FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY)
LICENSE REVOCATION APPI=AI
AND NOW, comes Petitioner, Jesse D. Kratzer, by and through his attorneys, Mancke, Wagner &
Spreha, and makes the following averments in support of this License Revocation Appeal:
1. Petitioner, Jesse D. Kmtzer, is a Pennsylvania licensed ddver with a residence address of 265
Acorn Court, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Respondent, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, has a mailing
address at Riverfmnt Office Center, Third Floor, 1101 South Front Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania 17104-2516.
3. Petitioner received a notice of license revocation by way of letter dated July 2, 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 'A"
and incorporated herein by reference.
4. The above-mentioned provision, as part of lhe Department's notice of July 2, 2003, is illegal, invalid,
and improper for reasons which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a)
At the time of Petitioner's sentencing in Cumberland County, the thai
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 Article III, §1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which provides,
in pertinent part: "no law shell be passed except by Bill and no Bill shall
be so altered or amended on its passage through either House as to
change its o~fginalpurpose.' Const. 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 restitution for identity theft along with ignition interlock
requirements. Const. Art. III, §3.
(d)
The provisions of Act 63 are unconstitutional in that it violates Article III,
~ of the Pennsylvania Constitution which provides, in pertinent part:
~Eve~y 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 differently without a rational basis. Said
unequal enforcement of the law is not rationally related to the protection
of the public from intoxioated drivers.
(f)
The provisions of Act 63 violate the Separation of Powers Doctdne and
procedural due process as the interlock requirement is not analogous to
the imposition of costs in a criminal proceeding, is not administrative 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. Mockaitis. 54 D&C 4~
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 motorist 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-ragistered vehicle maintained and/or used solely on private property
in violation of Petitioner's rights under Article, I, {}9 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution and the 5"~ Amendment of the Unites States Constitution.
(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 action against
the Petitioner effecting substantive rights.
(k)
The law (Act 63) is inapplicable to the defendant as the previous
violation(s) pre-dated the Act and/or would illegally and/or
unconstitutionally result in ex post facto violation and/or improper
retroactive application of the law.
(I) Act 63 is inapplicable to the facts of this case.
5, Petitioner requests the court take judicial notice of Senate Bill 849 and all of its prior forms pdor to
becoming Act 63 of 2000 including the legislative summap/obtained from the Pennsylvania State website,
3
www.legis.state.pa.us, in chmnolegical 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
July 2, 2003 which roads: "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" 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 conviction for ddving under the influence, subject to the payment of the restoration
fee and providing proof of insurance.
Respectfully submitte(
John B. Mancke, E~
Mancke, Wagner & I
2233 N. Front Street,
~o. 07212
reha
~tarrisbu~, PA 17110
717-234-7051, Attomey for Petitioner
4
VERIFICATION
I hereby vedfy that the statements made in this document are l]'ue and correct. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom
falsification to authorities.
Date
5
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bureau of Driver Licensing
Mail Date: JULY 02, 2003
JESSE D KRATZER WID # 031766117031770 001
265 ACORN CT PROCESSING DATE 06/25/2003
DRIVER LICENSE ~ 26408835
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 DATE OF BIRTH 04/30/1983
LICENSE IN BUREAU
Dear MR. KRATZER=
This is an O~flclal Hottce of the Revocation of your Driving
Privilege as authorized by Section 15q20 of the Pennsylvania
Vehicle Code. Aa a result of your 04/29/2003 conviction of
violating Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER
INFLUENCE, on 10/24/2002:
You have been designated as a habitual offender because
this is your third major violation within a five year
period.
Your driving privilege is REVOKED fop a period of 5
YEAR(S) effective 11/06/2005 at 12:01 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 41,000 fine AND
your driving privilege will be suspended/revoked for
a MINIMUM I year period
This revocation is in addition to any other suspensions
already on your record.
EXHIBIT
051766117051770
PRISON RELEASE REQUIREMENT (ACT151)
The Court of CUMBERLAND CTY, Court
2002 has sentenced
violation. Pursuant
Code, you will
suspension/revocation
suspension/revocation
Number 2~39, Court Term
you to serve a prison term for this
to Section 15ql(a.I) of the Vehicle
not receive credit for this
or any additional
until you complete 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.
IGNITION INTERLOCK
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 revoked for an additional year. You will receive
more information regarding this requirement approximately
30 days before your eligibility date.
PROVIDING PROOF OF INSURANCE
Within the last 30 days of your suspension/revocation, we
wlll send you a letter asking that you provide proof of
insurance at that t/me. This letter will list acceptable
documents and what will be needed if you do not own a vehicle
registered in Pennsylvania,
Important: 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.
