Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-3832 CIVIL RALPH GARRETSON, Appellant Vo IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU: OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellee NO. 02-3832 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM IMPOSITION OF IGNITION INTERLOCK REQUIREMENTS AND APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF OPERATING PRIVILEGE BEFORE OLER~ J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., December 5, 2002. In this appeal of an action taken by Appellee, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (hereinafter Department of Transportation or Appellee), Appellant requests that this court rescind that part of a license restoration requirements notice that required, as a prerequisite to scheduled restoration of Appellant's driving privilege, that Appellant equip each of the vehicles owned by him with an ignition interlock system. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Appellant's appeal will be sustained. DISCUSSION The facts in the present case are not in dispute. In an underlying criminal case, Appellant, having pled guilty on May 14, 2002, to driving under the influence,~ was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and a fine, and to undergo a term of imprisonment of two days to twenty-three months in the county prison.2 The sentencing ~ Order of Ct., May 14, 2002, Commonwealth v. Garretson, No. 02-0243 Criminal Term (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland May 14, 2002 (Guido, J.)); see Commonwealth Ex. 1 Hr'g. Nov. 25, 2002. 2 Pet'r. Ex. 1, Hr'g. Nov. 25, 2002 (Order of Ct., June 18, 2002, Commonwealth v. Garretson, No. 02-0243 Criminal Term (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland June 18, 2002 (Guido, J.)). court did not include a requirement that Appellant install ignition interlock systems in his vehicles.3 Subsequent to this sentencing order, the Department of Transportation sent Appellant a restoration requirements notice dated July 10, 2002, that detailed prerequisites to restoration of his driving privilege. The Department of Transportation required, as a prerequisite to scheduled restoration, that Appellant install an approved ignition interlock system in each vehicle that he owned.4 The notice stated, in relevant part, as follows: Before your driving privilege can be restored you are required by law to have all vehicle(s) owned by you to be equipped with an ignition interlock System. This is a result of your conviction for Driving Under the influence. If you fail to comply with this requirement, your driving privilege will remain suspended for an additional year. You will receive more information regarding this requirement approximately 30 days before your eligibility date.5 On August 9, 2002, Appellant filed a Petition for Appeal from imposition of ignition interlock Requirements and Appeal from Suspension of Operator's Privilege.6 A hearing was held on Appellant's appeal on November 25, 2002. In Schneider v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), the Commonwealth Court stated: Although [the appellant] had two DU! offenses and pursuant to Section 7002(b), the trial court was required to order installation of an ignition interlock device, that failure does not mean that PennDOT has been given authority to override the trial court's order and require installation. Section 7002 provides that only "the court shall order the installation on an 3 Id In Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 50 Cumberland L.J. 184 (2001), a challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory ignition interlock system requirement was upheld by the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley of this court. 4 Commonwealth. Ex. 1, Hr'g. Nov. 25, 2002 (notice from Department of Transportation to Appellant, dated Jul. 10, 2002). 5 Id. (notice from Department of Transportation to Appellant, dated Jul. 10, 2002). 6 Appellant's Petition for Appeal from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements and Appeal from Suspension of Operator's Privilege, filed Aug. 9, 2002. It is noted that the issue before the court, by stipulation of the parties, was limited to the imposition of the ignition interlock requirement. Order of Ct. Nov. 25, 2002. 2 approved ignition interlock device .... "Because this provision gives a court the sole authority, PennDOT has no unilateral authority to impose ignition interlock device requirements if the trial court fails to do so. Id at 366 (footnotes and citations omitted) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's order rescinding the ignition interlock system provision in the suspension notice issued to the appellant by the Department of Transportation. Id On this issue, Schneider is indistinguishable from the present case and, accordingly, the same result must obtain herein. Appellant's appeal will be sustained, without prejudice to Appellee's right to pursue a challenge to this holding, as prescribed by Schneider, on appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2002, upon consideration of Appellant's Petition from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements and Appeal from Suspension of Operator's Privilege, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the appeal is sustained to the extent that the portion of the Department of Transportation's July 10, 2002, notice requiring Appellant to equip his vehicles with ignition interlock systems, as a prerequisite to scheduled restoration of his driving privilege, is rescinded.* BY THE COURT, /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for Appellee By separate Order of Court, the appeal was dismissed to the extent that it implied a challenge to the initial one-year suspension contained in the notice. 3 Paul Bradford Orr, Esq. Law Offices of Paul Bradford Orr 50 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellant 4 5 RALPH GARRETSON, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU: OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellee NO. 02-3832 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM IMPOSITION OF IGNITION INTERLOCK REQUIREMENTS AND APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF OPERATING PRIVILEGE BEFORE OLER~ J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2002, upon consideration of Appellant's Petition from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements and Appeal from Suspension of Operator's Privilege, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the appeal is sustained to the extent that the portion of the Department of Transportation's July 10, 2002, notice requiring Appellant to equip his vehicles with ignition interlock systems, as a prerequisite to scheduled restoration of his driving privilege, is rescinded.* BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for Appellee By separate Order of Court, the appeal was dismissed to the extent that it implied a challenge to the initial one-year suspension contained in the notice. 7 Paul Bradford Orr, Esq. Law Offices of Paul Bradford Orr 50 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellant 9