HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-3269 CivilJEFFREY S. VAN BOSKIRK,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT:
OF TRANSPORTATION,
Appellee
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
02-3269 CIVIL
IN RE: APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
In this case, the petitioner, Jeffrey Van Boskirk, appealed from a notice of driver's
license suspension which he received from the Department of Transportation and which was
dated July 1, 2002. He appealed, specifically, from that portion of the notice which read as
follows:
Ignition Interlock
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.
On November 14, 2002, this court sustained Mr. Boskirk's appeal to the extent that the
above requirement, namely that all vehicles owned by him must be equipped with an ignition
interlock system prior to the restoration of his driving privileges, was stricken. The Department
of Transportation has appealed from our order. On December 3, 2002, we filed an order
directing that the Department of Transportation file, within fourteen days, a concise statement of
the matters complained of on appeal. This was not done. Arguably, all issues have now been
waived. See Com. v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998). We will not, however, presume
upon that matter.
Our order of November 14, 2002, was entered in accordance with Albert Schneider v.
Com. of Pa., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). In
that case, the Commonwealth Court was presented with the same situation that pertains in the
matter sub judice. Namely, though the sentencing court failed to impose an ignition interlock
requirement, PennDOT has sought to impose the requirement absent a court order. In Schneider,
the court held expressly that PennDOT has no unilateral authority to impose ignition interlock
device requirements if the trial court fails to do so. It was because of this express holding that
we entered our order of November 14, 2002.
January 10, 2003
P. Richard Wagner, Esquire
For the Appellant
George Kabusk, Esquire
For PennDOT
:rlm
Kevin A. Hess, J.