APPEAL
You have the right to appeal this action to the Court of
Common Pleas (Civil Division) within 30 days of the mail
date, JULY 02, 2005, of this letter. Zf you file an appeal
in the County coupt, the court wtll glve you a time-stamped
certified copy of the appeal. Zn 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 Office Center
Harrisburg, PA 1710~-2516
031766117051770
Remember, this is an OFFZCZAL NOTZCE OF REVOCATZON.
SincerelY,
Rebecca L. BickleY~ Director
Bureau of Driver Licensing
INFORHATION 7:00 aom. to 9:00
IN STATE 1-800-932-~600 TDD IN STATE
OUT-OF-STATE 717-$91-6190 TDD OUT-OF-STATE
WEB SITE ADDRESS www.dot.state.pa.us
1-800-228-0676
717-391-6191
JESSE D. KRATZER
Petitioner
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING
Respondent
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO.
: LICENSE REVOCATION APPEAL (FROM
: IMPOSITION OF THE INTERLOCK
: REQUIREMENT AND THE IMPOSITION OF
: AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF 8U8PENSION
: FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY)
AND NOW, this ,.,q'~ dayof /~'~'x,L.~.~ , 2003, upon Petition of Jesse D. Kratzer, a hearing
is set on the License Revocation Appeal for the ,'~'.z.~ day of ~L~,~, 2003 at ~ .'/,5'~:m.
in Courtroom No. ~ , Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Notice of said hearing shall be given by Petitioner's counsel to the Department of Transportation at
least sixty (60) days prior to the date of said hearing.
BY THE COURT:
Distribution: /
~thonotary's Office
ce of Chief Counsel, PA Department of Transportation
h. l S. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516
B. Uancke, Esquire
2233 N. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17110
'¢NVA'IAgNN]d
JESSE D. KRATZER
Petitioner
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING
Respondent
: LICENSE REVOCATION APPEAL (FROM
: IMPOSITION OF THE INTERLOCK
: REQUIREMENTAND THE IMPOSITION OF
: AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF SUSPENSION
: FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY)
LICENSE REVOCATION APPEAL
AND NOW, comes Petitioner, Jesse D. Kmtzer, by and through his attomeys, Mancke, Wagner &
Spreha, and makes the following averments in support of this License Revocation Appeal:
1. Petitioner, Jesse D, Kratzer, is a Pennsylvania licensed driver with a residence a~lms~? 265
Acorn Court, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. -~. '-,. '-'
2. espondent, Pennsylvania Deparlment of Transportation, Bureau of Ddver Licens n!li:gas a mailing
address at Riverfront Office Center, Third Floor, 1101 South Front Street, Harrisburg, Dauptfl~ Co[mty ~
Pennsylvania 17104-2516.
3. Petitioner received a notice of license revocation by way of letter dated July 2, 2003 from the
Department of Transportation indicating, in pertinent part, "Before your ddving p#vilege 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
ddving privilege will remain suspended for an additionalyear. You will receive more information regarding this
requirement appreyJmately 3O days before your eligibility date.' Said notice is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein by reference.
4. The above-mentioned provision, as part of the Department's notice of July 2, 2003, is illegal, invalid,
and improper for reasons which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a)
At the time of Petitioner's sentencing in Cumberland 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 Article III, {}1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which provides,
in pertinent part: "no law shall be passed except by Bill and no Bill shall
be so a/tered or amended on its passage through either House as to
change its originalpurpose." Const. 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 restitution for identity theft along with ignition interlock
requirements. Const. Art. Ill, §3.
(d)
The provisions of Act 63 are unconstitutional in that it violates Article Ill,
{}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 pemons differently without a rational basis. Said
unequal enforcement of the law is not rationally related to the protection
of the public from intoxicated drivers.
(f)
The provisions of Act 63 violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine and
procedural due process as the interlock requirement is not analogous to
the imposition of costs in a criminal proceeding, is not administrative 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
2
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
proceduraJ due process. See Commonwealth v. Mockaitl, 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 motorist 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 falling to define ownership and is overbroed 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 violation of Petitioner's rights under Article, I, §9 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution and the 5~ Amendment of the Unites States Constitution.
(i)
Penn Dot has waived any perceived authorization to have the ignition
interlock requirements and/or extend the license suspension by its
!allure to file an appeal, within 30 days of notice of the court's failure to
impose such requirements on the Petitioner,
The application of the statute gives improper retroactive action against
the Petitioner effecting substantive rights.
(k)
The law (Act 63) is inapplicable to the defendant as the previous
violation(s) pre-dated the Act and/or would illegally and/or
unconstitutionally result in ex post facto violation and/or improper
retroactive application of the law.
(I) Act 63 is inapplicable to the facts of this case.
