 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Foster v. Commonwealth8/11/2003
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court) which denied in part and sustained in part the appeal of Larry Lee Foster (Licensee) from a DOT order requiring the installation of an ignition interlock device. We affirm.
The underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. On April 15, 1990, Licensee was originally arrested and charged with DUI, in violation of Section 3731(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §3731(a). Licensee was convicted of that DUI offense on February 15, 1991, and his operating privilege was suspended by DOT for one year effective February 4, 1992. Due to Licensee's subsequent violations of the Vehicle Code for driving while suspended and failure to respond, his operating privilege was not restored until February 6, 1995. Licensee was arrested for his second DUI offense on November 6, 2001.
Licensee was convicted of this second DUI offense on May 22, 2002 and his operating privilege was suspended by DOT for one year effective May 22, 2002. The report of the Clerk of Courts of Cumberland County showing Licensee's second conviction for violating Section 3731(a) of the Vehicle Code reflects that the ignition interlock requirement found at Section 7002(b) of the Ignition Interlock Law (Law) was not imposed upon Licensee. See R.R. at 23a.
On May 28, 2002, the Cumberland County Clerk of Courts certified Licensee's second DUI conviction to DOT and also certified that the trial court did not impose upon Licensee the ignition interlock device requirement. By notice dated June 21, 2002, DOT informed Licensee that his operating privilege was being suspended for a period of one year effective May 22, 2002, as consequence of his May 22, 2002, conviction for DUI. This same notice further informed Licensee that before his operating privilege would be restored, he would have to have an ignition interlock device installed on all vehicles that he owned.
On July 11, 2002, Licensee filed a statutory appeal with the trial court from the June 21, 2002 notice from DOT. Therein, Licensee averred that the trial court did not impose the ignition interlock device requirement on vehicles owned by Licensee or anyone else.
A de novo hearing was conducted on September 27, 2002, before the trial court. At that hearing, DOT introduced, without objection, into evidence a packet of documents, duly certified and under seal, from the Secretary of Transportation. The packet included a copy of DOT's June 21, 2002 suspension notice to Licensee as well as a certified copy of a report from the Clerk of Courts of Cumberland County regarding Licensee's second DUI conviction which indicated that the court in Cumberland County did not impose an ignition interlock requirement.
Before the trial court, counsel for DOT agreed that the court was bound by this Court's decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), which holds that DOT does not have an independent mandate to impose the ignition interlock requirement upon a licensee if it has not been ordered by the trial court. Accordingly, by order dated September 27, 2002, the trial court sustained DOT's action insofar as it suspended Licensee's operating privilege for one year as a result of Licensee's conviction for violating Section 3731(a) of the Vehicle Code but overruled DOT's action insofar as it required the imposition of a guardian interlock device as a precondition for the restoration of Licensee's operating privilege at the end of the one-year suspension. The trial court stated that it was basing its decision upon counsel's ag
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|