 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reisinger v. Commonwealth8/25/2003
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court) which sustained the appeal of William P. Reisinger, Jr. (Reisinger) from the requirement that he install ignition interlock devices on all vehicles that he owned before his operating privileges could be restored. We affirm.
Reisinger was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) two times. The most recent conviction occurred on April 23, 2002. At Reisinger's criminal proceeding, the trial court did not order that Reisinger install the ignition interlock device on vehicles owned by him upon the restoration of his driving privileges.
In a notice dated June 21, 2002 the Department informed Reisinger that his operating privileges were being suspended for one year. Additionally, the notice also contained the following information regarding the ignition interlock system:
IGNITION INTERLOCK
Before your driving privilege can be restored you are required by law to have all vehicle(s) owned by you to be equipped with an Ignition Interlock System. This is a result of your conviction for Driving Under the Influence . If you fail to comply with this requirement, your driving privilege will remain suspended for an additional year. You will receive more information regarding this requirement approximately 30 days before your eligibility date.
Reisinger appealed to the trial court objecting to the requirement that he install the ignition interlock devices. The trial court conducted a de novo hearing and thereafter issued an order dated January 3, 2003 which upheld the one-year suspension, but sustained Reisinger's appeal of the interlock requirement. In support of its decision, the trial court cited our recent decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002.) This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Department argues that Section 7003 of the Ignition Interlock Device Act (Act) vests it with independent authority to ensure compliance with the Act regardless of the existence of a trial court order mandating the installation of an ignition interlock device.
We observe, however, and the Department acknowledges that this court has already addressed the issue of whether Section 7003 vests the Department with independent authority to impose the ignition interlock device system and we have determined that it does not. Schneider, Turner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 805 A.2d 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), Watterson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). As we recently stated in McGrory v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, (No. 2949 C.D. 2002, filed July 16, 2003), slip op. at 5 "failure of a trial court to order the installation of an ignition interlock device does not confer automatic authority upon the Department to 'override' the trial court and to require installation. Section 7002(b) provides that only the court shall order the installation of an approved device, and nothing in Section 7003 dictates otherwise."
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge
ORDER
Now, August 25, 2003, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County in the above captioned matter is affirmed.
JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge
Page 1 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|