5. Petitioner requests the court take judicial notice of Senate Bill 849 and all of its prior forms pdor 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
July 2, 2003 which reads: "Before your drying privilege can be restored you are required by/aw to have all
vehicle(s) owned by you to be equipped with an/gnition/nterlock System. This is a result of your conviction
for Drying Under the/ntluence. 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 stdcken 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 conviction for ddving under the influence, subject to the payment of the restoration
fee and providing proof of insurance.
Dated:
Respectfully submitt,~
John B. Mancke, ES~., I~1~o. 07212
Mancke, Wagner & S~reha'
2233 N. Front Steer, Flarrisburg, PA 17110
717-234-7051, Attorney for Petitioner
VERIFICATION
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 unswom
falsification to authorities.
Date
J~e D. Kralz~r~' -
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bureau of Driver Licensing
Mall Date: JULY 02, 2005
JESSE D KRATZER WID ~ 031766117031770 001
265 ACORN CT PROCESSING DATE 06/25/2003
DRIVER LICENSE * 26408835
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 DATE OF BIRTH 04/30/1983
LICENSE IN BUREAU
Dear MR. KRATZER~
This is an O~ftclal Notice of the Revocation of your Driving
Privilege as authorized by Section 15qlD of the Pennsylvania
Vehicle Code. As a result of your 0q/29/2003 conviction of
violating Section 3751 of the Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER
INFLUENCE, on 10/24/2002:
You have been designated as a habitual offender because
this is Your third major violation within a five year
Period.
· Your driving privilege is REVOKED fop a perlod of
YEAR(S) ef~ecttve 11/06/2005 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 1 year period
This revocation is in addition to any other sUspensions
already on your record.
0~174611705~770
PRISON RELEASE REQUIREMENT (ACT151)
The Court of CUNBERLAND CTY, Court Number 2~$9, Court Term
2002 has sentenced You to serve a prison term for this
violation. Pursuant to Section ISql(a.1) of the Vehicle
Code, You will not receive credit for this
suspension/revocation or any additional
suspension/revocation until You complete 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.
~,GNITION INTERLOCK
Before your driving privilege can be restored you are
required by law.to have aZ1 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 compZy with this requirement, your driving privilege
will remain revoked for an additional year. You will receive
more information regarding this requirement approximately
50 days before Your eligibility date.
~ROVIDING PROOF OF INSURANCF
W/thin the last $0 days of your suspension/revocation, we
will send You a letter asking that you provide proof of
insurance at that time. This letter will list acceptable
documents and what will be needed if you do not own a vehicie
registered in Pennsylvania.
ZmpoPtant: 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.
~PPEAL
You have the right to appeal th~s action to the Court of
Common Pleas (Civ~l Division) within $0 days of the maiI
date, JULY 02, 2003, of this letter. Zf You file an appeal
in the County Coupt, the Court will give You a time-stamped
certified copy o~ the appeal. In order for your appeal to
be valid, you must sand this t/me-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 1710q-2516
03176&117051770
Remember, this is an OFFZCZAL NOTZCE OF REVOCATZON.
Sincerely,
I~ebecca L, Bickley, Director
Bureau of Dr~ver Licensing
INFORMATION 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
IN STATE 1-800-932-~600 TDD IN STATE
OUT-OF-STATE 717-$91-6190 TDD OUT-OF-STATE
WEB SITE ADDRESS www.dot.state.pa.us
1-800-228-0676
717-391-6191
JESSE D. KRATZER,
Petitioner
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,
Respondent
JESSE D. KRATZER,
Petitioner
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,
Respondent
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:~3-354L. CIVIL TERM
LICENSE REVOCATION APPEAL (FROM
IMPOSITION OF THE INTERLOCK
REQUIREMENT AND IMPOSITION OF
AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF
SUSPENSION FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
03-3543 CIVIL TERM
LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL (FROM
IMPOSITION OF THE INTERLOCK
REQUIREMENT AND THE IMPOSITION
OF AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF
SUSPENSION FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY)
George Kabusk,
Office of Chief Counsel
PA Department of Transportation
1101 S. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516
For the Petitioner
IN RE: LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL/LICENSE REVOCATION APPEAL
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2003, this
matter having been called for hearing, on agreement of the
parties, the appeal of the petitioner from the revocation of his
driver's license and from the suspension of his driver's license
is sustained in part and denied in part. Specifically, that
portion of the license revocation and license suspension
requiring the installation of the ignition interlock system prior
to the restoration of driving privileges is stricken. The
balance of the appeals are denied.
~'~~'~ By~,,the COU r t/~/~
Kev/ih A. Hess, J.
Esquire ~ ~O'0 ~2~3~3 B' Mancke, Esq¢ire
North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
For the Respondent
:mae