HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-05930
','
.'
'0
II( ,
'''i
, ,
"I
,I
,
I' I'
"
.',
"
,
,
, ,
'.1
'.
',)'
, ,
'I
I,' ,
" ' ~ ' ,
",
" ,
,
" "
'i ii ':
':
!~
' , " I
j "
.,' ,.
.,
r
','
,~" I , ,
I .,
I ' , "
()- I ,"
'I:,
'll) I
"
:;;.. ,
0- ",'
"I'
'-,'
,.. .eporter, 481-643 A.2d 625 A.2d 1333, 156 Pa.cawlth. 127, Coa.,
Dept. of Tran.p., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Bankston, (pa.cmwlth. 1993)
__________________________ page 625 A.2d 1333 follows --------------------------
156 pa.Cmwlth. 127
COMHONWIALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellant,
v.
Arbie BANKSTON, Jr., Appellee.
co..onwealth Court of pennsylvania.
Subaitted on BriefS March 8, 1993.
Decided May 26, 1993.
The Departaent of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, appealed frOB
order of the Court of Common Plea., Allegheny county, No. SA 1722 of 1991,
SCb.ib, J., re..nding operator's license suspension appeal with direction to
iapo.. l....r .anction of requiring special driver's exaaination rather than
15-day su.pen.ion. Th. coaaonwealth Court, No. 2192 C.D. 1991, Doyle, J., h.ld
tbat: (1) trial court complied with its obligation to examine penalty im~..d
by Depertaent in light of severity of offense after full reconsideration of
oa.., and (2) Department policy binding hearing examiners to suspend for 15 day.
operating privileg.s of all motorists convicted of exceeding speed liait by 31
or aore ail.s per hour did not comply with hearing examiner's obligation to
ex.rci.. discretion based upon individual facts of case.
Atf1l'Md.
1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE k681.1
15A ----
15AV Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
15AV(A) In G.neral
15Ak681 Further Review
15Ak681.1 In general.
Pa.cawlth. 1993.
ordinarily, remand orders are interlocutory and unappealable, wh.r.,
howev.r, trial court's remand order directs that a particular adjudication be
actopted, it 18 appealable.
2. AUTOMOBILES k144.2(3)
48A ----
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Ak144.2 Procedure
48Ak144.2(2) Judicial Remedies and Review in General
48Ak144.2(3) Scope of review: discretion and fact questions.
Pa.c.wlth. 1993.
on appeal of motor v.hicle operator's llcense suspension cas. froa court of
O~n pl.a. decislon following hearlng d. novo, coaaonwealtb Court will ..aain.
ct.01810n to determlne whether nece.sary findlngl ar. support.d by coapetent
Copyrlght (0) Nest Publishing Co. 1994 No clals to orlginal U.S. Govt. works.
'a. Reporter, 481-643 A.2d 625 A.2d 1333, 156 pa.cawlth. 127, Co..,
Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Bankston, (Pa.cmwlth. 1993)
evidence, error ot law ha. occurred, or there has been manife.t abuse of
di.cretion.
3. AUTOMOBILES k144.2(3)
48A
48AIV Licen.e and Regulation of Chauffeur. or Operator.
48Ak144 Suspen.ion or Revocation of License
48Ak144.2 Procedure
48Ak144.2(2) Judicial Remedies and Review in General
48Ak144.2(3) Scope of review; discretion and fact questions.
'a.cawlth. 1993.
Trial court reviewing penalty imposed by Department of Transportation in
aotor vehicle operator. license suspension case .ust determine if Depart..nt has
treated each case individually when it has discretion as to which penalty to
i.pose, if trial court, upon consideration of all facts of case, determine.
that Depart.ent has abu.ed its di.cretion, it can modify sanction i.posed.
4. AUTOMOBILES k144.2(3)
48A
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Ak144.2 Procedure
48Ak144.2(2) Judicial Remedies and Review in General
48Ak144.2(3) Scope of review; discretion and fact que.tions.
'a. Cawlth. 1993.
