 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hogans v. Commonwealth v. Department of Transportation10/9/2003
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County (trial court) which denied DOT's motion to quash and ordered DOT to restore the operating privilege of Daniel Webster Hogans (Licensee). We affirm.
The underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. On January 28, 1989, Licensee was originally arrested and charged with driving under the influence (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 May 29, 1990, and his operating privilege was suspended by DOT for one year effective April 23, 1991. Licensee's operating privilege was restored by DOT as of April 23, 1992.
On March 21, 2001, Licensee was again arrested and charged with DUI. Licensee was convicted of this DUI offense on August 20, 2001, at which time Licensee surrendered his Pennsylvania driver's license. In the sentencing order, the trial court did not impose upon Licensee the ignition interlock requirement found at Section 7002(b) of the Ignition Interlock Law (Law). There was no appeal regarding the trial court's failure to impose such a requirement.
The Blair County Clerk of Courts certified Licensee's DUI conviction to DOT and also certified that the trial court did not impose upon Licensee the ignition interlock device requirement. By official notice dated September 6, 2001, DOT notified Licensee that his operating privilege was being suspended for one year, effective August 20, 2001, as consequence of this conviction. This same notice further informed Licensee that, as a prerequisite to the restoration of his operating privilege, he would have to have an ignition interlock device installed on all vehicles that he owned. The notice advised Licensee that he would remain ineligible for the restoration of his operating privilege for an additional year if he failed or refused to comply with the requirements of the Law.
On August 21, 2002, DOT sent Licensee a restoration requirements letter listing what he must do to restore his operating privilege. The letter informed Licensee that his operating privilege would be restored on September 20, 2002, if he, inter alia, proved to DOT that he had an ignition interlock system installed on all of his vehicles.
On October 11, 2002, Licensee filed a petition to restore his operating privilege with the trial court. Therein, Licensee, relying on this Court's decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), challenged the requirement that he comply with the ignition interlock requirement imposed by DOT. Licensee alleged that DOT has no unilateral authority to impose ignition interlock device requirements if the trial court does not order the installation. On December 6, 2002, DOT filed a motion to quash the appeal as untimely.
On December 19, 2002, the trial court held a de novo hearing. At this hearing, DOT introduced into evidence without objection a packet of documents, duly certified and under seal, from the Secretary of Transportation. The packet included a copy of DOT's September 6, 2001 suspension notice to Licensee, a certified copy of a report from the Clerk of Courts of Blair County regarding Licensee's second DUI conviction, and a copy of Licensee's "Certified Driving History." Both parties presented oral argument.
By order dated December 19, 2002, and entered January 7, 2003, the trial court ordered DOT to restore Licensee's operating privilege and license and denied DOT's motion to quash the appeal. The trial court stated that with regard to the timeliness of the appeal, Licens
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|