 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Myers v. Commonwealth3/19/2003
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court) that sustained the appeal of Sharon L. Myers from the Department's requirement that she equip her vehicles with ignition interlock systems as a precondition for the scheduled restoration of her operating privileges. We affirm the trial court.
On January 17, 1998, Myers was arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Myers accepted entry into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program, a condition of which was the suspension of her operating privileges for six months. Myers' operating privileges were restored on January 10, 1999. On June 20, 2000, however, Myers was once again arrested and charged with DUI. Myers was convicted of the offense, but the trial court did not order that she be required to install ignition interlock systems on her vehicles as a precondition for the restoration of her operating privileges, as required by Sections 7001-7003 of the Judicial Code, commonly known as the Ignition Interlock Law, 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001-7003.
The Department, by official notice mailed March 15, 2001, notified Myers that as a consequence of her DUI conviction, her operating privilege was being suspended for one year, effective February 27, 2001. Additionally, this notice provided that Myers was required to install on all of her vehicles ignition interlock systems as a precondition for the restoration of her operating privileges, pursuant to Section 7002(b) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b).
On February 27, 2002, the Department mailed to Myers a "Restoration Requirements Letter" that again stated that she was required to install on all of her vehicles ignition interlock systems as a precondition for the scheduled restoration of her operating privileges. Myers filed a statutory appeal on April 25, 2002, challenging the Department's requirement that she install ignition interlock systems on her vehicles, and the matter was heard by the trial court.
At the hearing, the Department entered into evidence a packet of certified documents relating to Myers' DUI conviction, including a copy of the March 15, 2001 notice of suspension, which included the Department's requirement that Myers install ignition interlock systems as a precondition for the restoration of her operating privileges. The Department did not challenge the timeliness or manner of Myers' appeal.
Myers entered into evidence the trial court's sentencing order that did not order Myers to install ignition interlock systems. Myers also argued that Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), precluded the Department from unilaterally imposing the ignition interlock requirement pursuant to Sections 7001-7003 of the Judicial Code. In Schneider, we held that a trial court has sole authority under Section 7002(b) to order a licensee who has been convicted of two or more DUI offenses to install ignition interlock devices, and that the Department has no independent authority to override a trial court's order that does not impose the ignition interlock requirement.
The trial court held that pursuant to Schneider, the Department had no authority to require that Myers install ignition interlock systems as a precondition for the restoration of her operating privileges when the original sentencing court did not order this requirement. Accordingly, the trial court sustained Myers' appeal to the extent that she challenged the requirement for installation of ignition interlock systems as a precondition for the restoration of her ope
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|