Sanction be.ed on blanket rule improperly restricting exercise of Depart.ent
of Tran.portation hearing exaainer's discretion is abuse of di.cretion which
trial court, in reviewing penalty imposed by Depart.ent in motor vehicle
operator's licen.. suspen.ion ca.e, can modify.
5. AUTOMOBILES k144.2(3)
4eA ----
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or operator.
4eAk144 suspen.ion or Revocation of Licen.e
4eAk144.2 Procedure
48Ak144.2(2) Judicial Remedie. and Review in General
4eAk144.2(3) Scope of reviewl ~i.cretion and fact questions.
'a.Cawlth. 1993.
Trial court'. state.ent, that defendant in motor vehicle operator'. license
suspension ca.e wa. not habitual ~ffender and that sp.eding offense wa. not as
89Tegious as previou.lY thought in light of additional circu.stanc.., and that
there was thu. no r.a.on to iapo.e suspension, coaplied with trial court's
obligation to exaaine penalty i.po.ed by Depart.ent of Tran.portation in light
of .everity of off.n.e after full recon.ideration of case.
copyright (c) w..t Publi.hing Co. 1994 No claim to original U.S. Govt. work..
'a. Reporter, 481-643 A.2d 625 A.2d 1333. 156 Pa.Cmwlth. 127. com.,
Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licenaing v. Bankaton, (pa.c.wltb. 1993)
6. AUTOMOBILES k144.1(1)
48A ----
48AIV Licenae and Regulation of Chauffeurs or operators
48Ak144 suapension or Revocation of License
48Ak144.1 In Generall Grounds
48Ak144.1(1) In general.
's.c.wltb. 1993.
Depart.ent of Tranaportation policy, binding hearing ex.miners to suspend for
15 days operating privileges of all motoriata convicted of exceeding speed limit
~ 31 or ~re ailea per hour, did not comply with hearing examiner'a obligation
to exerei.e discretion based upon individual facts of caae. 75 Pa.C.S.A. Sees.
1538(d), 1538(d)(1, 2).
7. A'PIAL AND ERROR k854(2)
30 ----
30XVI Review
30XVl(A) scope, Standarda, and Extent, in General
30k851 Theory and Grounds of Decision of Lower Court
30k854 Reasons for Decision
30k854(2) Review of correct decision based on erroneous reaaoning
in general.
ps.c.wlth. 1993.
Co.-onwealth Court can affirm correct result which is not based on correct
analysis.
8. AUTOMOBILES k144.2(4)
48A
48AIV Licenae and Regulation of Chauffeurs or operators
48Ak144 suspenaion or Revocation of License
48Ak144.2 Procedure
48Ak144.2(2) Judicial Remedies and Review in General
48Ak144.2(4) Trial de novo and determination.
pa.c.wlth. 1993.
Trial court, in de novo hearing, did not improperly substitute its judicial
disoretion for adainistrative discretion of Department ot Tranaportation in
dlr~oting Departaent to i.poa. lesser sanction of requiring special driver's
examination rather than auapenaion of licenae, where Depart..nt's policy bound
it. hearing exaainers, preventing the. fro. exercising discretion provided by
Vehiole Code. 75 Pa.C.S.A. Sec. 1538(d).
___________.______________ Page 625 A.2d 1334 follows -------------------~------
(156 Pa.~lth. 130) Timothy P. Wile, A.st. coullael In-Charge of Appellate
Seotion, for appellant.
Mo appearance for appellee.
copyright Co) West Publishing Co. 1994 No claim to original u.s. Govt. work..
.
Pa. R.port.r, 481-643 A.2d 625 A.2d 1333, 156 Pa.Cmwlth. 127, Com.,
Dept. of Transp., Bur.au ot Driver Licensing v. Bankston, (Pa.cmwlth. 1993)
B.for. CRAIG, presid.nt Judg., and DOYLE and FRIEDMAN, JJ.
DOYLE, Judge.
Th. D.partm.nt ot Transportation, Bureau ot Driv.r Licensing (DOT), app.al.
from an ord.r ot the Court ot Common Pleas ot Allegh.ny County r.manding an
operator's lic.nse suspension appeal to DOT with direction to impose the l....r
.anction of r.quiring a special driv.r's examination. DOT contends that the
trial court .rred when it determined that DOT improperly ordered a titt.en-day
.u.pen.ion in this case. Because ot the recently expanded role of the trial
court in this area, we affirm its order.
