The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99-4841 civilKENNETH L. GEESAMAN, APPELLANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, APPELLEE 99-4841 CIVIL TERM IN RE: APPEAL FROM SUSPENSION OF DRIVING PRIVILEGE BEFORE BAYLEY, J, OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., December 20, 1999:-- On July 13, 1999, appellant, Kenneth L. Geesaman, was notified by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, that: Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to treat certain out of state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania. Therefore, as a result of the Department receiving notification from NORTH CAROLINA of your conviction on 06/02/1999 of an offense which occurred on 04/17/1999, which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pa. Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE, your driving privilege is being SUSPENDED for a period of 1 YEAR(S), as mandated by Section 1532B of the Vehicle Code. Geesaman filed the within appeal from the suspension of his driving privilege for one year upon which a hearing was conducted. The issues have been briefed and are ready for decision. PennDOT, over the objection of appellant, introduced a written "certification" that 99-4841 CIVIL TERM it suspended appellant's driving privilege based on a record it received from the state of North Carolina, which it describes as: Record of Conviction Detail, Out of State Driver Violations Report received by the Department from the licensing authority of the State of NORTH CAROLINA, operating under the influence of liquor or drugs, date of violation 04/17/99, and date of conviction 06/02/99. (Emphasis added.) Contrary to the certification by PennDOT, the "Record of Conviction Detail" was not received from the licensing authority of the state of North Carolina. Rather, the document, a copy of which is attached to this opinion as Exhibit No. 2, was generated in the District Court Division of the County of Moore, North Carolina. It was issued by Robin B. Boyd. Below that name are the words "JUDGE/MAGISTRATE/DEPUTY ASSISTANT CLERK OF COURT;" however, it is impossible from the document to discern in what category Robin B. Boyd falls. The document reflects that a charging officer had probable cause to believe that on April 17, 1999, Kenneth Lee Geesaman operated a motor vehicle on a street, highway or public vehicular area while he was "Driving While Impaired." Contrary to the position of PennDOT, there is no entry showing a conviction, much less a sentence. There is an entry "DISPOSITION DWI-- LEVEL 5," however, the document does not reflect what that means because (1) neither of the spaces designated for a "PLEA GUILTY" or "VERDICT GUILTY" contain an entry, and (2) after the words "METHOD OF DISPOSITION" are the words "TRIAL BY JUDGE OR GUILTY PLEA BEFORE JUDGE," but there is no entry indicating that either took place. The document contains no reference to the North Carolina statute of -2- 99-4841 CIVIL TERM Driving While Impaired. It does contain an entry: "AOC CODE 5515 DMV CODE DL PTS FINE/PENALTY 001000 COSTS 0086." We do not know what that means because we do not speak bureaucratese. PennDOT assumes this document shows a conviction of appellant in Moore County, North Carolina, but it has presented no evidence to support its position. Pennsylvania at 75 Pa.C.S. § 1581, and North Carolina at G.S. § § 20-4.21 to 20-4.30, have adopted the Driver's License Compact. Article III of the Compact titled "Reports of Conviction," provides: The licensing authority of a pa~y state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee. Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated, identify the court in which action was taken, indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith. (Emphasis added.) Article VII of the Compact titled "Compact Administrator and Interchange of Information," provides that "The head of the licensing authority of each state shall be the administrator of this Compact for his state," and "The administrator of each party state shall furnish to the administrator of each other party's state any information or documents reasonably necessary to facilitate the administration of this Compact." In Pennsylvania, Section 1582(1) of the Vehicle Code provides that the term "Licensing authority" as used in this Commonwealth means the Department of Transportation of -3- 99-4841 CIVIL TERM the Commonwealth. In Boots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 736 A.2d 64 (Pa. Commw. 1999), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania sustained the reversal by the trial court of PennDOT's suspension of the appellant's driving privilege in Pennsylvania, based on his purported conviction for driving while intoxicated in Indiana, where the supporting documents from Indiana were not sent by the licensing authority of that state. The court held that Article III of the Driver's License Compact mandated that out-of-state documents used by PennDOT to support a suspension must be sent by the licensing authority of the state where the offense occurred. In accord is Mazurek v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 717 A.2d 23 (Pa. Commw. 