Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-3095 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY - PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATZON, i NO. o/- ~'o~' ~,~,~,/ VS. : CIVIL ACT[ON CHARLES C, SUDERS, : PETITIONER : PETFFION FOR APPEAL Now comes the Petitioner, Charles C. Suders, by and through his Attorney, H. Anthony Adams, and sets forth the following. 1. Petitioner is Charles C. Suders, an adult individual, with an address of 750 Baltimore Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, doing business in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 3. On or about April 20, 2001 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania suspended the certificate of appointment as an official safety inspection mechanic which had previously been issued to Petitioner. 4. The suspension was given as a result of a finding of the alleged furnishing of a certificate of inspection without actual inspection to for 1985 Honda Motorcycle, fraudulent record keeping, improper record keeping and careless record keeping. The suspension is not warranted in as much as, the findings of fraudulent record keeping and faulty inspection are not supported by the evidence and the motorcycle was inspectad although not within the garage enclosed area. 6. The Petitioner has lost and will continue to lose customers, money and goods will as a result of the actions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and requests that the Court stay the suspension pending a hearing. Wherefore, Petitioner prays your Honorable Court dismiss the action against him and issue a stay pending a hearing. Respectfully submitted, Attorney for Petitioner 128 E. King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 (717)-532-3270 ! verify that the statements made in this Petition are true and correct. ! understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. - I Charles C. Suders IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY - PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, : (~'"~t.~ :NO. (~)l- VS. : : CIVIL ACTION CHARLES C, SUDERS, : PE-T'I'rIONER : ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _~L~day of ~l t ,2001, after consideration of the facts set forth in the attached Petition and upon the motion of, H. Anthony Adams, Attorney for Petitioner., a hearing is scheduled for the~__ day~,, , ~, 200l, at ~0 ~.~o'clock ~J m., in Courtroom Number . of the~li~ County Courthouse, ~ Pennsylvania. C~, b ~l~ C~.X~.,'.~l'e- ~/~-~ ~ ..... -----,~ By the~ COPY JUl. 2 5 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL VEHICLE & TRAFFIC LAW DIVISION BY: ELAINE N. BLASS ASSISTANT'COUNSEL ATTORNEY IDENTIFICATION NO. 4~097 RIVERFRONT OFFICE CENTER - THIRD FLOOR 1101 SOUTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17104-2516 (717) 787-2830 CHARLES C. SUDERS, } IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Petitioner : } OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. : } COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 01-3095 CIVIL TERM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, } BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES, : Respondent } RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S SAFETY INSPECTION VIOLATIONS STATEMENT OF THE.CASE By an official notice, dated April 20, 2001, the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Bureau), suspended Petitioner's certification as an official safety inspection mechanic, pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. §4726(b)~, for violations of furnishing I 75 Pa.C.S. § 4726(b) Supervision and suspension provides in pertinent part: "The department shall supervise mechanics certified under this section and may suspend the certification issued to a mechanic if it finds that the mechanic has improperly conducted inspections or has violated or failed to comply with any of the provisions of this "·. chapter or regulations adopted by the department." i a certificate of inspection to a 1985 Honda motor cycle (Sticker No: A00-0272803) without an inspection, 75 Pa.C.S.§ 4730(a),2 and fraudulent record-keeping,67 Pa. Code §175.42(a)3. The Bureau imposed a total suspension of two years: a one-year suspension for a first violation of furnishing the certificate of inspection without an inspection and a one-year suspension for a first violation of fraudulent record-keeping. The notice stated that the fraudulent recd-keeping violation included the lesser included offenses of improper and careless record-keeping. Petitioner filed a timely statutory appeal on May 22, 2001. A de novo hearing was held on July 6, 2001. The Petitioner testified on his own behalf. The Bureau presented the testimony of Trooper Ronald Taylor, Ms. Darla Meckley, the owner of the vehicle, and Mr. Gary A. Viertz, the certified inspection mechanic, who re-inspected the vehicle. The Bureau offered into evidence a packet of documents certified by the Secretary of Transportation and attested to by the Director of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The packet included: the above-noted notice of suspension; a Review of Eligibility For Assessment of Points to Naugle Motors, Inc.; the notice informing the Petitioner of the Departmental hearing; and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles record of Petitioner's violations. The Bureau offered into evidence as separate Exhibits a copy of the Motorcycle Inspection Record, Form MV-480, the record of the motor cycle safety inspection at issue; a copy cfa Work Order from Naugle Motors; and a copies of the M & S Cycle Work Order and M & S Cycle record of safety inspection information. The Bureau offered into evidence the original Certificate of Safety Inspection, which was affixed to the motomycle. 2 75 Pa.C.S.§ 4730(a) provides: "No person shall (2) display or cause to be displayed on any vehicle or mass transit vehicle or have in possession any certificate of inspection knowing the same to be ilctitious or stolen or issued for another vehicle or issued without an inspection having been made." 3 67 Pa. Code § 175.42(a) Fraudulent recording provides: "Fraudulent recording of an inspection report sheet will .... be considered cause for suspension of inspection privileges." 2 By an Order, dated July 6, 2001, the Court made the following Findings of Fact: (1) Petitioner did not properly perform the inspection of the subject motor vehicle in that Petitioner failed to road test it, to use any tool to measure the brakes, and to pull the vehicle into the garage to check the headlights, (2) Petitioner intentionally indicated on the Form MV-480 that he road tested the motorcycle, while knowing that he did not. The Court directed the parties to file memoranda of law by July 23, 2001, in support of their respective positions in light of the Findings of Fact. ARGUMENT I. Petitioner Violated 7~ Pa.C.S. §4730(a) and 67 Pa Code § 17~.45(2)By Furnishing A Certificate of Safety Inspection To A Motor Cycle, Where the Petitioner Omitted Essential Safety Inspection Components That Determine A Vehicle's Safe Operating Condition. The Bureau respectfully submits that the Court's Findings of Fact together with testimony of the motorcycle owner and the Petitioner, indicate that the inspection Petitioner performed on the motorcycle omitted essential safety inspection components, which the inspection regulations. These components are essential to determine whether the motorcycle is in safe operating condition. The Bureau contends that the evidence of record shows Petitioner cut comers by inspecting the motorcycle outside the authorized inspection area, by never moving the vehicle from where it was initially parked outside the garage to the authorized inspection area, and by not performing a road test. The Bureau submits that there is substantial evidence to establish that Petitioner did not properly take the required brake and tire readings, did not properly test headlight aim and candlepower, and had no knowledge of how the motorcycle's systems functioned on the road. Lacking these essential elements, Petitioner performed a seriously deficient inspection, for which the issuance ora certificate of inspection was not warranted or 4 authorized and violated 67 Pa. Code §175.41.4 The Bureau contends that the inspection Petitioner conducted was tantamount to not performing a valid motorcycle safety inspection. The Bureau submits that the Findings of Fact made by this Honorable Court support the Bureau's contention that Petitioner failed to perform the essential components of a required motorcycle inspection and that the inspection performed was seriously deficient. The Court has found that Petitioner did not properly perform the inspection of the motorcycle in that he failed to road test it, to use any tools to measure the brakes, and to pull it into the garage to check the headlights. Further, the Court found that Petitioner intentionally indicated on Form MV-480 that he road tested the motorcycle while knowing he did not. The regulations at 67 Pa. Code § 175.41(a) provides: "Unauthorized display of eertifieate of inspection. No certificate of inspection or temporary inspection approval indicator may be marked or affixed to a vehicle unless the vehicle has successfully passed inspection, meeting the requirements of 75 Pa.C.S.