Th. factual and procedural history of this case is summarized as follows.
Arbi. Bankston, Jr., was cited on November 5, 1990, for going ninety miles per
hour in a fitty-five mile per hour zone. Bankston
-------------------------- Page 625 A.2d 1335 follows --------------------------
.ppeared before a magistrate and admitted that he might have been exceeding the
spe.d limit but argued that he was not going as fast as ninety miles per hour.
At that h.aring, Bankston ohallenged both thQ calibration and proper functioning
of the radar unit used to record his speed. Bankston was convicted, fined, and
five points were assigned to his operator's license. Bankston was notifi.d by
DOT that, as a result of that conviction, he would be required to attend a
d.partmental hearing.
Th. d.partmental hearing was held on May 16, 1991: Bankston testified that
h. .stiaat.d his speed on the date in question at seventy miles per hour and
that h. believed he was travelling in a sixty-five mile per hour zone. Bankston
argued that hift driving record was generally good as he had not been cited for a
violation sinc. 1985. DOT presented evidence of Bankston's conviction and hie
ov.rall driving record. The hearing examiner told Bankston that DOT could [156
Pa.cawlth. 131] impose either a fifteen-day suspension or require a special
driv.r's examination. By letter dated May 31, 1991, DOT notitied Bankston that
bas.d upon the hearing examiner's recommendation, (FN1) a fifteen-day
suspension was being imposed. Bankston filed a timely appeal to the trial
court.
[1) At a de novo hearing betore the trial court, Bankston testified that h.
r.cently had his vehicle examined and that his speedometer was "erratic," that
h. liv.d in a rural area where alternate transportation was not easily obtain.d
.nd that h. need.d his vehicle for work. (Notes of testimony [N.T.), 9/11/91,
pp. 4-8.) Bankston agaJ.n argued that his driving record W~8 generally good and
that, having paid the tine tor the conviction, he believed an additional
punishment in the form of a tifteen day suspension was "just not fair." (N.T.,
p. '.) Th. trial court concluded that there was no reason to impose the
.uspension in this cas. in light of the evidence ot "additional circumstanc.s"
pr.sented at the de novo hearing and remanded the case to DOT with direction
that DOT impose the special driver's examination as the appropriate sanction.
('M2)
(156 Pa.cawlth. 132) [2} OUr standard of review in motor vehicle op.rators
license suspension cases is settled. When examining an appeal from a court of
co.-on pl..s decision following a hearing de novo we will exa.in. the decision
to d.termin. whether necessary findings are supported by competent evid.nce, an
error of law has occurred or whether there haa be.n a .anifest abuse of
disor.tion. D.part.ent of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v.
Copyright (c) West PUblishing Co. 1994 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.
Pa. Reporter, 481-643 A.2d 625 A.2d 1333, 156 Pa.Cawlth. 127, Co..,
Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Bankston, (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993)
DanielS, 117 Pa.coaaonwealth ct. 640, 544 A.2d 109 (1988).
(3)[4) The trial court'. role in these cases has reoently been expanded.
previou.ly, the trial court'. authority to modify the penaltr iapo..d was
li.it.d to instances where the hearing de novo re.ulted in d fferent findings of
fact than those found at the departmental hearing. Departm.nt of
Transportation, Bureau of Traffic
-~_.._--------------------- Page 625 A.2d 1336 follows --------------------------
Saf.ty v. Kobaly, 477 Pa. 525, 384 A.2d 1213 (1978). However, in D.part..nt of
Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licen.ing v. Fiore, 138 Pa.Coaaonw.alth ct.
