The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-4830PAULA H. STAHL Petitioner COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : :NO. 034 ?'?3° : LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL (FROM : IMPOSITION OF THE INTERLOCK : REQUIREMENT AND THE IMPOSITION OF : AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF SUSPENSION : FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY) LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL AND NOW, comes Petitioner, Paula H. Stahl, by and through her attomeys, Mancke, Wagner & Spmha, and makes the following averments in support of this License Suspension Appeal: 1. Petitioner, Paula H. Stahl, is a Pennsylvania licensed driver with a residence address of 5 Mayfield Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, has a mailing address at Riverfront Office Center, Third Floor, 1101 South Front Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17104-2516. 3. Petitioner received a notice of license suspension by way of letter dated August 15, 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 the Department's notice of August 15, 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 tdal 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 perlinent part: "no 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 o#ginalpurpose.' 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: 'Even/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 dghts 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 intoxicated ddvem. The provisions of Act 63 violate the Separation of Powem Doctrine and procedural due process as the interlock requirement is not analogous to the imposi~n of costs in a cdminal 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 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 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 overbmad 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 authodzafion 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 dghts. (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 retmaclive application of the law. (I) Act 63 is inapplicable to the facts of this case. 5. Petitioner requests the court take judicial nofice of Senate Bill 849 and all of its prior forms prior to becoming Act 63 of 2000 including the legislative summaP/obtained from the Pennsylvania State website, 3 www.legis.state.pa.us, in chronological order beginning with the summary and pdnter numbers 952, 1225, 1814, 1918, 2038, and 2059. WHEREFORE, PetitJoner prays that this Court declare that the portion of the Department's notice of August 15, 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 equipped with an Ignition Interlock System. This is a resuit of your conviction for Driving Underthe Influence. ff you fail to comply with this requirement, your driving privilege will remain suspended for an edditlenal 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 ddving privileges after the one (1) year suspension for the conviction for driving under the influence, subject to the payment of the restoration fee and providing proof of insurance. Dated: Res ~ed, Jl~ahn B.,~lancl~e, ESq.ncke;.Wagner & SI:; 'reDhaN°' 07212 2233 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-234-7051, Attorney for Petitioner 4 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that lhe statements made in Ibis document are true and conect. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to lhe penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, rela~ng to unswom falsification to authorities. Date 5 PAULA H. STAHL Petitioner COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING Respondent : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. (~ : LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL (FROM : IMPOSITION OF THE INTERLOCK : REQUIREMENT AND THE IMPOSITION OF : AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF SUSPENSION : FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY) AND NOW, this~/zT' day of',~/~7~/-c~2 , 2003, upon Petition of Paula H. Stahl, a headng is set on the License Suspension Appeal for the ~'Z~ day of ~),~/' ~/~'~ .,/~.2~'L~. 2003 at /~ ,'~ q .m. in Courtroom No. /-/ , Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Notice of said beadng 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: J. Pmthonotary's Office ,.Office of Chief Counsel, PA Department of Transportation 1101 S. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 ..John B. Mancke, Esquire 2233 N. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17110 '~NVA~C~NN~d PAULA H. STAHL, PETITIONER COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, RESPONDENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 03-4830 LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL ORDER AND NOW, this f'r day of /~2, ~'~'r~ ,2003, the appeal filed in the above referenced matter is DENIED in part and REMANDED in part. The petitioner's appeal is DENIED regarding the one year suspension imposed under 75 Pa. C.S. 1532(b) as a consequence of the petitioners conviction on June 17, 2003, for a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. 3731(a) on January 19, 2003. The petitioner's appeal is REMANDED to the Department and the'Department shall CORRECT TIlE RECORD AND RESC1ND TIlE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PETITIONER COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IGNITION INTERLOCK LAW, 42 Pa. C.S. 7001-7003, that the Depmhnent imposed without a court order as a condition to the restoration of the petitioner's driving privilege as a result of the petitioner's violation of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, violation date January 19, 2003. BY THE COURT ~,~ ,,G"eorge H. Kabusk, Esquire, PennDOT, Riverfront Ofl~'ce Center, 1101 South Front Street, II'b't~ <~ohn Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 . B. Mancke, Esquire, 2233 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110