§ § 101-9701 (relating to Vehicle Code) and this chapter." Pursuant to Section 175.41(a), a certificate of inspection cannot be marked and affixed to a vehicle unless that vehicle has successfully passed inspection and met the 4 67 Pa. Code § 175.41 (a) provides: "Unauthoriced displa$ of certi.~eate ofinslaection. No certificate of inspection or temporary, inspection approval indicator may be marked or affixed to a vehicle unless the vehicle has successfully - passed inspection, meeling the requiremenls of 75 Pa.C.S.§ §101-9701(r~:lating to Vehicle Code) and this chapter." 5 requirements of the Vehicle Code. Section 175.41(d)(l)further provides that the certificate of inspection shall be affixed only after completion of the entire inspection including the road test. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Drive Licensing v. May, 528 A.2d 708,710 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). It is undisputed that, to the extent that an inspection was performed, the inspection was conducted in a public area of the inspection station premises. According to the best recollection of Bureau counsel, the vehicle owner, Ms. Mecldey testified that she parked the vehicle on the outside premises of the station and left the engine running, because the vehicle had previously stalled. The owner testified that she was watched the vehicle the · entire time from inside the station. Ms. Meckley testified that the vehicle was never moved from where she parked it, and that two different persons from the station came out to the vehicle. One person removed the old sticker and applied a new sticker. The Bureau asserts that conducting a safety inspection in an authorized inspection area, where there is access to the use of required inspection tools and testing devices, and performance of a road test are essentials components of every required motor vehicle inspection, pursuant to the inspection regulations at 67 Pa. Code, Chapter 175. The inspection regulations mandate these essential features of an inspection whether the vehicle in question is a motorcycle, passenger vehicle, truck or other vehicle requiring a 6 safety inspection. Section 175.25 (c) requires inspection of the vehicle in the authorized inspection areafi Section 175.26(a) requires that the inspection station be equipped with to proper tools, lighting and testing equipment and therefore that the mechanic have access to such t~ols-and equipment. 6 Section 175.28(a) requires the performance of the road test, which permits monitoring of braking and steering systems, the odometer and speedometer, and "other questionable operating behavior." ? The Bureau submils that an inspection cannot be regarded as a safety inspection, when these essential components are omitted. Because of these omissions, the Bureau submits that Petitioner could not reasonably determine whether the motorcycle's various systems --brakes, suspension, steering, lighting, for example--met the specific requirements motorcycle inspection regulations at 67 Pa. Code § 175.141 et seq and were in safe operating condition. 5 67 Pa. Code 175.25(c) Inspection conducted in an inSl*eetion a~a: "An inspection shall be conducted entirely within the inspection area with the exception of the road test." 6 See 67 Pa. Code 175.26(a) Generalretlulrements provides: "An inspection station shall have tools and equipment in good operating condition sufficient to inspect each type of vehicle to be inspected...', to include a portable light, tread depth gauges, brake drum gauges, brake lining gauge, an approved headlight testing device, vn~ncbes, screw drivers. 7 67 Pa. Code § 175.28(a) pro,,qdes in pertinent part: "Tbe mechanic signing the inspectiou sticker shall conduct and be responsible for the entire inspection of the vehicle including the mad test..." 67 Pa. Code 175.160(d)(perform a road test and reject if one or more of the following apply, including vehicle incapable of stopping, malfunction of steering or braking mechanism, other questionable opemtins behavior, speedometer and odometer inoperable, vehicle cannot be driven fora'arr. See also 67 Pa. Code 175.42Co) which provides that the certified mechanic who performed the road test shall place his signature in the appropriate column on the ' · .. inspection record. 7 The evidence of record establishes that Petitioner did not use tools to gauge the vehicle broke and tire readings. Without the use of tools, Petitioner cannot determine if the brakes and tires are at a proper depth for safety, in accordance with 67 Pa. Code §§175.60(b)(3)8 and 175.60(c)9. Brake readings and tire depth readings cannot be made by visual inspection and are not a matter of guesswork. Since Petitioner did not use required headlight testing equipment on the headlight, Petitioner could not determine if headlight have proper candlepower and aim? Proper headlight candlepower and aim cannot be determined by visual inspection alone. Additionally, the requirement that the motorcycle inspection be conducted entirely irt the inspection area permits the station owner or manager to exert proper supervision over the mechanic while the inspection being conducted.~ The Bureau's certified packet of documents at No. 2 is the Review of Eligibility For Assessment of points for the station. The Review of Eligibility indicates that Petitioner's employer, Naugle Motors Inc., was eligible for points in lieu ora suspension, since the station owner was present at the time of violation, but was not aware of the infraction. See 67 Pa. Code §175.151 (b) 8 Section 175.60(0)(3). See 67 Pa. Code 175.160(0)(3)( requiring rejection if drums or rotors scored deeper than .015 inch; if boaded or riveted linings are less than one-thirty-second of an inch; if inside of brake drum is greater than stated diameter). 9 67 Pa. Code 175.160(c)( inspect tires nnd reject ifa tire has two adjacent treads with less than two thirty-second inch remaining at any point). 10 67 Pa. Code § 175.160(a)(6)(i) nod (xi)(indicatins standards for headlamp adjustment). 11 67 Pa. Code § 175.29(a)(6) requires that the inspection station owner assume full responsibility, with or without knowledge, for every inspection conducted by an employee of the station, every inspection conducted on the premises, every certificate of inspection issued by the inspection station, and a violation of the Vehicle Code or "'. regulations committed by an employee of the station. $ (Department will permit station to consent to assessment of points in lieu of suspension if station owner or other management employee was without knowledge of the violation and should not have known of the violation.). Thus, inspection of the motorcycle outside the inspection area here'allowed the inspection to be conducted without proper managerial supervision. This case presents a unique pattern of facts, which has not previously been addressed by Commonwealth's Courts. Counsel for the Bureau could not discover a reported appellate decision, which addresses a violation of furnishing a certificate of inspection without an inspection, given the Findings of Fact made by the Court in the present case, and where there is substantial evidence that the inspection mechanic omitted essential items of inspection procedure~namely, the road test, use of required tools and testing equipment to gauge brakes, tires, and headlamps, and inspection in an authorized inspection area. The Bureau asserts, however, that taken together these omissions are serious deficiencies and violations of the inspection regulations. The Bureau submits that Petitioner can no more perform a valid safety inspection of the motorcycle in question without access to tools, testing, and supervision, outside the inspection area, and without a road test, than Petitioner could conduct a valid safety inspection in a retail parking lot. However, even though Petitioner failed to perform these essential required components, Petitioner issued a certificate of safety inspection to the motorcycle. The Bureau asserts that Petitioner violated the Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S.