596, 588 A.2d 1332 (1991), we redefin.d the appropriate role of the trial court
wh.n r.vi.wing license su.pensions in cases involving departm.ntal discr.tion as
to the sanction to be impo.ed in light ot the purpo.e of de novo reviews. W.
h.ld in Pior. that the trial court'. de novo review acts as a check on the
arbitrary .xercise of administrative power, and fulfills the l.gislativ. int.nt
to grant "the trial court brosd discretionary power. in the inter..t of the
adainistration of justice." De novo review is a "full consideration of tha
ca.. at another ti.e." Id. at 601, 588 A.2d at 1334. We explained the trial
court's .xpanded role as follows:
In order for the trial courts to provide forums which are true and
.ffectiv. checks on the department, the broad discretion grant~d th.. to
.nsur. the administration of justice by protecting driver. again.t the
arbitrary exercise of power by the depart.ent mu.t extend beyond a ..re
revi.w of the facts to the modification of sanctions impo.ed [156 Pa.Cawlth.
133) wh.r., as here, the depart.ent has abused its discretion when choo.ing
fro. the range of penalties provided. without such authority, a trial
court'. ability to protect against abuse of discretion by the depart~ent
would be .eaningless.
Id. at 603, 588 A.2d at 1335. We also disapproved sanctions ba.ed upon
adainistrative concerns rather than the severity of the offen.e involved. (PM3)
Thus, Piore requires the trial court to determine if DOT has treated each oas.
individually when it has disoretion as to whioh penalty to i.pose. The
statutory grant of discretion to DOT and the hearing exasiners carrie. with it
an Obligation to exercise that discretion based upon the individual fact. of the
0.... If the trial court, upon consideration of all the fact. of the case,
d.termine. that DOT has abused its discretion, it can modify the sanction
i.posed. A blanket rule improperly restricting the exercise of discretion i.
such an abuse. Fiore.
(5) As noted above, following the de novo hearing where Bankston te.tified
as to the proble. with hi. speedometer and the difficulties a suspension would
i.pose given his circumstances, the trial court remanded to DOT with direction
to i.po_e the lesaer penalty of the special driver's examination. The trial
court explicitly eteted:
W. s.e no reason to impose the suspension in this case. Defendant is not an
habitual offender, nor was this particular offense a. egregious as previously
thought, in light of additional circu..tances....
(Trial Court Opinion, p. 1.) This complies with the trial court'.
obligation under tiore to exa.ine the penalty imposed by DOT in light of the
sev.rity of the offense after a full reconsideration of the case.
Copyright (c) Weat Publishing Co. 1994 No claim to original u.s. Govt. works.
P.. Reporter, 481-643 A.2d 625 A.2d 1333, 156 Pa.cmwlth. 127, Com.,
Dept. of Transp., Bur.au of Driv.r Lic.nsing v. Bankston, (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993)
DOT att.mpt. to distinguish Fior. by arguing it is limit.d to instanc.s
where the penalty impos.d is sol.ly bas.d on administrative conc.rns. We
di.lqree. Fior. criticized [156 Pa.Cmwlth. 134) DOT's a.serted justification
for i.po.ing a fifteen-day suspension: the m.re impossibility of proc...ing a
.u.pen.ion of l....r duration. The import of Fiore, however, is not li.it.d to
it. preci.e fact.. Implicit in its discu.sion of the nature of de novo r.vi.w
and the prot.ction it offers those affect.d by administrative d.ci.ion. i. a
recoqnition that the trial court can and should act in the int.r..t of the
adaini.tration of ju.tice.
[6) Moreover, DOT admits to a somewhat similar justification for the
.u.pen.ion impo.ed on Bankston here:
In the pre.ent matter, the D.partment su.pend.d Bankston'. operating
privilege for fift..n days pursuant to its policy of suspending the operating
privileges of all motorists who are convicted of .xc..ding a speed limit by
31 or .ore .il.s per hour for fifteen day..
------------------------- Page 625 A.2d 1337. follows --------------------------
(DOT bri.f, p. 21.) This DOT policy binds its hearing examin.rs to
reco..ending a susp.nsion in these cas.s. It is hard to reconcile this
require.ent with the language of S.ction 1538(d) of the Vehicle Code providing
hearing exa.in.rs with a list of p.naltie. from which they may choo.e. If a
hearinq exa.iner Bust always recommend a suspension regardl.ss of the totality
of the circu.stances in a case, the discretion of the hearing .xaminer is r.ally
no di.cretion. While certainly administrativ.ly conveni.nt, this policy do..
not co.ply with the h.aring .xaminer's obligation und.r the statute a.
interpreted in Fiore.
