HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-02482
LAIRD M. LEASK,
Petitioner
v.
I
I
I
I
I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
Respondent
.
.
I
I
I
NO. 94-2482 CIVIL TERM
IN REI LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL
BEFORE OLER. J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
01er, J.
The present case is an appeal from a license suspension under
Section 1547 of the Vehicle Codel filed by Laird M. Leask
(Petitioner). A hearing on Petitioner's appeal was held on Friday,
October 7, 1994.
Based upon the testimony and other evidence
presented at the hearing, the following Findings of Fact,
Discussion and Order of Court are made and entered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner is Laird M. Leask.
2. On Saturday, March 26, 1994, at 2:09 a.m., in the Borough
of Worm1eysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Petitioner was
driving a Toyota automobile in a northerly direction on Routes 11
and 15, also known as Front Street.
3. At the aforesaid time and place, Petitioner was driving
erratically - weaving to the extent that she crossed the white
"fog" line along the berm more than once.
1 Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, 51, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S.
51547 (1994 Supp.).
94-2482 CIVIL TERM
4. Worm1eysburg Police Officer Jeffrey O'Donnell, who was on
duty from 12100 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. that morning, followed Petitioner
in a police car for about a half mile, observing the erratic
driving.
5. At 1000 North Front Street, the officer effected a vehicle
stop.
6. Petitioner displayed various indicia of being under the
influence, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, odor of an
alcoholic beverage, slowness of movement, difficulty in retrieving
her operator's license, and unsteadiness on her feet.
7. When asked to submit to field sobriety tests, Petitioner
asked if she was required to do so. The officer responded that she
was not.
8. In the officer's judgment, Petitioner was under the
influence to a degree rendering her incapable of safe driving.
9. Officer O'Donnell placed Petitioner under arrest for
driving under the influence.
10. Petitioner was placed in the officer's police car for
transportation to Harrisburg Hospital for purposes of a chemical
test to determine the alcoholic content of her blood. In the car,
at 2:21 a.m., the officer read her the following implied consent
warning from Form DL-26 of the Department of Transportation
(Chemical Testing Warnings and Report of Refusal To Submit to
Chemical Testing As Authorized by Section 1547 of the Vehicle
2
94-2482 CIVIL TERM
Code) :
1. Please be advised that you are now under
arrest for driving under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance pursuant to
section 3731 of the Vehicle Code.
2. I am requesting that you submit to a
chemical test of blood.
3. It is my duty, as a police officer, to
inform you that if you refuse to submit to the
chemical test your driving privilege will be
suspended for a period of one year.
4. As a police officer, it is my duty to
explain to you that the constitutional rights
due you in a criminal prosecution as set forth
in the Miranda decision do not apply to
chemical testing under the implied consent
law. Specifically, you do not have a right to
consult with a lawyer or anyone else prior to
taking the chemical test nor do you have the
right to remain silent when a police officer
asks you to submit to a chemical test. Your
continued request to speak to a lawyer or
anyone else after this explanation is given,
or your silence when asked to submit to a
chemical test, will be considered as a refusal
of the chemical test subjecting you to the
suspension of your driving privilege.
11. Petitioner responded that she did not understand the
information given.
12. Petitioner's behavior was, at times, of an hysterical
nature. Her father had recently suffered a heart attack, she was
concerned about her professional career, she believed herself to be
an alcoholic, she had been depressed and was on anti-depression
medicine, and she had been drinking.
13. At the hospital, Petitioner was twice more read the
3
94-2482 CIVIL TERM
above-quoted implied consent warning and each time stated that she
would not submit to a test.
14. On one occasion, Petitioner said that she wanted to have
an attorney. However, the officer reiterated item 4 of the implied
consent warning, to the effect that the right to an attorney did
not apply to chemical testing under the implied consent law.
15. At one point in the hospital, Petitioner fell in a
restroom: after initially refusing medical attention, she agreed to
be seen by a doctor and was apparently found not to have been
injured in the fall.
16. No medical testimony was presented by Petitioner on the
subject of her capacity to make a knowing and conscious refusal to
take the test for purposes of the implied consent law.