§ 4730(a)(2) and regulations at 67 Pa~' Code § 175.45(2) by improperly furnishing a certificate of inspection without an inspection having been made. The Bureau contends that the Bureau properly imposed one-year suspension of Petitioner's certificate of authorization to safety inspect motor pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.§ 4730(c) and 67 Pa. Code §175.151(I)(ii). II. Petitioner Fraudulently Recorded On the Form MV-480 Inspection Information For The Brake Linings, Tire Depth, Lights And the Road Test In Violation of 75 · Pa.C.S. §4731 and Safety Inspection Regulations At 67 Pa Code § 175.51 (2)(i). The Bureau submits that Petitioner fraudulently recorded information on the Form MV-480 for four different required inspection procedures: brake readings, tire tread depth, the headlights, and the road test. The Bureau submits that Petitioner's recording of the information was fraudulent, because there is no evidence to indicate that Petitioner properly took the required brake readings and tire readings. Petitioner did not use the required tools and gauges. Thus if any brake and tire readings were in fact taken they .were not conducted in compliance with the regulations. Moreover, there is no affirmative evidence that Petitioner properly inspected the headlamps, since he did not access 10 headlamp testing equipment in the authorized inspection area. Yet, he placed a check o: mark on the MV-480 to indicate the vehicle's lights, wiring and switches were checked. Finally, it is undisputed that the road test was not performed and the Court so found. Therefore, the required inspection information for these above-noted procedures did not exist, yet Petitioner recorded inspection information relating to the brakes, tires, headlights and the road test. Therefore, the Bureau asserts that Petitioner intentionally and with a purpose to deceive recorded on the MV-480 inspection information that was factually false. Moreover, there is a discrepancy between the brake readings Petitioner recorded an the MV-480 and on the Work Order. On the MV-480, the left front brake reading for the motorcycle at Inspection No.63 is recorded as 6/32. The right rear brake reading is recorded as 7/32. The MV-480 appears to have been signed by the Petitioner. ~2 By comparison, the Work Order indicates the brakes as "Fl 5/32 Rear 4/32." Additionally, the tire readings on the Form MV-480 appear to indicate 3/32. A further discrepancy exists between the brake readings on the MV-480 and the 12 67 Pa. Code 175.42(b) provides that the certified mechanic who performed the entire inspection shall place his signature in the appropriate column of the Form MV-480 immediately following the inspection., unless the inspection information is transferred to the MY-480 by a person other than the mechanic. The MV-480 in question appears to have been signed by Petitioner. Cf. Pa. R.E. 901(b)(2)(illustrating that a document may be authenticated or identified by non-expert opinion on handx~'iting based on familiarity not acquired for purposes of litigation). The Bureau invites the Court to compare the similarity of signature on the MV-480 with the Petitioner's signature, as · verified in the Petition For Appeal. 11 Naugle Motors Work Order and the brake readings, that were recorded upon re inspection .. of the motorcycle. Trooper Ronald Taylor's testimony, as recollected by Bureau counsel, indicates that the Trooper took the motorcycle for re-inspection to M& S Cycle on July 13, 2000, the day after Ms. Meckley contacted the Trooper. Testimony indicates that M & S Cycle is an authorized motorcycle inspection station. The motorcycle was inspected by Mr. Allan Viertz, who testified at the hearing. Mr. Viertz indicated that the M & S Cycle document that accompanied the Work Order indicates the front and rear brakes as each measuring 5/32 and the front and rear tires as 5/32. The Findings of Fact made by Court support the Bureau's contention that Petitioner entered information of the MV-380, that Petitioner could not have obtained. The Court found that the Petitioner did not road test the vehicle and Petitioner intentionally indicated on the MV-480 that he performed the road test when he did not. The Court has further found as a Fact that Petitioner did not use any tool to measure the motorcycle's brakes. To the best recollection of Bureau counsel, Petitioner did not testify that he took the tire depth readings nor the vehicle owner testify that tire tread depth was measured, while she observed the vehicle. Fraudulent record-keeping occurs when "the record-keeping entry [is] false, entered intentionally and with the purpose of deceiving." Department of Transportation v. 12 Midas Muffler Shop, 529 A.2d 91, 93 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). The Bureau submits that there is substantial evidence that the entry of the brake and tire readings on the MV-480 was both intentional and false, as Petitioner recorded this information where no proper measurements of those readings were made by Petitioner; that Petitioner's indication that the road test was performed was, as found by the Court, done intentionally and with knowledge of falsity, i.e. that Petitioner indicated that he performed the road test knowing that he did not; and, further, that Petitioner indicated that the lights had been checked when, in fact, one of the main components of the motorcycle lighting system, the headlights, had not been properly tested. The Bureau further submits that the intent to deceive may be found here, in light of the Bureau's contention that Petitioner performed an inspection on the motorcycle that was seriously deficient and paid little heed to the required safety inspection procedures. The information Petitioner recorded on the MV- 480 portrays the inspection as properly and entirely completed. The Bureau submits that it can be reasonable inferred that Petitioner fraudulently recorded information to record on the MV-480, given the extent of the false information entered on the MV-480, the kind of information that was falsely recorded and the deficiency of the safety inspection. Petitioner falsely indicated that essential aspects of the motorcycle safety inspection were properly performed, when there is substantial evidence that they were not. This is not a case where a mechanic inadvertently recorded 13 erroneous or inaccurate information. CONCLUSION In light of the substantial evidence of record and the Court's Findings of Fact, the Court should affirm the one-year consecutive suspensions imposed on Petitioner's certificate of authorization to safety inspect motor vehicles, as a result of the violations of furnishing a certificate of inspection without performing an inspection and fraudulent record-keeping. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL VEHICLE & TRAFFIC LAW DIVISION BY: ELAINEN. BLASS ,~S$1STdNT COUNSEL ATTORNEY IDENTIFICATION NO. 43097 RIVERFRONT OFFICE CENTER - THIRD FLOOR 1101 SOUTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17104-2516 (717) 787-2830 CHARLES C. SUDERS, } IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Petitioner : } OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 01-3095 CIVIL TERM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, } BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES, : Respondent } RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S SAFETY INSPECTION VIOLATIONS STATEMENT OF THE,CASE By an official notice, dated April 20, 2001, the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Bureau), suspended Petitioner's certification as an official safety inspection mechanic, pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. §4726(b)~, for violations of furnishing I 75 Pa.C.S. § 4726(b) Supervision and snspension provides in pertinent part: "The department shall supervise mechanics certified under this section and may suspend the certification issued to a mechanic if it finds that the mechanic has improperly conducted inspections or has violated or failed to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter or regulations adopted by the department." 