DOT al.o cit.s a pl.thora of cases holding that the justificatJ.on for the
modification of the penalty imposed here, economic hardship due to the
.u.pension and a malfunctioning speedometer, are insufficient to allow a
modification of the penalty impos.d by administrative authoriti... Furth.r, DOT
cit.. ca..s holding that excessive sp..d alone can justify a susp.n.ion. The.e
c.... .re all di.tinguishabl. becau.e they predate the expansion of the trial
court'. role in Fiore.
(7) Mor.ov.r, this argum.nt does not address the fact that DOT'. policy
i.properly r.stricts the h.aring .xamin.r's exercise of a statutory grant of
di.cretion. Assuming, arguendo, (156 Pa.Cmwlth. 135) that Fior. did not change
the i.port of the ca... DOT cites, this improper restriction alone justifi.. the
trial court'. action. (FN4)
(8) DOT also argu.s that the trial court improperly substitut.d its jUdicial
di.cretion for the administrative discretion of DOT. This argu..nt overlook.
the fact that DOT's policy binds its hearing examiners, preventing th.m from
ex.roi.ing the discretion provided by the Vehicle Cod.. In such . situation,
the trial court's modification of the sanction imposed following a d. novo
bearing i. not an imperaissible usurpation of administrative discretion.
Aflir..d.
ORDr.R
Copyright (c) W.st Publishing Co. 1994 No claim to original U.S. Govt. work..
.
Pa. Reporter, 4Bl-643 A.2d 625 A.2d 1333, 156 Pa.Cmwlth. 127, Com.,
Dept. of Tranap., Bureau of Driver Licenaing v. Bankaton, (Pa.cmwlth. 1993)
NOW, Hay 26, 1993, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
county, in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
PMl. Section 1538(d) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 1538(d),
specifically grants. hearing examiner the discretion to recommend, and oar
the discretion to iapoae, one or more of three aanctions when a person is
convicted of operating a vehicle thirty-one milea per hour or more in excess
of the speed limit:
Conviction for excea.ive speeding.--
(1) When any person is convicted of driving 31 milea per hour or more in
excess of the speed limit, the department shall require the person to attend
s depart.ental hearing. The hearing examiner may recommend one or more of
the following:
(i) That the peraon be required to attend a driver improvement achool.
(ii) That the person undergo an examination as provided for in aection 1508.
(iii) That the person have his driver's license suspended for a period not
exceeding 15 daya.
(2) The department ahall effect at least one of the sanctions but may not
increase any suspenaion beyond 15 days.
75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 1538(d)(1)-(d)(2).
'M2. We note that the order of the triol court remands this case to DOT with
direction to impose a specific penalty from a list of poasible penaltiea.
Ordinarily, remand ordere are interlocutory and unappealable. Roth v.
Borough of Verona, 102 Pa.Commonwealth ct. 550, 519 A.2d 537 (1986). Where,
Ilowever, a trial court's remand order directs that a particular adjudication
be adopted, it is appealable. Clapsaddle v. Bethel Park School Diatriot,
103 Pa.coamonwealth ct. 367, 5~O A.2d 537 (1987).
PM3. Fiore involved a DOT policy of never imposing a suapension of less than
fifteen daya because it would be difficult to process the shorter
suspensions. fiore, 138 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 599, 588 A.2d at 1333.
'M4. It is not clear whether the trial court based the penalty modification
upon DOT's policy requiring a suspensioll in all such cases. We can howev4r,
affirm. correct result which i8 not based upon a correct analyai..
'riedlander v. Zoning Hearing Board of Sayre Borough. 119 Pa.Coamonwealth
Ct. 164, 546 A.2d 755 (1988).
Copyright (c) Nest PUbliShing Co. 1994 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.
~
:~::
.., ,-
m
.....
, ",
,-
.,
",:,::)
.I, "
.
.:t'
~
U .
