 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McDonald v. Commonwealth3/16/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County that sustained the statutory appeal of James Kevin McDonald from the requirement that he install ignition interlock devices on all vehicles that he owns before his operating privileges may be restored. The Department imposed the requirement under the act known as the Ignition Interlock Law (Interlock Law), former Sections 7001 - 7003 of the Judicial Code, formerly 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001 -7003, following McDonald's one-year suspension under Section §1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(3).
McDonald's suspension resulted from his May 29, 2002 conviction under former Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, formerly 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance (DUI). McDonald was charged originally on July 18, 1981 with violating Section 3731 but was accepted into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program. McDonald was convicted of DUI on three other occasions: December 9, 1982, January 20, 1988 and May 29, 2002. His conviction, therefore, fell within the ambit of Section 7002(b) of the Interlock Law, 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b), requiring trial courts to order the installation of an ignition interlock system on each motor vehicle owned by repeat DUI offenders upon restoration of operating privileges. The court ordered the mandatory one-year suspension of McDonald's operating privileges but did not order the installation of an ignition interlock system. By notice mailed November 8, 2002, the Department officially notified McDonald that his operating privileges were suspended effective May 29, 2002 and that in order to restore the privileges he would have to equip each of his vehicles with an ignition interlock system or remain ineligible for restoration for an additional oneyear period under the Interlock Law. McDonald timely appealed.
The trial court admitted into evidence, without objection, the Department's packet of documents consisting of a certified copy of McDonald's driving history, the November 2002 notice of suspension and the certification of McDonald's underlying DUI conviction. The court upheld the suspension, but it sustained McDonald's appeal of the ignition interlock requirement based on Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), appeal granted, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.2d ___ (No. 20 MAP 2004, filed February 26, 2004), in which this Court held that the Department did not have independent authority to impose the ignition interlock requirement when the trial court's order did not include that requirement.
The Department initially asserts that it has an independent mandatory duty under Section 7003 of the Interlock Law not to restore the operating privileges of a repeat DUI offender until that offender presents certification that he or she has complied with the ignition interlock requirements. The Department acknowledges the Court's contrary holding in Schneider, reaffirmed in Turner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 805 A.2d 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), and Watterson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). The Department further asserts that legislation intended to promote highway safety and public health should be liberally construed to effectuate its laudable objective. See Section 1928(c) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. §1928(c).
Section 7002 of the Interlock Law provided in part:
(b) Second or subsequent offense. -- In addition to any other requirements imposed by the
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|