17. Any diminution in Petitioner's capacity to make a knowing
and conscious refusal to take the test was due in large part to her
voluntary consumption of alcohol.
lB. Petitioner has not shown that she was incapable of making
a knowing and conscious refusal to take the test for purposes of
the implied consent law.
DISCUSSION
Statement of law. The law respecting license suspensions in
the present context has recently been summarized by the Honorable
Harold E. Sheely as follows:
To sustain a license suspension under
Section 1547(b)(1) [of the Vehicle Code, Act
4
94-2482 CIVIL TERM
of June 17, P.L. 162, 51, as amended, 75 Pa.
C.S. 51547(b)(l) (1994 Supp.)), the
Commonwealth must prove that the licensee (1)
was arrested for driving under the influence
of alcohol: (2) was asked to submit to a
chemical test: (3) refused to do SOi and (4)
was specifically warned that a refusal would
resu1 t in a license suspension. Bell v.
Commonweal th, Department of Transporta tion,
147 Pa. Commw. 157, 162, 607 A.2d 304, 307
(1992) . Once the Commonwealth has met this
burden and established a prima facie case, the
burden shifts to the licensee to prove that he
or she was not capable of making a knowing and
conscious refusal to take the test. rd.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v.
Bly.mier, No. 4052 civil 1993, slip. op. at 3-4 (Cumberland Co.
September 29, 1994).
"A licensee might ... be incapable of making a knowing and
conscious refusal where he or she was proved to have some
intellectual deficiency, or where he or she was unable to
understand English." Bell v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept.
of Transp., 147 Pa. Commw. 157, 164, 607 A.2d 304, 308, appeal
denied, 533 Pa. 613, 618 A.2d 403 (1992) (citations omitted).
Physical injuries might also render a person incapable of making a
knowing and conscious refusal.
See Pollock v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transp., 160 Pa. Commw. 383, 634 A.2d 852
(1993) .
Under certain circumstances, a licensee's use of
medication may support a finding of incapacity.
Compare
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transp. v. Zeltins, 150 Pa.
Commw. 44,614 A.2d 349 (1992), with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
5
94-2482 CIVIL TERM
Dept. of Transp. v. Moss, 146 Pa. Commw. 330, 605 A.2d 1279, appeal
denied, 532 Pa. 648, 614 A.2d 1144 (1992). Where incapacity is not
self-evident from a licensee's circumstances, however, expert
testimony may be required to establish incapacity. See, e. g. ,
Pollock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transp., 160 Pa.
Commw. 383, 634 A.2d 852 (1993); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Dept. of Transp. v. Blymier, No. 4052 civil 1993 (Cumberland Co.
September 29, 1994).
In addition, it is well settled that "'[i]f a licensee's se1f-
inflicted condition due to his voluntary consumption of alcohol is
a factor which contributes to rendering him mentally incapable of
making a knowing and conscious refusal to submit to chemical
testing, the defense [of incapacity] must faiL'" Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transp. v. Monsay, 142 Pa. Commw. 163, 167,
596 A.2d 1269, 1271 (1991), quoting Appeal of Cravener, 135 Pa.
Commw. 480, 484, 580 A.2d 1196, 1198-99 (1990). Thus, defenses
premised upon the combined effect of voluntarily-consumed alcohol
and medication have been unsuccessful. See, e.g., Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transp. v. Andrews, 95 Pa. Commw. 338, 505
A.2d 412 (1986).
Application of law to facts. The present license suspension
appeal is premised upon the argument that Petitioner, as a result
of a mixture of alcohol and medication, was incapable of making a
knowing and conscious refusal to take the chemical test requested
6
94-2482 CIVIL TERM
by Officer O'Donnell. The Commonwealth having proven that she was
arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, that she was
asked to submit to a chemical test, that she refused to do so, and
that she was warned that a refusal would result in a license
suspension, the burden rested upon Petitioner to prove her
incapacity.
No expert testimony was presented to support the proposition
that a combination of anti-depression medication and alcohol caused
a diminution of Petitioner's mental capacity. To the extent that
any such diminution could be found, Petitioner's voluntary
consumption of alcohol was a necessary factor in its existence.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and principles of law,
the Court, while highly sympathetic to the Petitioner in her
efforts to overcome depression, does not find that she has met her
burden of proof on the issue of incapacity.