.,../1
:- 01
o 0
. '...J
~ \J~
.m:
I, ',I
'~
4-
:i
~
if)
7
tlI:-
r0 -
0 cr-
- ,f11
Co r-
":ll -
J :tj
'L
rn
"
Z ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ :i z
z ~ ~ ~ S
= .. a i >-
" >- ~ OJ
r.l ~ ~ z
,< II = d Z
..... 0 t ~ ~
iii ~ ~ ~
r..I ~ ?!
'" " ~
Z 10 ~
.,., ~
.
~f
IV 9.0 ''It!
, ",,; Y
" ':t'
".i
,""'t:..~'.;'
,. ~.'1.-;-j~,
... "
,"" .
~__.;_ "'1.1;-
....t:'.,',:{'"
, ,,'I,'"
,I,
, 'r;"
, ':":.1
"":'\1
..~"" ',,:
't ",I
~
"L'
,
,j','.:..!,' """,ll,,:,.'_'!."'.-',),
~,;",\; "_I~<i"I.Jilf ",/,.,. , ' I '
;",';,-""'/7,;",i/'1/'nl'
VI.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THI! COURT or COIIION
nl!AB or C1JtIB,I!lLlND
COUNTY, PIlNNBYLVANIA
NO.
APPI!Al, PlOP! BUBPIlN810N
or OPI!IATOI'B PIIVILIGBI
CClIlIIONWI!ALTH or PI!NNBYLVANJA,
Plaintiff
WILLIAM PlANK ILLAI,
Defllndlnt
'Brl'1'ICII roI UP.,I. noli ..n.. or DlIPll'lllllft' or ......1'OI'I'1'4'1C11
IIVB'IIlDII8 IIOI'Oa VIlIIICLII 0'''.'fOI' I .IIVILI8I1
TO THI! HONORAILE, THB JUDGI!S or TH! COIlItONVEALTH COUIT:
The 'etition of Willi.. Prank Illar, by hi. attorney., Ande., Vaughn · laa,.,
re.peetfully repr...nt. I' follow.:
1. Petitioner, Villi.. Prank Illar. i. In adult individual who r..id.. It 3~1
Indiln Cr.ek Drive, ".cblnic.bur" Cuaberland County, P.nnaylvani. 11055.
3. le.pond.nt i. the Depart.ent of Tran.portation of the C~nwellth of
'....ylvanil, lurelu of Driv.r Licen.in" with an addre.a a. follow.: Deplrt..nt of
'l'rln.portltion, lure.u of Driver Licen.ing, lo~ 103, Tran.portation Ind Slfety
luilding, Hlrrl.bur" Dluphin County, Pennaylvanil 11103.
3. On or about .epteab.r 14, 1994. Petitioner received a Notice of Licenae
luapenaion fro. aeapondent 111.,ing tbat hi. licen.. waa to be .uapended for a period
10f fifteen (15) day. I' I re.ult of a depart.ental hearin,. Attacbed hereto Ind ..rke4
I' Ixhibit "A" ia I true and corr..ct copy of thlt Notice.
.. 'etitioner WI' given I fifteen (1~) day licen.e .u.peo.ion even though he l.4
10 prior point a on hi. record Ind hid not hid Iny type of tick.t for I period in exee..
of fifteen (15) year..
1
.
CUIUAntl ~0I.0~AO~ l:nnvl ~t, Inn ",ot..I I
N~r"lIIln , of '}
Vll11010 II/?~/~.
CII.t.n..." I1II1IIlI.."
,CII.t.n..." N....
, 1 H~~141
HoT.AR
WTI,I,UM
PRANK
r.n.. V..hl~", Tntl N O"pn..p PIA('1l: I RVI'AIlR/N. ,~'rK,
HII~II11' Tntl N O"..n.... '1'1.... nln~ A
r.m, Knlt1u N Arl"Pfi1It Ag..nry PAn, U)1 011
V..III,,~.. PIlRIl OHlr"" Tn 177
R"1I1 .t, " At , nn IIn ACl.T4'lI7 (~nllnt'y '1 ,
RflRTR'PRA"'TON VF.AR ~4 Rnrn/'1'wp 4111
""lIht"ltt I nn RtAt,lIIIl: I'A Rnutp. 11/H
V..III ~ I.. 'Pyp" RW "'It i.. n
R..... .... n,,'..ntl..nt v IIptl.t.. Tntl'r.tnrr
n,,'antl..nt R'lInatl V RlI..p/R....t Tntl
II0Jr. !1..ntl n.t.. Oh/ll/H
l~-IlIl""IlN
'B-Nn"
U-lR"'-lNUr.
