Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-3209 CIVILBILLY J. WARD, Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU: OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent :NO. 01-3209 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITIONER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL BEFORE OLER~ J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., June , 2002. In this appeal of an action taken by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (hereinafter Department of Transportation), Petitioner requests that this court rescind that part of a license suspension notice that required, as a prerequisite to scheduled restoration of Petitioner's driving privilege, that Petitioner equip each of the vehicles owned by him with an approved ignition interlock system. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Petitioner's appeal will be sustained. DISCUSSION In an underlying criminal case, Petitioner, having pled guilty on April 10, 2001, to driving under the influence, was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and a fine, to undergo a term of imprisonment of 30 days to 23 months in the county prison, and, as a prerequisite to restoration of his driving privilege, to complete an alcohol treatment program.~ The sentencing court did not include a requirement that Petitioner install ignition interlock systems in his vehicles.2 Subsequent to this sentencing order, the Department of Transportation sent Petitioner a suspension notice dated April 26, 2001, detailing prerequisites to restoration of his driving privilege. In addition to the requirement in the sentencing order, the Department of Transportation also required, as a prerequisite to scheduled restoration, that Petitioner install an approved ignition interlock system in each vehicle that he owned.3 The notice stated, in relevant part: As a result of your conviction for driving under the influence, you are required by law to have all vehicle(s) owned by you equipped with an approved ignition interlock system before your driving privilege can be restored. If you fail to comply with this requirement, your driving privilege 4 will remain suspended for an additional year. On May 25, 2001, Petitioner filed a license suspension appeal from this aspect of the notice, raising several issues.5 On October 10, 2001, the matter was continued generally by agreement of counsel.6 On June 6, 2002, in light of the decision by the Commonwealth Court in Schneider v Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,7 counsel related to the court that they would not object to a termination of the continuance for purposes of a disposition of Petitioner's appeal at this level. In Schneider v. Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Court stated: ~ Order of Ct., April 10, 2001 (Commonwealth v. Ward, NO. 00-2381 Criminal Term, Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland County, Apr. 10, 2001) (Hess, J.). 2 Id. In Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 50 Cumberland L.J. 184 (Feb. 12, 2001), a challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory ignition interlock system requirement was upheld by the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley of this court. 3 Pet'r's License Suspension Appeal, filed May 25, 2001 (Ex. A: Notice from Department of Transportation to Petitioner, Dated Apr. 26, 2001). 4Id' 5 Pet'r's License Suspension Appeal, filed May 25, 2001. 6 Order of Ct., Oct. 10, 2001. 7 Schneider v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, NO. 1513 C.D. 2001,2001 WL 1692244 (Pa. Commw. Ct., Jan. 11, 2002). Although [the petitioner] 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 of 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 *2 (footnotes and citations omitted) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court, in Schneider, affirmed the trial court's order rescinding the ignition interlock system provision in the suspension notice issued to the petitioner by the Department of Transportation.8 On this issue, Schneider is indistinguishable from the present case and, accordingly, the same result must obtain herein. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's appeal will be sustained, without prejudice to Respondent's right to pursue a challenge to this holding, prescribed by Schneider, on appeal.9 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2002, upon consideration of Petitioner's License Suspension Appeal, 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 April 26, 2001, notice requiring Petitioner 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. 8 See ld. 9 In view of the disposition of this case on this ground, it is unnecessary to address the other issues raised by Petitioner as grounds for relief. David E. Hershey, Esq. 1 South Baltimore Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 Attorney for the Petitioner George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for the Respondent BILLY J. WARD, Petitioner : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL Vo COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU: OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent :NO. 01-3209 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITIONER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL BEFORE OLER~ J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2002, upon consideration of Petitioner's License Suspension Appeal, 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 April 26, 2001, notice requiring Petitioner to equip his vehicles with ignition interlock systems as a prerequisite to scheduled restoration of his driving privilege is rescinded. BY THE COURT, David E. Hershey, Esq. 1 South Baltimore Street Dillsburg, PA 17019 Attorney for the Petitioner George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 S. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for the Respondent J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.