AND NOW, this
ORDER OF COURT
12.1<. day of October, 1994,
upon consideration of
Petitioner's Petltion for License Suspension Appeal and following
a hearing, the petition is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
sf J. Weslev Oler. Jr.
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
7
94-2482 CIVIL TERM
Matthew X. Haeck1er, Esq.
Assistant Counsel
Traffic Safety Section
Department of Transportation
103 Transportation and Safety Bldg.
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Attorney for the Commonwealth
William T.C. Tully, Esq.
John B. Mancke, Esq.
2233 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for the Petitioner
:rc
8
.
LAIRD M. LEASK,
Petitioner
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
.
.
:
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,:
Respondent 94-2482 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: MATTER TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 7th day of october, 1994, upon
consideration of the petition for License Suspension Appeal, and
following a hearing, the matter is taken under advisement.
By the Court,
J
WILLIAM TODD CHARLES TULLY,
For the Petitioner
ESQUIRE
n ~~ JO{f'lI<f4,
- c.~U "J.,p,
MATTHEW X. HAECKLER, ESQUIRE
For the Respondent
wcy
C
!1'
! :~\' ",hY
" ,n
,I,.
Gel n \ ,3?" IS"
"
, II." ' .', ~ t.
@
~
Ul
~E;
H:><
P<Ul
Z
~f;i
~P<
o .
U:><
8
r;E5
o
8U
D::
00
8:il
~P'!
:r:~
8 gj .
ZOO
HUZ
-::r
en
-
:r.:
..-.:
d
("0,
Q,)
~
-,
"'=
WE DO HEREBY CIRTI'Y THAT
THE WITHIH IS A TRUE AND COR.
RECT COpy 010' THI! .ofHQINAL
FRED IN THiS A1:;TI()N 1 .
B.
"nORHEY
~
<::S
~.
~-
-:J
~
\} 0
01..]
:J-
y;
I-l
Ql
J:
o
'M
+l
'M
-+l
:.: Ql
:flP<
~
H
.
::;: .
:>
[i!
H
:s
-;;:,
\n
l)
, :::r-
~Z
HO
:il~
:>~
H8
:><D::+l
UlOJ:
ZP<Ql
ZUl'tl
~ZJ:
P<~8.
r..8Ul
o Ql
r..D::
:r:0
8
H8
~Z
~~
Z8
OD::
~~
O~
UO
~
Ul
Z
~
UH
~~
D::~
OZ
r..0
H
ZUl
OZ
H~
8P<
HUl
80
~Ul
P<
. ""WON'"", uAY 12 199~
MANCKE, WAGNER, HERSHEY & TULL-..I"
cb-
-
01,
ril
C,
~':l
0-
~
--
it-
~
'-.J
--
it
-
3-
.....(
ffi~
z ..J ~ S!
Cl~~E
~ ~ ~ p
~~~~I
u Ul "it
Za:~~
<(W"X
~J:
~ NW HUll.., .r." TO F'IL.I'
... wtllfTlN "UPONI. TO ,"_
~~NTV \W DAn 'ROM
~~b1:=:-~T~'"
"',
"'".--..
.'
LAIRD M. LEASK,
Petitioner
.
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
.
.
V.
: NO.
.
.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, :
Respondent
.
.
PBTITION ~OR LICENSB SUSPBNSION APPEAL
AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 1994, comes Petitioner Laird
M. Leask by and through her attorney John B. Mancke of Mancke,
Wagner, Hershey & Tully, who respectfully represent:
1. Laird M. Leask is an adult individual residing at 106
Wayne Avenue, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Your petitioner has received a notice from the
Department of Transportation indicating that her driving license
privileges are being suspended for a period of one year as the
result of an alleged violation of Section 1547 of the Motor
Vehicle Code. A copy of said notice is attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit "A".
3. Said license suspension is illegal, unjust and
improper.
4. At no time was there a lawful, legal or knowing
refusal.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays Your Honorable Court to
hold a hearing to determine the legality of the suspension
outlined in Exhibit "A".
