 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kiebort v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania10/30/1998
on. See Krall v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 682 A.2d 63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Kiebort's sixth claim of error is that he did not receive proper notice of his suspension. Specifically, he argues that the suspension notice does not contain any reference to his New Jersey DUI conviction. He also claims that the Department's reference to 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b) does not permit a license suspension for violations of statutes which are "equivalent" or "substantially similar" to Pennsylvania's DUI statute.
The Department's suspension notice informed Kiebort that the suspension action took place pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S. §§1581 and 1532(b) . When read together, these statutes clearly authorize the suspension of motor vehicle operating privileges for the reasons asserted by the Department. Finally, the notice provided Kiebort with the fact that the suspension was based upon his New Jersey DUI conviction and with the dates of the DUI violation and conviction. Thus, this Court concludes that there was sufficient information included in the notice to satisfy Kiebort's rights to procedural due process.
As his fourth argument, Kiebort claims that New Jersey has not complied with the reporting requirements of Article III of the Compact and thus his license suspension should be reversed. Article III of the Compact [Reports of Conviction] sets forth:
"The 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. Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code, or ordinance violated, identify the Court in which action was taken, indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith." (Emphasis added).
This Court has recently held that the reporting requirements of the Compact are mandatory. Frank J. Mazurek v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (No. 883 C.D. 1998, filed August 20, 1998). Thus, the report of conviction must contain (1) the identity of the person convicted; (2) a description of the violation including the section of the statute, code, or ordinance violated; (3) the identity of the court in which the person was convicted; and (4) an indication of the plea or whether the conviction resulted from a forfeiture of security. Id. In this case, New Jersey's report of conviction did not contain the third and fourth requirements. On this basis alone, the suspension of Kiebort's operating privilege must be reversed.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is hereby reversed.
CHARLES A. LORD, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 1998, the order of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, dated November 21, 1997, at No. 97-08396 is hereby reversed.
CHARLES A. LORD, Senior Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|