Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-778 CivilSTEVEN C. SINGISER, 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. 03-0778 CIVIL TERM IN RE: APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM IMPOSITION OF IGNITION INTERLOCK REQUIREMENTS BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., May 30, 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 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 January 8, 2002, to driving under the influence, was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and a fine, to undergo a term of imprisonment of seven days to twenty-three months in the county prison, and to pay restitution to two people who suffered damages as a result of Appellant's offense..~ The sentencing court ~ Pet'r. Ex. 1, Hr'g. May 29, 2003. (Order of Ct., Feb. 12, 2002, Commonwealth v. Singiser, No. 01-1428 Criminal Term (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland Feb. 12, 2002 (Oler, J.)). did not include a requirement that Appellant install ignition interlock systems in his vehicles.2 Subsequent to this sentencing order, the Department of Transportation sent Appellant a restoration requirements letter dated January 21, 2003, 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.3 The notice stated, in relevant part, as follows: You are required to have an approved Ignition Interlock System installed in all of your vehicle(s). Approximately 30 days before your ELIGIBILITY DATE, you should contact one of the following approved vendors listed below to make arrangements to have the System installed. - Interlock Installation Services - 1-800-452-1739 - Consumer Safety Technology, Inc. - 1-877-777-5020 - National Interlock, Inc. (serving Eastern PA) - 1-866-342-4984 - American Court Services (serving Central/Western PA) - 1-888-565-6227 - Pennsylvania Interlock - 1-866-718-8606 - Draeger Interlock, Inc. - 1-800-332-6858 You will need to provide the vendor with the following court information before the system can be installed COUNTY COURT NUMBER COURT TERM CUMBERLAND CTY 1482 2001 Please retain a copy of this letter to assist you in this process. If you choose not to install the Ignition Interlock System in your vehicle(s), your driving privilege will remain suspended for an additional year.4 On February 21, 2003, Appellant filed a Petition for Appeal from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements.5 A hearing was held on Appellant's appeal on May 29, 2 Id In Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 54 Pa. D. & C.4th 115 (Cumberland 2001), a challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory ignition interlock system requirement was upheld by the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley of this court. 3Appellant's Pet. for Appeal from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements, filed Feb. 21, 2003, Ex. A (notice from Department of Transportation to Appellant, dated Jan. 21, 2003). 4Jcl. (notice from Department of Transportation to Appellant, dated Jan. 21, 2003). 2003. During the course of this hearing, Appellee moved to quash Appellant's petition on the ground that it was not timely filed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied Appellee's motion to quash and took under advisement the issue of the merits of Appellant's petition.6 With regard to the timeliness of Appellant's petition, the Commonwealth Court has stated as follows: We find no error in the trial court's nunc pro tune consideration of the merits of [Appellant' s] appeal, even though it may have been untimely, because.., the requirement imposed on [Appellant] was imposed without the authority of the law and was void ab initio; equitable relief, if necessary, is appropriate in such extraordinary circumstances. Watterson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225, 1227 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002) (citations omitted); see also Heberlig v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, No. 02- 4874 (Ct. Com. Pls. Cumberland Dec. 19, 2002). Based upon Watterson and Heberlig the court denied the motion to quash. 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 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. 5Id. 6 Order of Ct, May 29, 2003. 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 30th day of May, 2003, upon consideration of Appellant's Petition for Appeal From Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements, 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 January 21, 2003, 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, Paul Bradford Orr, Esq. Law Offices of Paul Bradford Orr 50 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellant George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for Appellee /s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. STEVEN C. SINGISER, 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. 03-0778 CIVIL TERM IN RE: APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM IMPOSITION OF IGNITION INTERLOCK REQUIREMENTS BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2003, upon consideration of Appellant's Petition for Appeal from Imposition of Ignition Interlock Requirements, 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 January 21, 2003, 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, Paul Bradford Orr, Esq. Law Offices of Paul Bradford Orr 50 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellant George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 S. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for Appellee J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.