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. section 4904,
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Dated: 'f1J. ~rt
cYij~
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bureau of Driver Licensing
Harrisburg, PA 17123
APRIL 12, 1994
LAIRD MARGARET LEASK
106 WAYNE AVE
ENOLA PA
17025
940918410000198 001
04/05/1994
17016651
04/06/1956
Dear Motoristl
As a result of your violation of Section 1547 of the Ve-
hicle Code, CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL on 03/26/1994, your driving
privilege is being SUSPENDED for a period of 1 YEAR(S).
In order to comply with this sanction yOU are required
to return any current driver's license, learner's permit
and/or temporary driver's license (camera card) in your pos-
session no later than the effective date listed below.
Failure to comply with this notice shall result in this Bu-
reau referring this matter to the Pennsylvania State Police
for prosecution under Section 1571(a)(4) of the Vehicle Code.
If you cannot comply with the requirements stated above, yOU
must contact the Bureau (See information below) for further
directions on how to receive credit towards your sanction.
When the department receives your license or acknowl-
edgement, it will send yOU a receipt. If you do not receive
this receipt within 15 days contact the department imme-
diately. Otherwise, yOU may not be given credit toward serv-
ing this sanction.
Credit will not begin until all driver's license
product(s) are received in this Bureau.
Effective Date of Suspension: 05/17/1994, 12101 a.m.
********************************************************************
IWARNINGI If yOU are convicted for driving while your license is I
(suspended, the penalties will bel not less than 90 days imprison-I
Iment and a $1,000 fine and an additional 1 year suspension. I
********************************************************************
Please see the enclosed application for restoration fee
information.
Exhibit "A"
0I.28IU21
O CHEMICAL TESTING WARNINGS AND REPORT OF
REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO CIIEMICAL TESTING AS ,
" AUTtfORIZED BY OF TilE VEIlICLE CODE
-. .
NAME
FIRAI'1/ ~ C l-'ST J.. E: /U' ,{
ADDRESS
/0 b IJJ v.!- /{f'vE
DRIVER NUMSER
,"
'I,
SECTION 1547
CITY
t' /L () l,fl
16/"~.j-1
SECTION 1547 - CHEMICAL TESTING WARNINGS
I, Plo... be advl..d lI1al you ... now under anosllor driving undor IhJ'",nuollCG 01 Dlcohol or . con~oled ....II8n,.. p\l'IUDnI to IKlIon 373,' 0I1h.
Vohlda Code, n /O~ C(/ , ., ", .'..
2 I non roquaslng 111'01 you lubmlllo. chamlcolloll 01 ~'3' ___ (braall1, blood 0' urln., OItlcerchool...... chemlcal "iI.), '
3, Ills my elIly,... poRce officer, 10 Inlorm you Ihalll you rolu.. 10 lubmll" dlO cIlOmlcaJ 10.1 your drtvlng prlvlle"" wtI1 be IUlpended lor.. period 01 one
yoaf. .
4, As 0 pob ollic."1111 my duly 10 .""laln 10 you Ihal d.o conslMlanDI.lghll ell a you In. crlmln.1 pro..cudon.. ..IIor1h In 11>* ....6hd.declJldn do nol.ppl)'
10 ehomlcaJ lolling undo, 1h.lmpllodoonlonllaw. Spodllcolly, you do nol ha..... rlghllo conlull w1111 .lawyw or lI1yoll8 .11. Ptor 10 1eloIng!he """",lcallo.1
nor do you ha.... lhe rlghllo ramoln alanl whon a ponce officer askl you 10 ,ubmlllo . ehomlcalloll Your condnuad requ.lllo 'Pellk lo .laWy.r or lIlyona
olso all., 11111 o.planalion II givan, or your Illonco whon oskod 10 .uhmlllo 8 cIlOmlcaJ 10.1, wID be oonlklarad .1. rolu..1 01 the l:hemlcal lell lubficllng you
10 d.o lu.pon.lon 01 your drtvlng ptlYiloga, .
