 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adcock v. Commonwealth2/25/2003
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County that sustained the appeal of John B. Adcock (Adcock) from the requirement that he install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles owned by him before his driving privileges could be restored. The Department imposed this requirement pursuant to Sections 7001 - 7003 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001 - 7003, following Adcock's one-year suspension under Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(3). That suspension resulted from Adcock's second conviction for violating Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), and fell within the ambit of Section 7002(b) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b), requiring courts to order the installation of an ignition interlock system on each motor vehicle owned by repeat DUI offenders, effective upon restoration of driving privileges. The Department contends that it has an independent mandate under Section 7003 to impose ignition interlock requirements upon repeat DUI offenders regardless of whether the trial court ordered installation.
On November 30, 2001, Adcock was convicted in the trial court of his second DUI offense and given the mandatory one-year operating privilege suspension. The trial court did not order the installation of an ignition interlock system on Adcock's vehicles. On February 22, 2002, the Department notified Adcock of the one-year suspension and that he was required by law to have his vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock system in order for his operating privilege to be restored at the end of the suspension period or face an additional year of suspension. Adcock appealed the interlock system requirement.
At a June 17, 2002 de novo hearing before Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr., the Department stipulated to the factual averments made in Adcock's appeal petition and offered into evidence a certified copy of the certification of Adcock's underlying DUI conviction. Adcock offered into evidence a copy of the February 5, 2002 court order that resulted in the suspension of his operating privileges but did not order installation of an ignition interlock device, and he presented a certified record from the Cumberland County Clerk of Courts attesting to the fact that no appeal had been filed in Adcock's criminal DUI case. The trial court sustained Adcock's appeal, holding that under Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), the Department has no unilateral authority to require an interlock system. This Court's review of the trial court's order is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court has committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Schneider.
The Department argues that it has an independent mandate under Section 7003 of the Judicial Code to impose ignition interlock requirements upon repeat DUI offenders regardless of whether the trial court ordered installation. Although the Department acknowledges this Court's contrary holding in Schneider, which was reaffirmed in Turner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 805 A.2d 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), it maintains that those cases were wrongly decided. Inviting this Court to revisit the issue, the Department urges a reinterpretation of the relevant statutes. The Department notes that Section 7002 requires installation of ignition interlock systems on all vehicles owned by the driver, and Section 7003 requires the driver to obtain a restri
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|