 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Galloway v. Commonwealth3/31/2003
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County (trial court) which sustained the appeal of Lance Galloway (Licensee) from the Department's requirement that he install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles owned by him before his operating privilege could be restored. We affirm.
On April 10, 2002, Licensee was convicted of violating Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, for driving under the influence on July 22, 2001. By notice dated May 20, 2002, the Department informed Licensee that his operating privilege would be suspended for a period of one year due to his April 10, 2002 conviction. The notice also informed Licensee that his operating privilege would not be restored until all vehicles that he owned were equipped with an ignition interlock system. The notice further informed Licensee that if he failed to so equip all vehicles he owned, his operating privilege would remain suspended for an additional year.
Licensee appealed to the trial court challenging the imposition of the ignition interlock system. Following a de novo hearing, the trial court, relying on Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), entered an order vacating the ignition interlock requirement device as a condition for the restoration of Licensee's operating privilege. The Department now appeals to this Court.
On appeal, the Department argues that it has an independent mandate to enforce the requirements of the ignition interlock requirement upon repeat DUI offenders, regardless of whether the trial court imposed the requirement in the criminal proceeding. In Schneider, this Court rejected the Department's argument that it had an independent mandate to impose an ignition interlock requirement on repeat DUI offenders. The Court stated:
Section 7002 provides that only 'the court shall order the installation of an approved ignition interlock device....' 42 Pa. C.S. § 7002(b). (Emphasis added). Because this provision gives a court the sole authority, PennDOT has no unilateral authority to impose ignition interlock device requirements if the trial court fails to do so. If the trial court fails to impose this requirement in a criminal proceeding, the district attorney can appeal the trial court's failure to do so as it would if the trial court failed to impose any other mandatory sentence. Id. at 366-67. In Turner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 805 A.2d 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), this Court reaffirmed the holding in Schneider.
The Department acknowledges the holding in Schneider but argues that Schneider conflicts with the clear and unambiguous language of Section 7003 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §7003, which allegedly, gives it independent authority to impose an ignition interlock installation requirement. Recently, in Watterson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1055 C.D. 2002, filed February 7, 2003), this Court considered the Department's argument that it had independent authority to impose the ignition interlock requirement under Section 7003 of the Judicial Code. The Court stated:
The Department argues that 42 Pa.C.S. § 7003 gives it the independent authority to impose the ignition interlock requirement. We disagree. The ignition interlock requirement may only be imposed by an order of the court of common pleas, Schneider. The Department lacks the power to act pursuant to Section 7003 absent a court order issued pursuant to Section 7002. The Department lacked the power to impose the i
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|