I oo.lify 111.11 ha.o road !he .bo.... wamlng 10 Iho m~1 sl
10 ehomlca/Io.ling,
Slgnaturo 01 O/ficer: ~
arcing Iho uopcnsion oW'~" drlvlng 1"1 "" .nd g.vo the 010101I11 an o~V lo lubmll
/f tyy; 7-' oJ G.. 7 '
" (/ Dale:
{/
/~ ,~ ~a1' d(
'f ~
:0.10:
I ha.... boon .dvl..d 01 !he abovo.
Slgnaluro 01 Molorl.1:
Molo,l.1 rolu.od 10 l!gn, allor being advl.od,
Slgn.tur. 01 Olflcer:
0.10:
J. J.(,.. Y'V
. .
. AFFIDAVIT
1. Tho abovo molorlsl wa. placed undo~a"osl for dllvlng under d.o Inlluonco 01 alcohol or. controlled lub.lance In ioiol.1Ion 01 Section 373t ell th. Vohlclo
COdo, ond ..oro wo.o roasonable ground. 10 bollo.o lI1allllO obow molorlsl hod boon driving, op.,odng or In oeluel phyllc8l cohlrol 01 the movemonl 01
a molor vohlcto whlo undor tho Innuonce 01 oleohol or a eon~onod subolaneo or both.
or . '
Thalth. obovo named molorl.1 w..lnvolvud In an occldonlln which the oporolor or pallongor 01 ony vehldo Involwd tw . pod..~1dn ~Irad .oalmen'
.10 modlcalladlly or wal killed, ' ,
2, Tho obave molorisl woo r.quo.lod 10 lubmlllo ehemlcollosllng os .uU.o.lzod by Soelon 154701 tho Vohlclo Code, .
3, Tho obovo molorlll woslnlormod by 0 polleo olReOl 011110 ehomleollool warning. oonlalnod In Jl8logloph 3 end 4 obovo,
4, Tho above nomad molorl.1 rolusad 10 lubmlllo d10mlcal to.Ing
OFFICER NOTE: Th. ,.'ullllo .Ign Ihl.'o.m II nol . ,.fullllo lubmlllo tho ch.mlcol 101" Vou mu.I.1II1 gl.. \h. mOlo,lll.n opporlunlty 10
I.k.lh. ch.mlcoll.11 .".r ,.vl_Ing Ihll lorm, II Iha Indl.ldu.I WOl op.IIUng . commlfel.1 molO' ..hlcle whU. h.vlnll.nr .Ioohol or. .
conlrolled .ubll.ne.ln Ihelr .y.lom, you mUll .110 oompl.l. Ih. ,aVBfle lid. 01 Ihll '";l( ~lt2,' ~
9uBscnlBEo~osWORH OUicor Signature' _~ ~ _ ~,
Z 'oaEFonE~E, 0.3 MO. :k> OAY Ci YEAn Ollieor Namo: -12E..c ~J>.Ife~-?_(J ,/VN~ //
o (Typo or Prlnl)
~ Iladgo Numbor: _..Li:..? Jurl.dlctlon:PJOJf~ (~Y.J.{ v-Cf /il
~ ~ rho/lo (717X.2Y....l: ?cP t./O
li1 A Mailing Mdro.d 0 /J! ?.c-f rr J'r
L, _ L<! "i~!.df y,f.5 o.I,c~'~ / ?" 9?
.
FflIw:ud to:
D"rol11rnont 01 rranspoftnllon
Dllrnilu 01 Ollvor Llconsing
I' 0 110. 2253
lIa/li'burg, PA 17105
I h'l" fUIY prJltlflOlllfoGIS notcoyorod by die a"kfaylllhouldbe lubmlnodon alOpntsla
"hnnl nnd olL,ehndhoro'o Ihalshnolshouldlneludo f.o nomOI 01 nddllion.lwllnosscl
IlW O!i~:U)' 10 provo dID ololl1onls 10 which you hew anaslcd.
