 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dulisse v. Commonwealth3/3/2003
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County striking the ignition interlock installation requirement imposed by the Department upon Anthony Dulisse, Jr. as one of conditions for restoring his operating privilege under 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001 - 7003, commonly known as the Ignition Interlock Law (Law). We affirm.
The following relevant facts in the record are undisputed. On September 14, 2001, Dulisse was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) on February 14, 2001 in violation of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731. By official notice mailed on December 11, 2001, the Department then notified Dulisse that as a result of his September 14, 2001 conviction, his operating privilege was being suspended for one year pursuant to Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b). In the notice, Dulisse was also advised that he must, inter alia, install an approved ignition interlock device on all vehicles he owned as one of the conditions for restoring his operating privilege, and that upon his failure to do so, his operating privilege would remain suspended for an additional year. Dulisse then filed a timely statutory appeal, challenging the ignition interlock installation requirement imposed by the Department.
At a de novo hearing held before the trial court, the Department presented a packet of certified documents, which showed that the sentencing judge in the underlying criminal proceeding decided not to require Dulisse to install an approved ignition interlock device by placing a check mark next to "NO" in Section G of the sentence sheet. The documents also showed that Dulisse had previously been accepted into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) for his DUI offense committed on November 21, 1989.
Dulisse argued that under Section 7002 of the Law, 42 Pa. C.S. §7002, the court had the sole authority to impose the ignition interlock installation requirement in the underlying criminal proceeding, and that where the sentencing judge did not to impose the requirement, the Department may not impose that requirement as a condition for restoring his operating privilege in the license suspension proceeding. Section 7002(b) of the Law provides:
(b) Second or subsequent offense. - In addition to any other requirements imposed by the court, where a person has been convicted of a second or subsequent violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731, the court shall order the installation of an approved ignition interlock device on each motor vehicle owned by the person to be effective upon the restoration of operating privileges by the department. A record shall be submitted to the department when the court has ordered the installation of an approved interlock ignition device. Before the department may restore such person's operating privilege, the department must receive a certification from the court that the ignition interlock system has been installed. (Emphasis added.)
Dulisse's previous acceptance into the ARD following his November 21, 1989 DUI offense is considered his first conviction for the purpose of the ignition interlock installation requirement under Section 7002(b). 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(c) The Department argued, on the other hand, that it had an independent mandate and duty to impose the ignition interlock installation requirement upon Dulisse in the license suspension proceeding, regardless of whether the trial court imposed the requirement in the criminal proceeding. In so arguing, the
Department acknowledged that this Court had already rejected the same argumen
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|