Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-1400 CIVILJOHN BRADFORD ADCOCK, 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. 02-1400 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITIONER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL BEFORE OLER~ J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., June 20, 2002. Petitioner appeals from an action taken by Respondent, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (hereinafter Department of Transportation), and 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 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 November 30, 2001, to driving under the influence,~ was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and a fine, to undergo a term of imprisonment of thirty days to twenty-three months in the county prison, and, as a prerequisite to restoration of his driving privilege, to complete an ~ Petitioner also pled guilty to careless driving, a summary offense, and driving on right side of roadway, a summary offense, for which he was sentenced to pay costs of prosecution and fines. Order of Ct., Feb. 15, 2002, Commonwealth v. Adcock, No. 00-2381 Criminal Term (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland County Feb 15, 2002) (Oler, J.); Pet'r.'s Ex. 1, Hr'g., June 17, 2002 (hereinafter Pet'r.'s Ex. __ ). alcohol treatment program.2 The sentencing court did not include a requirement that Petitioner install ignition interlock systems in his vehicles.3 Subsequent to this sentencing order, the Department of Transportation sent Petitioner a suspension notice dated February 22, 2002, 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.4 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. On March 22, 2002, Petitioner filed a license suspension appeal from this aspect of the notice.6 A hearing was held on Petitioner's appeal on June 17, 2002. In Schneider v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, No. 1513 C.D. 2001, 2001 WL 1692244 (Pa. Commw. Ct., Jan. 11, 2002), the Commonwealth Court stated: 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 on an approved ignition interlock device .... "Because this provision gives a court 2 Order of Ct., Feb. 15, 2002, Commonwealth v. Adcock, No. 00-2381 Criminal Term (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland County Feb. 15, 2002) (Oler, J.); Pet'r's Ex. 1. 3 Id. In Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 50 Cumberland L.J. 184 (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 Pet'r.'s License Suspension Appeal, filed Mar. 22, 2002 (notice from Department of Transportation to Petitioner, dated Feb. 22, 2002). 5 Id (notice from Department of Transportation to Petitioner, dated Feb. 22, 2002). 6Id. 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. Id 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, as prescribed by Schneider, on appeal. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th 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 February 22, 2002, 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. P. Richard Wagner, Esq. 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 Attorney for Petitioner George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 South Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for Respondent JOHN BRADFORD ADCOCK, 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. 02-1400 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITIONER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION APPEAL BEFORE OLER~ J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th 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 February 22, 2002, 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, P. Richard Wagner, Esq. 2233 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Petitioner George Kabusk, Esq. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1101 S. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17104-2516 Attorney for Respondent J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.