TillS FORM MAY BE DUPLICATED
ADDITIONAL SUPPLIES OFTItIS FOnM 1M y DE
SECUnED BY COMPLEIINQ fQf1M rui~l!~
Commonweollh'S
EXHIBIT
Ic/;/;l wry
@
o:l;
H
iJ~ HO
H>< ~~
P<Ul
Z~ri HE-<
><P: Ii>-
Ol'-l l-< UlO+l
~P<I'-l III ZP<C: W ..J ~ 0
~ E-< c: ZUlIll Z ..J ~ ~
0 . 0 I'-lZ'tl Cl:J ;:
U><H '... P<~a <(I- ~
E-<H +I P:I'-l ~ ~ qd~
~5:> .'... ~E-<O' OU
o H :>::+1 0 Ul ~Z e '
OU Ullll ~ III o:l; ~l:f~~1
E-<U iJP< :e0P: Z::>
P: N E-< OZ
::>Clo:> H HE-< HH Urn" a:
OZ<I' iJffi E-<E-< Za:~~
U~';' HZ <(WNX
::;: 3:::;: E-<O ~J:
I'-l <I' ZE-< I'-lU
:I:I'-la> 5! :> OP: P<
E-<~ ~~
H
Z::>O ~ Ol'-l
HUZ UCl
.
.
WE DO HEREBY CEATt'" THAT
THE WITHIN IS A TRUE AND COR.
RECT COpy OF THE ORIGINAL
FIUa IN THIS ACYtON
BY
MANCKE,VYAG~;::'~;RSHEY&TULLJUL 21
J ~, ~ ..,.... NO'''O TO 'U
,l,; ~Wil-I"Urt ...~".. TO 'H(
199~ ~",;:1'W'H'" ItG) DAn '''OM
IIf1'o'lC1 HlN:Of' OA .. JUOQMUI'
WAY. tHTtAlD IoGMoItT YOU
av_-.ffOliiO{y--
A TTORN(Y
,
JUt 15 10 22 All 'St/
, . JrF'Cf
(If "'L', ."fiOH!;TA~Y
CU/o(e["L\~O t:ru~ry
PfNI;Sn V/oljlA
,
LAIRD M. LEASK,
Petitioner
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
V.
: NO. 94-2482 CIVIL TERM
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, :
Respondent
.
.
PBTITION FOR CONTlNUANCB
AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 1994, comes John B. Mancke,
attorney for Laird Leask, who represents the following:
1. Laird Leask has filed a license suspension appeal from
a suspension under Section 1547 of the Motor Vehicle Code.
2. Laird Leask has advised John B. Mancke that she is
currently in in-patient treatment at the Carron Foundation and
will be unable to make the license suspension hearing which is
scheduled before Your Honorable Court on Monday, July 25, 1994,
at 9:30 a.m.
3. Matthew Haeck1er, Esquire, attorney for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has indicated that he has no
objections under the circumstances to a continuance in this case.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays Your Honorable Court to continue
the above-captioned case, with the provision that the attorney
for the Petitioner shall advise the court of the petitioner's
availability after in-patient treatment.
Respectfully submitted,
HANCKE, WAGNER, HERSHEY & TULLY
By
Joh B. Mancke, Esqu re
Atto ey I.D. No. 07212
2233 North Front street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 234-7051
Attorneys for Laird Leask
.
CBRTZPZCATB OP SBRVZCB
I, Christine A. Zaring, Secretary to John B. Mancke, hereby
certify that I am this 21st day of July, 1994, serving a copy of
the foregoing document upon the person and in the manner
indicated below by hand delivery:
Matthew Haeck1er, Esquire
Office of Chief Counsel
Department of Transportation
103 Transportation & Safety Bldg.
Harrisburg, PA 17120
MANCKE, WAGNER, HERSHEY & TULLY
LAIRD M. LEASK,
Petitioner
.
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 94-2482 CIVIL TERM
.
.
.
.
v.
.
.
.
.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, :
Respondent
.
.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this :z.. 1 tl day of July, 1994, a hearing has been
SCHEDULED for Friday, October 7, 1994, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom
No.5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Notice of said hearing shall be given to the Department of
Transportation by Petitioner's attorney at least 30 days prior to
the date of said hearing by certified mail.
BY THE COURT,
John B. Mancke, Esq.
For the Petitioner
Matthew Haeck1er, Esq.
For the Respondent
:epj
~1~1'lA;H!i,j
AlN'~"'J Oh'I~"J'i"no
,'ljVI~lIrlll,' , "':1 10
3nl.~ iC i....
~Gl ~V ts g 62 lOr