1 a certificate of inspection to a 1985 Honda motor cycle (Sticker No: A00-0272803) without an inspection, 75 Pa.C.S.§ 4730(a),: and fraudulent record-keeping,67 Pa. Code § 175.42(a)3. The Bureau imposed a total suspension of two years: a one-year suspension for a first violation of furnishing the certificate of inspection without an inspection and a one-year suspension for a first violation of fraudulent record-keeping. The notice stated that the fraudulent reed-keeping violation included the lesser included offenses of improper and careless record-keeping. Petitioner filed a timely statutory appeal on May 22, 2001. A de novo hearing was held on July 6, 2001. The Petitioner testified on his own behalf. The Bureau presented the testimony of Trooper Ronald Taylor, Ms. Darla Meckley, the owner of the vehicle, and Mr. Gary A. Viertz, the certified inspection mechanic, who re-inspected the vehicle. The Bureau offered into evidence a packet of documents certified by the Secretary of Transportation and attested to by the Director of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The packet included: the above-noted notice of suspension; a Review of Eligibility For Assessment of Points to Naugle Motors, Inc.; the notice informing the Petitioner of the Departmental hearing; and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles record of Petitioner's violations. The Bureau offered into evidence as separate Exhibits a copy of the Motorcycle Inspection Record, Form MV-480, the record of the motor cycle safety inspection at issue; a copy ora Work Order from Naugle Motors; and a copies of the M & S Cycle Work Order and M & S Cycle record of safety inspection information. The Bureau offered into evidence the original Certificate of Safety Inspection, which was affixed to the motorcycle. 2 75 Pa.C.S.§ 4730(a) provides: "No person shall (2) display or cause to be displayed on any vehicle or mass transit vehicle or have in pos.qession any certificate of inspection knowing the same to be fictitious or stolen or issued Mr another vehicle or issued without an inspection having been made." 3 67 Pa. Code § 175.42(a) Fraudulent recording provides: "Fraudulent recording of an inspection report sheet will be considered cause for suspension of inspection privileges." 2 By an Order, dated July 6, 2001, the Court made the following Findings of Fact: (1) Petitioner did not properly perform the inspection of the subject motor vehicle in that Petitioner failed to road test it, to use any tool to measure the brakes, and to pull the vehicle into the garage to check the headlights, (2) Petitioner intentionally indicated on the Form MV-480 that he road tested the motorcycle, while knowing that he did not. The Court directed the parties to file memoranda of law by .Iuly 23,2001, in support of their respective positions in light of the Findings of Fact. ARGUMENT I. Petitioner Violated 75 Pa.C.S. §4730(a) and 67 Pa Code §175.45(2)By Furnishing A Certificate of Safety Inspection To A Motor Cycle, Where the Petitioner Omitted Essential Safety Inspection Components That Determine A Vehicle's Safe Operating Condition. The Bureau respectfully submits that the Court's Findings of Fact together with testimony of the motorcycle owner and the Petitioner, indicate that the inspection Petitioner performed on the motorcycle omitted essential safety inspection components, which the inspection regulations. These components are essential to determine whether the motorcycle is in safe operating condition. The Bureau contends that the evidence of record shows Petitioner cut corners by inspecting the motorcycle outside the authorized inspection area, by never moving the vehicle from where it was initially parked outside the garage to the authorized inspection area, and by not performing a road test. The Bureau submits that there is substantial evidence to establish that Petitioner did not properly take the required brake and tire readings, did not properly test headlight aim and candlepower, and had no knowledge of how the motorcycle's systems functioned on the road. Lacking these essential elements, Petitioner performed a seriously deficient inspection, for which the issuance of a certificate of inspection was not warranted or 4 authorized and violated 67 Pa. Code § i 75.41.4 The Bureau contends that the inspection Petitioner conducted was tantamount to not performing a valid motorcycle safety inspection. The Bureau submits that the Findings of Fact made by this Honorable Court support the Bureau's contention that Petitioner failed to perform the essential components of a required motorcycle inspection and that the inspection performed was seriously deficient. The Court has found that Petitioner did not properly perform the inspection of the motorcycle in that he failed to road test it, to use any tools to measure the brakes, and to pull it into the garage to cheek the headlights. Further, the Court found that Petitioner intentionally indicated on Form MV-480 that he road tested the motorcycle while knowing he did not. The regulations at 67 Pa. Code §175.41(a) provides: "Unauthorized display of certificate of inspection. No certificate of inspection or temporary inspection approval indicator may be marked or affixed to a vehicle unless the vehicle has successfully passed inspection, meeting the requirements of 75 Pa.C.S.§ §101-9701(relating to Vehicle Code) and this chapter." Pursuant to Section ! 75.41 (a), a certificate of inspection cannot be marked and affixed to a vehicle unless that vehicle has successfully passed inspection and met the 4 67 Pa. Code § 175.41 (a) provides: "Unauthori:ed display of certificate oflnspectlon. No certificate of inspection or temporary inspection approval indicator may be marked or aft-axed to a vehicle unless the vehicle has successfully passed inspection, meeting the t~luirement.q of 75 Pa.C.S.§ § I 01-9701 (relating to Vehicle Code) and this chapter." 5 requirements of the Vehicle Code. Section 175.41(d)(l)further provides that the certificate of inspection shall be affixed only after completion of the entire inspection including the road test. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Drive Licensing v. May, 528 A.2d 708,710 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). It is undisputed that, to the extent that an inspection was performed, the inspection was conducted in a public area of the inspection station premises. According to the best recollection of Bureau counsel, the vehicle owner, Ms. Meckley testified that she parked the vehicle on the outside premises of the station and left the engine running, because the vehicle had previously stalled. The owner testified that she was watched the vehicle the entire time from inside the station. Ms. Meckley testified that the vehicle was never moved from where she parked it, and that two different persons from the station came out to the vehicle. One person removed the old sticker and applied a new sticker. The Bureau asserts that conducting a safety inspection in an authorized inspection area, where there is access to the use of required inspection tools and testing devices, and performance of a road test are essentials components of eveoj required motor vehicle inspection, pursuant to the inspection regulations at 67 Pa. Code, Chapter 175. The inspection regulations mandate these essential features of an inspection whether the vehicle in question is a motorcycle, passenger vehicle, truck or other vehicle requiring a 6 safety inspection. Section 175.25 (c) requires inspection of the vehicle in the authorized inspection area.5 Section 175.26(a) requires that the inspection station be equipped with to proper tools, lighting and testing equipment and therefore that the mechanic have access to such tools and equipment. 0 Section 175.28(a) requires the performance of the road test, which permits monitoring of braking and steering systems, the odometer and speedometer, and "other questionable operating behavior." 7 The Bureau submits that an inspection cannot be regarded as a safety inspection, when these essential components are omitted. Because of these omissions, the Bureau submits that Petitioner could not reasonably determine whether the motorcycle's various systems --brakes, suspension, steering, lighting, for example--met the specific requirements motorcycle inspection regulations at 67 Pa. Code § ! 