 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kiebort v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania10/30/1998
Submitted: June 5, 1998
Peter Todd Kiebort appeals a Chester County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) order denying his appeal from a one-year suspension of his motor vehicle operating privileges by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Department).
On August 23, 1997, Kiebort, a Pennsylvania resident, was charged with violating N.J.S.A. §39:4-50(a) (relating to driving under the influence of liquor or drugs) (DUI). He was later convicted of the charge in a New Jersey Court.
By notice dated September 19, 1997, the Department informed Kiebort:
"Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code requires the Department to treat certain out of state convictions as though they had occurred in Pennsylvania. Therefore, as a result of the Department receiving notification from NEW JERSEY of your conviction on 09/02/1997 of an offense which occurred on 08/23/1997, which is equivalent to a violation of Section 3731 of the Pa. Vehicle Code, DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE , your driving privilege is being SUSPENDED for a period of 1 YEAR(S), as mandated by Section 1523B of the Vehicle Code."
Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1581 sets forth the provisions of the Driver's License Compact of 1996 (Compact). Article III of the Compact [Reports of Conviction] states in part that " he licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee." Article IV of the Compact [Effect of Conviction] partially sets forth:
"(a) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article II of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for:"
"..."
"(2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle...."
"..."
"(c) If the laws of a party state do not provide for offenses or violations denominated or described in precisely the words employed in subdivision (a) of this article, such party state shall construe the denominations and descriptions appearing in subdivision (a) of this article as being applicable to and identifying those offenses or violations of a substantially similar nature and the laws of such party state shall contain such provisions as may be necessary to ensure that full force and effect is given to this article." (Emphasis added).
Kiebort raises six arguments before us. First, he contends that the suspension which he received in Pennsylvania, and that which he received in New Jersey, are not reciprocal and thus violative of Article IV of the Compact. Kiebort received a 180-day suspension of his operating privileges in New Jersey. In Pennsylvania he received a one-year suspension of his operating privileges. Contrary to Kiebort's claim, Article IV of the Compact does not require that the length of the suspension he receives in Pennsylvania be the same as the length of the suspension he received in New Jersey. Indeed, Article IV requires that the licensing authority in the home state "give the same effect to the conduct reported ... as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state..." Id. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has interpreted this language as meaning that a DUI conviction reported to the Department from a party state to the Compact is to be t
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|