Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-5180 CivilROBERT D. BAXTER, JR., 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. 02-5180 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM IMPOSITION OF IGNITION INTERLOCK REQUIREMENTS BEFORE OLER~ J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., February 25, 2003. 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 an official notice of license suspension 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 August 20, 2002, to driving under the influence, a second offense overall, and first offense for mandatory sentencing purposes,~ was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and a fine, and to undergo a term of ~ Commonwealth's Ex. 1, Hr'g. Feb. 20, 2003; see Appellant's. Ex. 1, Hr'g., Feb. 20, 2003 (Order of Ct. Oct. 8, 2002, Commonwealth v. Baxter, No. 02-0897 Criminal Term (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland Oct. 8, 2002 (Oler, J.)). imprisonment of two days to twenty-three months in the county prison) The sentencing court did not include a requirement that Appellant install ignition interlock systems in his vehicles) Subsequent to this sentencing order, the Department of Transportation sent Appellant an official notice of suspension dated October 24, 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) 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 October 25, 2002, Appellant filed a Petition for Appeal from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements.6 A hearing was held on Appellant's appeal on February 20, 2003. In Schneider v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), the Commonwealth Court stated: Although [the appellant] had two DUI offenses and pursuant to Section 7002(b), the trial court was required to order installation of an 2 Appellant's Ex. 1, Hr'g. Feb. 20, 2003, (Order of Ct., Oct. 8, 2002, Commonwealth v. Baxter, No. 02-0897 Criminal Term (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland Oct. 8, 2002 (Oler, J.)). 3 Id. In Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 54 Pa. D & C. 4th 115 (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's Ex. 1, Hr'g. Feb. 20, 2003 (notice from Department of Transportation to Appellant, dated Oct. 24, 2002). 5/d. (notice from Department of Transportation to Appellant, dated Oct. 24, 2002). 6 Appellant's Petition for Appeal from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements, filed Oct. 25, 2002. 2 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 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 25th day of February, 2003, upon consideration of Appellant's Petition for Appeal from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements, following a hearing, 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 October 24, 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, Robert J. Mulderig, Esq. 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellant /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 3 George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for Appellee 4 5 ROBERT D. BAXTER, JR., 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. 02-5180 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM IMPOSITION OF IGNITION INTERLOCK REQUIREMENTS BEFORE OLER~ J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2003, upon consideration of Appellant's Petition for Appeal from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements, following a hearing, 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 October 24, 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. Robert J. Mulderig, Esq. 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellant 7 George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for Appellee 11