-
_ --1.~~:94 __ ___
__'ll"_.'~_
. ....,..., 01 T---T 0...,.
IIIIIIUU OJ _ uc.._
tI'.~'IIM, .....'f\V... ,,'.
CI..TIPICATION
ITATIMINT
(9
In complllnc. willi you' 'eqU'II, I 1Ie,.1Iy certify ,h., I have cluMCl a ,..,ch 10 be macla 0' ,lie 'U.. 0' III. Deplnmenl 0'
T"n,portlllon_ ,nd 1Ie,.wllllll I I,u. ,.co,d In Ih. nllM 0':
Willi.. Frank Illar, 251 Indian Craak Driva, MachanicaburK, PA 17055
ONIlATOII NO.
11699143
DAT.O' 'linN
7/20/42
c~... 0' UC"'" .__
TIT~' ..0.
-
'UII_. 0' II'OU'"
L
CI.IlIIUIIAJlCL o. GII..T. .. ....~O'....T. ~ . ~"A~. .. _111I
DAT' IIOTIOII VIOLATION ACTION TAIl... 'T DlPAIIT.I..T
-.ATtON
6-5-94 3362 Maximum spaad limits 72/35 Procassad & point a asaignad 6/29/94 +(5)
Notica of panding haaring mailad 7/6/94
Official Notica of suspansion dua to
hasring raaults datad & mailad 9/14/94
affective 10/19/94 for 15 daya
Appaal Panding
'n complllnca Willi yo:>u, raQU'" I "areby .a'II'y 11111 I "av. Clut.et a .."cillO lla mad. 0' 111. '11.. 0' III. Daplrlmant of
""an.por'llIon. Ind lIarawl,n " I trua record in Ilia nlma 0' 1111 lubl.ct lIS1tet lboya.
~ ~ .L"""~
wll /" ---..--
.II.CTOII. 'UIlIAU 0' DlllVlII LIC.1I11110
I.""""'" __..,: ,.
I J I ...." .. ,'...........
OATI ___ 1l.2:.?~
COMMONWIALTIOI 0' 'INNIV~\IANIA IS'
I n...~y "r111y ,na. OouO'" K, TClln O",.'or o' 1ft' lu..'u 01 Driv.. LI.a"'on, r..~d. 01 In, 'a"".yl"nll Dapar1r1tan. o' ,,.nIPOr1l1lo:>n
,As 11'1f I!hr.c:ror 0' 1"1. .fOll.Mld lur..u. PI' I'tl' leg_I eutttOClV 0' I"' orlll"" or "'lcl"Ofllm recorda wt''Ilc:1"I ar, r'rlll'OCIuc:ecfl" ,Pt. luac...d c.,htlcatlo,""
IN '''"IMONY Wlltl"ao'. I HAVa 1OI1"IUNTO lIT MV IOIANO ANO .."'" 0' THIS OIU""MINT TMI DAV AND 'fIA" ,,'OIlIlAIO.
----!::~~J:::.~_ --
""~
{,
. .
. COltMOllWlAL'l'H or .IHli8YLVAMIA I IN THI COURT or COMMON .LIAS or
DI.AR'l'HI1ft' or 'l'IWI8'OR'l'A'l'ION I CUMBIlRLAND COUNTY, .11INIYLVAHIA
8UJl1AU or DRIVlR LICINIING, I
Appellee I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I
V I
I
WILLIAM PRANK ILLAR, I 94-5930 CIVIL TIlRM
Appellant I
IN RIll LICIlNSII SUSPIINIION APPIIAL
IIJORB SRBILI. P.J.