1998). Notwithstanding the holding in Boots and Mazurek, PennDOT maintains in the present case that an amendment of Article III of the Compact at 75 Pa.C.S. Section 1584, titled "Furnishing of information to other states," renders those holdings inapplicable. The Section provides: The Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth shall furnish to the appropriate authorities of any other party state any information or documents reasonably necessary to facilitate the administration of ^rticles III, IV and V of the compact. The omission from any report received by the department from a party state of any information required by Article III of the compact shall not excuse or prevent the department from complying with its duties under Articles IV and V of the compact. (Emphasis added.) The Department also relies on an amendment to the Vehicle Code at Section -4- 99-4841 CIVIL TERM 1516(b), which it argues makes the document generated by the District Court Division of the County of Moore, North Carolina, admissible in this case. The Section titled "Department records," provides: Accidents and convictions. The department shall file all accident reports and abstracts of court records of convictions received by it under the laws of this Commonwealth and maintain actual or facsimile records or make suitable notations in order that the records of each licensee showing convictions of the licensee, any departmental action initiated against the licensee regarding a reportable accident in which the licensee was involved, and the traffic accidents shall be available for official use. Court abstracts and certifications of conviction and accident reports submitted to the department under the laws of this Commonwealth shall be considered as records of the department and the department may store such documents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6109 (relating to photographic copies of business and public records) and may enter into evidence copies of such documents in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6103 (relating to proof of official records). Such copies shall be admissible into evidence to support the department's case in an appeal of a department action taken under Chapter 13 (relating to registration of vehicles), 15 (relating to licensing of drivers), 16 (relating to commercial drivers) or 17 (relating to financial responsibility) of this title, and the certification shall constitute prima facie proof of the facts and information contained in the court abstract or certification of conviction or accident report. These records shall also be made available to the courts for sentencing purposes. (Emphasis added.) Thus, PennDOT argues that the Department may now suspend appellant's driving privilege based on the report generated in the District Court Division of the County of Moore, North Carolina, even though (1) it was not issued by the licensing authority of the state of North Carolina, as it has incorrectly certified, and (2) it does not contain the specific information as required in Article III of the Driver's License Compact. -5- 99-4841 CIVIL TERM Appellant maintains that the unilateral amendments to the Vehicle Code cannot abrogate the contractual requirements of Pennsylvania to comply with both the specific reporting requirements, and the requirement that any report shall be sent by the licensing authority of another state, as set forth in Article III of the Driver's License Compact before his driving privilege can be suspended as a result of any action taken against him in Moore County, North Carolina. We need not determine if the amendments lawfully abrogate Article III of the Driver's License Compact, and the decisions of the Commonwealth Court in Boots and Mazurek, because even the document from the District Court of Moore County, North Carolina, does not contain sufficient information upon which PennDOT can suspend appellant's driving privilege? Accordingly, the following order is entered.2 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this. ~)4.- day of December, 1999, the suspension by the Department of Transportation of appellant's driving privilege for the period of one year, IS REVERSED. ~ That document reflects the wisdom of the drafters of the Driver's License Compact by inserting in Article III that the record to be forwarded by the licensing authority "shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated, identify the court in which the action was taken, indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith." 2 This disposition also makes it unnecessary to decide the seven other issues raised by appellant in support of his position that his suspension must be reversed. -6- 99-4841 CIVIL TERM David E. Hershey, Esquire For Appellant George Kabusk, Esquire For the Department of Transportation :saa By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. -7- IH THE DISTRICT Cl CGUNTY OF MOORE r DIVISION FILE NO. 99CR 003359 t ~ARGES 1 COURT LOCATION CARTHAGE 060299 ARRESTING AGENCY SHP CITATION 91651q2 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA VS GEESAMAN,KENNETH,LEE DEFENDANT 958 BALTIMORE RD SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257 THE CHARGING OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT O130A.M. THE'17 DAY OF APRIL 1999 IN THE NAMED COUNTY, THE NAMED DEFENDANT DID UNLANFULLY AND WILLFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A STREET, HIGHWAY OR PUBLIC VEHICULAR AREA CHARGE DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED SPEED - AOC CODE 5q05 PLEA GUILTY VERDICT GUILTY METHOD OF DISPOSITION TRIAL BY JUDGE OR GUILTY PLEA BEFORE JUDGE DISPOSITION DWI - LEVEL 5 SPEED - AOC CODE 5515 DMV CODE DL PTS FINE/PENALTY 001000 COSTS 0086 AND ON OR ABOUT .M. THE 19 IN THE NAMED COUNTY, THE NAMED DEFENDANT DID UNLAWFULLY AND WILLFULtY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A STREET, HIGHHAY OR PUBLIC VEHICULAR AREA CHARGE AOC CODE PLEA METHOD OF DISPOSITION DISPOSITION AOC CODE DMV CODE VERDICT DL PTS FINE/PENALTY COSTS OFFICER MANESS,H NO. 1923 TROOP/DISTRICT H6 ON HIGHWAY US1 ACCIDENT DRIVER LICENSE NO. 09660150 STATE PA DATE OF BIRTH 082937 RACE W SEX M VEHICLE TYPE VN VEHICLE PLATE NO. JPL-758 STATE PA COL-NO COMMERCIAL VEHICLE-NO HAZARDOUS MATERIAL-NO SPEED SPEED AREA 03 ALIAS NAMES FTA/FTP G.S.20-2q.1 - DATE CASH BOND FORFEITURE - VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED - ORDERED DISMISSED - RECORp TYPE 020 BOYD,ROBIN,B JUDGE/MAGISTRATE/DEPUTY ASSISTANT CLERK OF COURT 060299 DATE RECEIVED 060399