75.141 et seq and were in safe operating condition. 5 67 Pa. Code 175.25(c) lnsl~ection eonducwd in an inspection area: "An inspection ~qhall be conducted entirely within the inspection area with the exception of the road test." 6 See 67 Pa. Code 175.26(a) General requirements provides: "An inspection station shall have tools and equipment in good operating condition sufficient to inspect each type of vehicle to be inspected...", to include a portable light, tread depth gauges, brake dram gauges, brake lining gauge, an approved headlight testing device, wrenches, screw drivers. 7 67 Pa. Code § 175.28(a) provides in pertinent part: "The mechanic signing the inspection sticker shall conduct and be responsible for the entire inspection of the vehicle including the road test..." 67 Pa. Code 175.160(d)(perform a road test and reject if one or more of the following apply, including vehicle incapable of stopping, malfunction of steering or braking mechanism, olher questionable operating behavior, specdoreeter and odometer inoperable, vehicle cannot be driven forward. See also 67 Pa. Code 175.42(b) which provides that thc certified mechanic who performed the road test shall place his signature in the appropriate column on the inspection record. 7 The evidence of record establishes that Petitioner did not use tools to gauge the vehicle brake and tire readings. Without the use of tools, Petitioner cannot determine if the brakes and tires are at a proper depth for safety, in accordance with 67 Pa. Code §§ 175.60(b)(3)s and 175.60(c)9. Brake readings and tire depth readings cannot be made by visual inspection and are not a matter of guesswork. Since Petitioner did not use required headlight testing equipment on the headlight, Petitioner could not determine if headlight have proper candlepower and aim.~° Proper headlight candlepower and aim cannot be determined by visual inspection alone. Additionally, the requirement that the motorcycle inspection be conducted entirely in the inspection area permits the station owner or manager to exert proper supervision over the mechanic while the inspection being conducted.~ The Bureau's certified packet of documents at No. 2 is the Review of Eligibility For Assessment of points for the station. The Review of Eligibility indicates that Petitioner's employer, Nangle Motors Inc., was eligible for points in lien ora suspension, since the station owner was present at the time of violation, but was not aware of the infraction. See 67 Pa. Code §175.151(b) 8 Section 175.60(b)(3). See 67 Pa. Code 175.160(b)(3)( requiring rejection if drmns or rotom gored deeper than .015 inch: if bonded or riveted linings are less than one-thirty-second of an inch; if inside of brake drum is greater than stated diameter). 9 67 Pa. Code 175.160(c)( inspect fires and reject ifa tire has two adjacent treads with less than two thirty-second inch remaining at any point). 10 67 Pa. Code §175.160(a)(6)(i) and (xi)(indicating standards for headlamp adjustment). 11 67 Pa. Code § 175.29(a)(6) requirers that the inspection station owner assurae full responsibility, with or without knowledge, for every inspection conducted by an employee of the station, every inspection conducted on the premises, every certificate of inspection issued by the inspection station, and a violation of the Vehicle Code or regulations committed by an employee of the station. 8 (Department will permit station to consent to assessment of points in lieu of suspension if station owner or other management employee was without knowledge of the violation and should not have known of the violation.). Thus, inspection of the motorcycle outside the inspection area here allowed the inspection to be conducted without proper managerial supervision. This case presents a unique pattern of facts, which has not previously been addressed by Commonwealth's Courts. Counsel for the Bureau could not discover a reported appellate decision, which addressas a violation of furnishing a certificate of inspection without an inspection, given the Findings of Fact made by the Court in the present case, and where there is substantial evidence that the inspection mechanic omitted essential items of inspection procedure~namely, the road test, use of required tools and testing equipment to gauge brakes, tires, and headlamps, and inspection in an authorized inspection area. The Bureau asserts, however, that taken together these omissions are serious deficiencies and violations of thc inspection regulations. The Bureau submits that Petitioner can no more perform a valid safety inspection of the motorcycle in question without access to tools, testing, and supervision, outside the inspection area, and without a road test, than Petitioner could conduct a valid safety inspection in a retail parking lot. 9 However, even though Petitioner failed to perform these essential required components, Petitioner issued a certificate of safety inspection to the motorcycle. The Bureau asserts that Petitioner violated the Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S.§ 4730(a)(2) and regulations at 67 Pa. Code § 175.45(2) by improperly furnishing a certificate of inspection without an inspection having been made. The Bureau contends that the Bureau properly imposed one-year suspension of Petitioner's certificate of authorization to safety inspect motor pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.§ 4730(c) and 67 Pa. Code §175.151(I)(ii). II. Petitioner Fraudulently Recorded On the Form MV-480 Inspection Information For The Brake Linings, Tire Depth, Lights And the Road Test In Violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §4731 and Safety Inspection Regulations At 67 Pa Code § 175.51 (2)0). The Bureau submits that Petitioner fraudulently recorded information on the Form MV-480 for four different required inspection procedures: brake readings, tire tread depth, the headlights, and the road test. The Bureau submits that Petitioner's recording of the information was fraudulent, because there is no evidence to indicate that Petitioner properly took the required brake readings and tire readings. Petitioner did not use the required tools and gauges. Thus if any brake and tire readings were in fact taken they were not conducted in compliance with the regulations. Moreover, there is no affirmative evidence that Petitioner properly inspected the headlamps, since he did not access 10 headlamp testing equipment in the authorized inspection area. Yet, he placed a cheek mark on the MV-480 to indicate the vehicle's lights, wiring and switches were checked. Finally, it is undisputed that the road test was not performed and the Court so found. Therefore, the required inspection information for these above-noted procedures did not exist, yet Petitioner recorded inspection information relating to the brakes, tires, headlights and the mad test. Therefore, the Bureau asserts that Petitioner intentionally and with a purpose to deceive recorded on the MV-480 inspection information that was factually false. Moreover, there is a discrepancy between the brake readings Petitioner recorded an the MV-480 and on the Work Order. On the MV-480, the left front brake reading for the motorcycle at Inspection No.63 is recorded as 6/32. The right rear brake reading is recorded as 7/32. The MV-480 appears to have been signed by the Petitioner. ~'~ By comparison, the Work Order indicates the brakes as "Fl 5/32 Rear 4/32." Additionally, the tire readings on the Form MV-480 appear to indicate 3/32. A further discrepancy exists between the brake readings on the MV-480 and the 12 67 Pa. Code 175.42Co) provides that the certified mechanic who performed the entire inspection shall place his signature in the appropriate colonm of the Form MV-480 immediately following the inspection., unless the inspection information is ~'ansferred to the MV-480 by a person other than the mechanic. The MV-480 in question appears to have been signed by Petitioner. Cf. Pa. R.E. 901 (b)(2)(illus~'ating that a document may be authenticated or identified by non-expert opinion on handwriting based on familiarity not acquired for puq)oses of litigation). The Bureau invites the Court to compare the similarity of signature on the MV-480 with the Petitioner's