OPINION AND ORDIlR OP COURT
Appellant'. driving privilege wa. .u.pended for fifteen (15)
day. after a departmental hearing pur.uant to 75 'a.C.S.A. 11538
(d). An appeal froa that .u.pen.ion wa. brought before thi.
court, and a hearing wa. held on Deoember 15, 1994, froa which we
..da the following finding. of faot.
FINDINGS OF PAC'l'
1. Appellant i. a fifty-two (52) year old individual
currently re.iding at 251 Indian Creek Drive, Maohanio.burg,
Cuaberland County, Penn.ylvania.
2. Appellant wa. oited on Juna 6, 1994 for violation of
.ection 3362 of the Motor Vehiole Cod., 75 Pa.C.S.A. 13362 (a),
travelling 72 ..p.h. in a 35 a.p.h. urban diatriot.
3. Appellant paid the fine for thie violation on June 8,
1"., re.ulting in hie oonviation and a..ig~nt of five (5)
point. to hi. driving reoor.d.
. '.
10. f4-5i30 CIVIL TIRH
4. pur.uant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. 51538 (d), a d.partm.ntal
hearing va. held on September 6, 1i94, at which time the hearing
officer t.po.ed a fifteen (15) day .u.pen.ion of appellant'.
driving privilege.
5. Appellant h elllployed by Kinney Shoe Corporation a. a
support co~uter progr....r. Appellant i. required to be .on
call" and may be called in to work at any time, day or night.
6. Appellant'. certified driving reoord a. pre.ented by the
Depart..nt reveal. no prior Vehiole Code violation..
DISCUSSION
In the pre.ent action, appellant wa. convicted or exoeeding
the po.ted .peed limit by thirty-one (31) aile. per hour or ~re.
In thi. .ituation, the driver i. required to attend a
departa.ntal hearing after whioh the hearing examiner may
reo~nd one or more of the followingl
1) That the per.on be required to attend a driver
laprov...nt .ohool.1
2) That the per.on undergo an examination a. provided
for in Section 1508.
3) That the per.on have hi. driver'. lieen.e .u.pended
for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) day..
1 Although thi. penalty i. provided for in the .tatute, the
Depart..nt of Tran.portation ba. not oreated .uoh a .ohool and it
i. therefore not an available alternative. ... Plant v.
C -nvaalth, 62 Pa.C~. 75, 434 A.2d 1334 C1981).
2
.
.0. 96-5930 CIVIL TIRM
75 'a.C.I.A. S 1538 (d)(l)(i-iii). After the departmental
hearing in the pre.ent ca.e, the hearing officer reco...nded a
fifteen (15) day .u.pen.ion. It i. from thi. recommendation thAt
the driver ha. appealed.
Thi. court'. .cope of review in a .ituation .uch a. this i.
quite uniqu.. Where we held a de novo hearing, we mu.t review
the penalty impo.ed by the Department of Tran.portation to
dete~ne if the Department ha. treated thi. ca.e individually a.
it ha. di.oretion a. to which penalty to impo.e. Cr--A~wealth.
De~art,.nt of Tran.Dort_tion v. Bank.ton, 156 'a.Commw. 127, 132-
33, 625 A.2d 1333, 1335-36 (1993). "If the trial court, upon
ooneideration of all the fact. of the oa.e, determine. that DOT
ha. abu.ed it. di.cretion, it can modify the .anction impo.ed.-
ld. at 133, 625 A.2d at 1336.
In the pre.ent oa.e, it i. certified that appellant i. not a
habitual offender, indeed, appellant'. driving record reveal. no
prior Vehicle Code violation.. Al.o, appellant wa. driving a
vehicle with which he wa. unfamiliar and had difficulty gauging
hi. .peed. Additionally, appellant require. hi. driving
privilege in order to be able to fulfill hi. employment
re.pon.ibilitie.. Therefore, we believe the fifteen (15) day
.u.pen.lon of appellant'. driving privilege wa. improperly
t.po.ed, and we will remand this ca.e to the Depart..nt for
aotion oon.i.tent with thi. order.
3