 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher v. Commonwealth3/3/2003
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court) that struck the ignition interlock requirement from the suspension notice issued to Daniel Christopher (Christopher).
On July 18, 2001, Christopher was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) and underage drinking offenses that occurred on February 18, 2001. The trial court did not order the installation of the ignition interlock. By notices dated August 9, 2001, DOT informed Christopher that his driving privilege was suspended for one year, effective July 18, 2001, regarding the DUI offense and for ninety days, effective July 18, 2002, as to the underage drinking.
On September 17, 2001, Christopher was convicted of DUI and possession of a small amount of marijuana. These offenses occurred on July 1, 2001. Christopher was sentenced to serve not less than forty-eight hours in the Bucks County Prison. Once again, the trial court did not order the installation of the ignition interlock. By notices dated October 5, 2001, DOT advised Christopher that his driving privilege was suspended for one year, effective October 16, 2002, due to the DUI offense and for six months, effective October 16, 2003, due to the drug violation. Additionally, DOT notified Christopher that prior to the restoration of his driving privilege, he must install an ignition interlock system in his vehicles. Christopher appealed and asserted that the October 2001, suspensions should run concurrently with the August 2001, suspensions. Also, Christopher challenged the ignition interlock requirement imposed by DOT.
At the May 31, 2002, hearing de novo, DOT introduced a packet of documents including suspension notices and conviction reports. Christopher did not testify but offered an exhibit, "the sentencing sheet . . . which showed that the sentencing was concurrent, both cases were treated as a first offense, 48-hour sentence." Notes of Testimony, May 31, 2002, (N.T.) at 4; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 25a. Christopher's attorney also noted that there was " bsolutely no requirement for an interlock . . . ." N.T. at 4; R.R. at 25a.
By order dated June 6, 2002, the trial court denied the appeal of Christopher's driving suspensions but struck the ignition interlock requirement from the suspension notice. Further, the trial court explained that it "was bound by the holding of Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Commonwealth 2002)." Trial Court Opinion, July 16, 2002, at 2; R.R. at 69a.
On appeal, DOT contends that it is authorized under the Act to enforce the ignition interlock requirements upon repeat DUI offenders regardless of the non-existence of a court order.
This Court agrees with the trial court that Schneider controls. After John Schneider (Schneider) had been arrested for DUI in 1984 and had been accepted into an ARD program, his driving privilege was suspended for one month. In 2000, Schneider was again arrested for DUI and sentenced to not less than forty-eight hours in prison. DOT suspended Schneider's driving privilege for one year and sua sponte directed installation of the ignition interlock. Schneider appealed and asserted that when he was sentenced on the 2000 DUI he had not been ordered by the trial court to install an ignition interlock. The trial court rescinded the ignition interlock requirement. On DOT's appeal, this Court affirmed:
Section 7002 provides that only "the court shall order the installation of an approved ignition interlock device . . . ." 42 Pa.C.S. §7002(b). (Emphasis in original and emphasis added). Because this pro
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|