signature, as verified in the Petition For Appeal. II Naugle Motors Work Order and the brake readings, that were recorded upon re inspection of the motorcycle. Trooper Ronald Taylor's testimony, as recollected by Bureau counsel, indicates that the Trooper took the motorcycle for re-inspection to M& S Cycle on July 13, 2000, the day after Ms. Mecldey contacted the Trooper. Testimony indicates that M & S Cycle is an authorized motorcycle inspection station. The motorcycle was inspected by Mr. Allan Viertz, who testified at the hearing. Mr. Viertz indicated that the M & S Cycle document that accompanied the Work Order indicates the front and rear brakes as each measuring 5/32 and the front and rear tires as 5/32. The Findings of Fact made by Court support the Bureau's contention that Petitioner entered information of the MV-380, that Petitioner could not have obtained. The Court found that the Petitioner did not road test the vehicle and Petitioner intentionally indicated on the MV-480 that he performed the road test when he did not. The Court has further found as a Fact that Petitioner did not use any tool to measure the motorcycle's brakes. To the best recollection of Bureau counsel, Petitioner did not testify that he took the tire depth readings nor the vehicle owner testify that tire tread depth was measured, while she observed the vehicle. Fraudulent record-keeping occurs when "the record-keeping entry [is] false, entered intentionally and with the purpose of deceiving." Department of Transportation v. 12 Midas Muffler Shop, 529 A.2d 91, 93 (Pa. Cmwith. 1987). The Bureau submits that there is substantial evidence that the entry of the brake and tire readings on the MV-480 was both intentional and false, as Petitioner recorded this information where no proper measurements of those readings were made by Petitioner; that Petitioner's indication that the road test was performed was, as found by the Court, done intentionally and with knowledge of falsity, i.e. that Petitioner indicated that he performed the road test knowing that he did not; and, further, that Petitioner indicated that the lights had been checked when, in fact, one of the main components of the motorcycle lighting system, the headlights, had not been properly tested. The Bureau further submits that the intent to deceive may be found here, in light of the Bureau's contention that Petitioner performed an inspection on the motorcycle that was seriously deficient and paid little heed to the required safety inspection procedures. The information Petitioner recorded on the MV- 480 portrays the inspection as properly and entirely completed. The Bureau submits that it can be reasonable inferred that Petitioner fraudulently recorded information to record on the MV-480, given the extent of the false information entered on the MV-480, the kind of information that was falsely recorded and the deficiency of the safety inspection. Petitioner falsely indicated that essential aspects of the motorcycle safety inspection were properly performed, when there is substantial evidence that they were not. This is not a case where a mechanic inadvertently recorded 13 erroneous or inaccurate information. CONCLUSION In light of the substantial evidence of record and the Court's Findings of Fact, the Court should affirm the one-year consecutive suspensions imposed on Petitioner's certificate of authorization to safety inspect motor vehicles, as a result of the violations of furnishing a certificate of inspection without performing an inspection and fraudulent record-keeping. 14 cOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL VEHICLE & TRAFFIC LAW DIVISION BY: ELAINE N. BLASS ASSISTANT COUNSEL VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LA W DIVISION ATTORNEY iDENTIFICATION NO. 43097 RIVER.FRONT OFFICE CENTER ' THIRD FLOOR 1101 SOUTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17104-2516 } IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CHARLES C. SUDERS, Petitioner · } OF CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, PA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, } BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES, : Respondent } No. 01-3095 Civil Term PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this day and date duly served a true and correct coPY of the foregoing Bureau's Brief In Support Of petitioner's Safety Inspection Violations upon the person and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 121: First Class Mail; Postage pre-Paid; Aadressed as Follows'. H~Anthony Adams, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 128 East King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 (717) 532-3270 Elaine N. Blass, Attorney for Respondent Date: July 23, 2001 JU/. 2 3 2001 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY - PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, : : NO. 01-3095 CIVIL TERM VS. : : CIVIL ACT[ON CHARLES C, SUDERS, : PEllTIONER : BRIEF OF DEFENDANT The Defendant, Charles C. Suders was ordered by the Department of Transportation to serve two consecutive periods of suspension pursuant to Section 4726 of the Vehicle Code. One suspension was ordered for fraudulent record keeping. This suspension and order is not at issue. The second suspension was ordered for furnishing a certificate of inspection without performing an inspection. AEer hearing in this matter, .]udge Edward Guido found that an inspection was in fact performed but it was faulty and not complete. An order including findings of fact was issued and is attached hereto. Question Presented: Can an inspection mechanic be found to have furnished a certificate of inspection if he in fact performs an inspection albeit an incomplete/faulty inspection? Argument: This case is controlled by and squarely on point with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Altier, 557 A2 1167 (19889). Conclusion: The order finding violation of issuing a certificate of inspection without inspection should be reversed. H. Anthony Adams Attorney for Charles C. Suders COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : CHARLES C. SUDERS, : Appellant : NO. 01-3095 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2001, after hearing, we make the following findings of fact: 1. That Appellant did not properly perform the inspection of the subject motor vehicle in that he failed to road test it, to use any tool to measure the brakes, and to pull it into the garage to check the headlights. 2. We further find that he intentionally indicated on Form MV-480 that he road tested the motorcycle while knowing that he did not. The parties are directed to submit memoranda of law in support of their respective positions in light of the findings of fact in this case, Said memoranda to be filed by July 23, 2001. We will then issue an appropriate order. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. Elaine Blass, Esquire Attorney for Appellee H. Anthony Adams, Esquire r;.~E ~wO~Y FRO~ RECO~ · 'Attorney for Appel 1 ant In T~9~ whe~, I ~ ~ ~ 9~ ~.gd ' ' Protho ot ;' srs 557 A.2d 1167 Page 6 (Cite as: 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 493, 557 A.2d 1167) Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Jr.'s inspection mechanic certificates. We affirm. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, FNI. The appeals were consolidated pursuant DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU m this Court's July 26, 1988 Order. OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellant, Following an administrative hearing, DOT v. permanently suspended the official inspection station Joseph E. ALTIER, Sr., Appellee. eerrificarion [FN2] of Pioneer Auto and the mechanic's certificate [FN3] of '49S its owner, 1170 C.D. 1988, 1171 C.D. 1988 Joseph Airier, Sr. DOT also suspended Airier, Jr.'s mechanic's certificate for one year. The suspensions Submitted on Briefs Dec. 20, 1988. were imposed for furnishing certificates of inspecriou Decided May 1, 1989. without an inspection and for fraudulent recordkeeping. The common pleas court concluded Department of Transportation suspended the official that the suspensions were not properly imposed inspection station certification of an inspection because the vinlations stemmed from the Altiers' station, and also suspended the mechanic's certificates alleged failure to inspect three specific vehicles which of ia owner and an employee. Owner and employee later proved to have been inspected. DOT contends appealed. The Common Pleas Court, Lackawanna that the common pleas court erred in reversing the County, Carlson M. O'Malley, J., reversed the suspensions because the Altiers' admittedly hicomplete suspensions, and Deparlrflent appealed. The inspections otherwise established fraudulent record- Commonwealth Court, Nos. 1170 and 1171 C.D. 1988, keeping violations. We disagree. Crumiish, Jr., President Judge, held that owner's admittedly incomplete inspections did not substantiat~ FN2. Section 4724(a) of the Vehicle Code, 7:5 a failure-to-inspect violation. Pa. C.S. § 4724(a). AffLrmed. FN3. Section 4726 of the Vehicle Code, 7:5 West Headnotes Pa. C.S. § 4726. Licenses ~::::~38 In a de novo appeal, the trial court is limited to determining whether the person charged has committed 238k38 the violation for which the sanction was imposed. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic In regard to inspection mechanic's alleged failure to Safety v. Verna, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 260, 351 inspect three specific vehicles which later proved to A.2d 694 (1976). If the ~al court makes findings of have been inspected, mechanic's admittedly fact or conclusions of law differing from those made by incomplete inspections did not substantiate failure-to- DOT, the court may then modify the imposed penalty. inspect violarion. 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4724(a), 4726. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic *'1167 *494 Harold H. Cramer, Asst. Counsel, John Safety v. Kobaly. 477 Pa. 525, 384 A.2d 1213 (1978). L. Heston, ChiefCouusel, Harrisburg, for appellant. The violation at issue here, fraudulent recordkeeping, occurs when a recorded entry is false, entered James A. Spusito, Scranton, for appellee, intentionally and with deceit. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Drivvr Licensing v. Midas Before CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge, and MuJ~lerShop, *'1168 108 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 199, COLINS, J. and BLA'I'F, Senior Judge. 529 A.2d 91 (1987). OPINION In this case, the common pleas court found that the Alriers admired noting in their official inspection CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge. records that they had performed complete inspections despite their failure to remove the tires while The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor inspecting the brakes. However, the court reasoned Vehicles (DOT), appeals txvo Lackawanna County that this admitted infraction could not "jurr~ back and Common Pleas Court orders [FNI] reversing i~s fill the void" on thc failure-to-inspect charge, which suspensions of Joseph Airier, Sr., and Suseph Airier, the court found to be meritless. (opinion, p. 8.) While Copt. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. (3ovt. Works 557 A.2d 11§7 (Cite as: 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 493, ~'498, 557 A.2d 1167, "'~1168) Page 7 our review of the caselaw reveals situations where the trial court has permissibly '~496 reduced a fraudulent Accordingly, we record-keeping charge t~ the lesser improper record- keeping violation, Department of Transportation v. ORDER $ortino, 75 Pa. Cowanonwealth Ct. 541,462 A.2d 925 (1983), we find no authority for upholding DOT's The orders of the Lackawanna County Common Pleas Court, Nos. 87 Civil 3542 and 87 Civil 3543, dated attempt to substantiate a failure-tu-impect violation by April 22, 1988, are affirmed. using an admission of incomplct~e recurdkeeping elicited for the first time at the hearing. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : CHARLES C. SUDERS, : Appellant : NO. 01-3095 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2001, after hearing, we make the following findings of fact: 1. That Appellant did not properly perform the inspection of the subject motor vehicle in that he failed to road test it, to use any tool to measure the brakes, and to pull it into the garage to check the headlights. 2. We further find that he intentionally indicated on Form MV-480 that he road tested the motorcycle while knowing that he did not. The parties are directed to submit memoranda of law in support of their respective positions in light of the findings of fact in this case, Said memoranda to be filed by July 23, 2001. We will then issue an appropriate order. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. Elaine Blass, Esquire Attorney for Appellee H. Anthony Adams, Esquire Attorney for Appellant srs MV-131 (9/95) CERTIFICATION AND ATTESTATION DATE: July 5, 2001 I hereby certify that Kurt J. Myers, Director of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, is the legal custodian of the Motor Vehicle records of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS DEPARTMENT ON THE ABO~ DATE IN AccO~)/~iCE WITH. SECTION 6103 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, TITLE 42, Pa. CONSOLIDATEDii~'Ib'I'ES.' '""' ",'"". ?' .' .' BRAbbE, Y'L..'MALLOR~r S-ECRET. AR~-OF~.S~ORTATION I hereby attest that the document or doc~ listed below and attached hereto are full, true and correct pho .t~. tic and/or microfiche copies...ef;'~ments of which I have legal custody, and that the copies confor~fi tO.the requirements of Se~!6tO9 of the Judicial Cod'e...:i 1 ) April 20, 2001, notificati~3n of susp ~e~a. 'itin.0f the privilel~- .~...safety inspect.'.;.~tor vehicles to mechanic Charles. C. Suders, O.1.M..'~19-184-227; .~'~;..o....f Eligibility ~:Asseaement of Points for the Sta~idm; 3) November 28, 2000, in..~ectio~!~echanic of a Departmental Hea.'..~g scheduling.date, time and place of h~.:4) No..',~mber 28, 2000, notification to insp~on statierr:~-ia Departmental Hearing sched~ng da~;=tirne and place of hearing, and 5) Cettfficetion of...~cords, which appear in the files Of the me.'.~..anic Charles C. Suders, O.I.M. #19-184-227, '75~..~..altimore Road, Shippensburg, PA, in ,the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Harrisburg, Pennsylvanla: . IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE.HEREUNTO.SET MY HAND AND SEAL ON THE ABOVE DATE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6103 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. K U-'0"~'~. ~ SEAL BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HARRISBURG 17104 April 20, 2001 Mr. Charles C. Suders Opr. #19-184~.227 750 Baltimore Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 (Naugle Motor, Inc. - O.I.S. #6919) ORDER AND SUSPENSION OF OFFICIAL INSPECTION MECHANIC You are hereby notified that your certification as an offi- cial safety inspection mechanic is suspended, persuant to Section 4726 of the Vehicle Code. No vehicle safety in- spections may be performed during the suspension. Pursuant to Departmental regulations, your certification as an offi- cial safety inspection mechanic will be suspended one (1) year for furnishing certificate of inspection without an in- spection to a 1985 Honda Motorcycle (sticker #A00-0272803) and one (1) year for fraudulent record keeping. Further, the Department is including in this offense, the lesser in- cluded offenses of improper record keeping and careless re- cord keeping. The suspension(s) will run concurrently X consec- utively, for a total suspension of two (2) years. This sus- pension is to run consecutively with any other suspension (s) imposed by the Department for any other violation con- sidered separately. You are ordered to surrender to the bearer of this notice, who is a representative of the De- partment of Transportation, your Safety Mechanic Certif- ication Card. Upon the completion of your suspension, your mechanic cer- tification card will be returned to you. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE (Page 1 of 2) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE (Page 2 of 2) You have a right to appeal this departmental Order of Sus- pension to the Court of Common Pleas of the County in which the above referenced inspection station is located WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE MAIL DATE OF THIS ORDER. If you do file an appeal, a signed and time-stamped copy of the appeal must be served upon the Department at the mailing address listed below. FILING OF AN APPEAL DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY STAY THE SUSPENSION. In order for your privileges to be re- stored pending appeal, a signed Order of Supersedeas from the Court directing the Department to stay the suspension must be served upon the Department at the mailing address listed below. MAILING ADDRESS: Sincerely, , Department of Transportation ~ ~_,,---~ Chief Counsel's Office Riverfront Office Center - 1101 S. Front Street, 3rd Floor Kurt J. Myers, Director Harrisburg, PA 17104-2416 Bureau of Motor Vehicles REVIEW OF ELIGIBILITY OF ASSESSEMENT OF POINTS STATION NUMBER: 6919 STATION NAME: Naugle Motor, Inc. HEARING DATE: 12-19-00 IS STATION ELIGIBLE FOR POINTS? IF NO, EXPLAIN APPROVED COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HARRISBURG 17122 November 28, 2000 Mr. Charles C. Suders Oper. #19-184-227 750 Baltimore Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 (Naugle Motor, Inc. - OIS #6919) Dear Sir: The report(s) of 07-31-00 received from the Pennsylvania State Police indicates violation(s) of furnishing certif- icate of inspection without an inspection to a 1985 Honda Motorcycle (sticker #A00-0272803) and fraudulent record keeping. A Departmental Hearing has been scheduled for December 19, 2000 at 1:00 p.m. at the Driver Exam Center, Riverfront Of- fice Center, 1st Floor, 1101 South Front street,Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 171Q4-2516. At the time of the hearing, you may present the testimony of any witnesses having informa- tion pertinent to the violation(s) in question. Failure to appear at the appointed time will be considered a waiver of your right to a hearing. A determination as to whether or not to suspend your safety mechanic certification will be make in your absence. In cases where the certificate appointee was not present at the station at the time of the violation, but had placed a manager or supervisor in charge of the operation of the sta- tion, it is important that the manager or supervisor appear at the Departmental hearing. ALL HEARING ATTENDEES SHOULD BRING THEIR OPERATOR'S LICENSE AND/OR MECHANIC CERTIFICATION CARD TO THE HEARING. (Continued on next page) (Continued from previous page) If you have any questions, please contact the Bureau of Mo- tor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Post Office Box 68697, Harrisburg, PA 17106-8697, or telephone (717) 787-2895. .Sincerely, Kurt J~c~or Bureau of Motor Vehicles COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HARRISBURG 17122 November 28, 2000 Mr. William'~. Naugle, III Naugle Motor, Inc. O.I.S. #6919 608 W. King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 Dear Sir: The report(s) of 07-31-00 received from the Pennsylvania State Police indicates violation(s) of furnishing certif- icate of inspection without an inspection to a 1984 Honda Motorcycle (sticker #A00-0272803) and fraudulent record keeping by Charles C. Suders, Oper. #19-184-227. A Departmental Hearing has been scheduled for December 19, 2000 at 1:00 p.m. at the Driver Exam Center, Riverfront Of- fice Center, 1st Floor, 1101 South Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17104-2516. At the time of the hearing, you may present the testimony of any witnesses having informa- tion pertinent to the violation(s) in question. Failure to appear at the appointed time will be considered a waiver of your right to a hearing. A determination as to whether or not to suspend your safety inspection station certificate of appointment will be make in your absence. In cases where the certificate appointee was not present at the station at the time of the violation, but had placed a manager or supervisor in charge of the operation of the sta- tion, it is important that the manager or supervisor appear at the Departmental hearing. This is especially true if you believe that an assessment of points should be considered by the Department. ALL HEARING ATTENDEES SHOULD BRING THEIR OPERATOR'S LICENSE AND/OR MECHANIC CERTIFICATION CARD TO THE HEARING. (Continued on next page) (Continued from previous page) If you have any questions, please contact the Bureau of Mo- tor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Post Office Box 68697, Harrisburg, PA 17106-8697, or telephone (717) 787-2895. Sincerely, Kurt J. Myers, Director Bureau of Motor Vehicles DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES July 5, 2001 MECHANIC: Charles C. Suders ADDR ESS: 750 Baltimore Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 MECHANIC NUMBER: #19-184-227 VIOLATION ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT 12/24/79 - Certification Date Furnishing certificate of inspection without 04/20/01 - Mechanic Charles C. Suders, performing an inspection; fraudulent recordO.I.M. #19-184-227, suspended 1 year for keeping, furnishing certificate of inspection without performing an inspection and 1 year for fraudulent record keeping. Suspensions to run consecutively for a total suspension of 2 years. Appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County at No. #01-3095 CIVIL. I hereby certify that I have caused a search to be made of the files of the Department of Transportation, and the above is a true record of the violation(s) and action(s) taken by the Department regarding the subject mechanic listed above. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS DEPARTMENT THE DAY AND YEAR AFORESAID. Kurt J. Myers Director of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles I hereby certify that Kurt J. Myers, Director of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is the legal custodian of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Records of the Department of Transportation. As Director of the aforesaid Bureau, he has legal custody of the original or microfilm records which are reproduced herein. Secretary of Transportation COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE: Jlfl'le 21,2001 SUBJECT: Charles C. Suders, O.I.M. #19-184-227 No. #01-3095-CIVIL (Safety Mechanic) (Cumberland County) 750 Baltimore Road S .l~_ppensburg, PA 17257 TO: The Commanding Officer Troop "II" Chambersburg, PA FROM: The Commissioner O.R. 315 REFERENCE: (a) Pennsylvania Official Safety Inspection Investigation Report No. H03-1142187 dated Suly 31, 2000, wherein Trooper Ronald L. Taylor and was stationed at FChambersburg. Please have Tpr. Taylor present themselves in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on July 6, 2001 at 10:30 a.m., Courtroom No. 5, Carlisle, PA to testiS. (c) The attorney who will be representing the Department is Elaine Blass, Assistant Counsel, Rivert~ont Office Center- 1101 S. Front Street- 3'~ Floor, Harrisburg, PA Phone No. 717- 787-2830. (d) Please have Tpr. Taylor congu'm their presence at the scheduled hearing by calling the above-listed number at least one week in advance of scheduled hearing. FOR THE COMMISSIONER cc: Elaine Blass, Assistant Counsel nih 06/29 '01 12:/+3 N0.55/+ 02/03 t : HAUf~LE flOTOR8 - TOUR HORETOYN DEALEH - ~E~V~HG TH~ A~A Slt~C~ 1~4~ 640 HICREY INN ROAO " ~OT 6Z ~ P~RT~ .......................................... 1 30CHZ~ PA ZHSPECTZONN. ~.C. HOURSg 7ECHCS)=].Z I0.( ~ PR STATE ZHSPECTZOH-HOTOR CYCLE BN~KES F1 ~/32 REaR 4/32 PARTG ...... GTY---FP-HURBER ............... ~CRZPT~GN .................... UN;T ~R;CE- , ~OB ~ 1 I STICKE~ 2.00 2.( dO~ ~ 1 TOTAL PARI'8 .: JOP fi 1 TOTAL [.A~OR ~ PAR'r8 12.i TECHN[CZAN ~RT/FICAI'ZON ............................................................. '17 CHARL(S C SUDER~' 1Y1842~/ JOTUL5 .................................................................................... TU'F~L L~BR .... TOTAL P~RT~ .... TO I'AL 81J~LET... TOTAL ~C CH~. 0.' . .~?, TOI~L ~UZCE ~ 1~.: CU~TO~AR .t NOtl4 · COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF : TRANSPORTATION, : Appellee : . ¥. : CHARLES C. SLIDERS, : NO. 2001-3095 CIVIL TERM Appellant : . ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this $~'} ~ day of JULY, 2001, having found the testimony of appellant to be ere~lible, and having further found that he performed an inspection of the motorcycle in question, albeit an incomplete inspection, the action of the Department suspending his certification as an official saf~y inspection mechanic for furnishing a eextificate of inspection without inspection is REVERSED. The Department's suspension of epp¢llant's certification aB an official saf~y inspection mechanic for one year for fraudulent r~ord keeping is SUSTAINED. Guido, J. Elaine BlaBs, Esquire Edward E. For the Commonwealth H. Anthony Adams, Esquire For the Appellant Sheriff :sld