 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Loch v. Commonwealth3/23/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County that sustained the appeal of Larry Dale Loch from a requirement imposed by the Department that he install ignition interlock systems on all vehicles that he owns before his operating privilege may be restored. The Department argues that it has an independent mandatory duty, not dependent upon the existence of a court order, not to restore the operating privilege of a repeat driving under the influence (DUI) offender unless he or she presents certification that he or she has complied with the act known as the Ignition Interlock Law (Interlock Law), Sections 7001 -7003 of the Judicial Code, formerly 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001 - 7003, repealed by Section 4 of the Act of September 30, 2003, P.L. ___, No. 2003-24 (Act 24).
On September 30, 1997, Loch was arrested and was charged with violating former Section 3731(a) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, formerly 75 Pa. C.S. §3731(a), repealed by Section 14 of Act 24, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. He was accepted into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program with respect to that charge.
On January 14, 2002, Loch again was charged with violating Section 3731(a), and he was convicted on July 17, 2002. The trial court did not order installation of ignition interlock devices as a condition of restoration of Loch's driving privilege. The Department notified Loch by letter mailed August 25, 2002 that his driving privilege was suspended for one year effective July 17, 2002 as a result of his conviction. The notice included as a requirement for restoration that all vehicles owned by Loch be equipped with an ignition interlock system. Loch appealed that notice to the trial court, challenging only the ignition interlock requirement.
At a hearing on May 19, 2003 the Department acknowledged that the criminal trial court did not issue an order under Section 7002(b) of the Interlock Law requiring Loch to install ignition interlock devices on his vehicles. Counsel for Loch argued that the appeal should be sustained on the basis of 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 does not have independent authority to require installation of ignition interlock devices if the sentencing court did not do so. The trial court upheld the suspension of Loch's driving privileges but sustained his appeal to the requirement of installation of interlock devices upon the restoration of his driving privilege.
The Department first asserts that it has an independent mandatory duty, which is not dependent upon the existence of a court order, not to restore the operating privilege of a repeat DUI offender unless and until that offender presents certification that he or she has complied with the Interlock Law, by which the Department means installation of an interlock device on each vehicle owned. The Department acknowledges this Court's consistent holdings to the contrary in numerous cases, and it states that it makes the argument solely for the purpose of preserving the issue for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
In its brief, filed September 18, 2003, the Department notes that the question of the constitutionality of provisions of the Interlock Law was pending before the Supreme Court in the direct appeal from the decision of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas in Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 54 Pa. D. & C.4th 115 (2001), which held that
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|