 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Freedman v. Commonwealth2/10/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (common pleas) that sustained the appeal of Kerry Freedman from the requirement that he install ignition interlock devices on all vehicles that he owns before his operating privilege could be restored. The Department imposed the ignition interlock requirement pursuant to what is commonly referred to as the Ignition Interlock Device Act (Act) 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 7001-7003. Over the objection of the Department that Freedman's appeal was untimely, common pleas allowed the appeal nunc pro tunc and held that the Department lacked authority to require installation of an ignition interlock device absent court order and sustained Freedman's appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand with instructions that common pleas quash the appeal.
Freedman pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731. Since this was Freedman's second DUI conviction, the sentencing court imposed a fine and a term of imprisonment. The sentencing order did not include the requirement that Freedman install an ignition interlock device as provided for in Section 7002(b). Neither the Commonwealth nor Freedman appealed the judgment of sentence. Thereafter, in April of 2002, the Department notified Freedman that his operating privilege was suspended for one year and that prior to the restoration of his operating privilege he would need to have an ignition interlock device installed on his vehicles. Freedman did not take an appeal from this suspension notice within the statutory period.
In January of 2003, the Department sent Freedman a "Restoration Requirements Letter" outlining the steps he would need to take in order to restore his operating privilege. Included therein was the requirement that he equip his vehicles with an ignition interlock device. Shortly thereafter, on February 6, 2003, Freedman filed an appeal challenging the Department's authority to require that he install ignition interlock devices on his vehicles prior to the restoration of his operating privilege. Common pleas sustained Freedman's appeal concluding that it could properly consider Freedman's appeal nunc pro tunc and that pursuant to this court's decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), ruling on petition for allowance of appeal reserved, No. 80 MAL 2002 (filed May 9, 2003), the Department lacked the authority to require the installation of an ignition interlock device absent a court order. The present appeal followed.
Prior to Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, ___ Pa. ___, 834 A.2d 488 (2003), this court held in a series of cases, beginning with Schneider, that the Department had no independent authority under the Act to require the installation of an ignition interlock device prior to restoring a licensee's driving privilege. See, e.g., McGrory v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 828 A.2d 506 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); Schneider. Accordingly, in those cases, we affirmed common pleas' order sustaining the licensee's appeal from the Department's imposition of such a requirement absent a court order. See id.
In Mockaitis, our Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of those sections of the Act that required sentencing courts both to order installation of ignition interlock systems on motor vehicles owned by licensees convicted of repeated violations of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731 and to certify to the Department that such systems had been installed. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 7002(b). After review, the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|