 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Loch v. Commonwealth3/23/2004
provisions of the Interlock Law were unconstitutional as violative of equal protection, due process and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. On October 16, 2003, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, ___ Pa. ___, 834 A.2d 488 (2003). In Mockaitis the Supreme Court first held that provisions of the Interlock Law requiring the trial court to order the installation of ignition interlock devices, to determine that compliance had taken place and to certify that fact to the Department constituted an unconstitutional delegation of executive functions to a judicial body.
The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Section 7002(b), Section 7003(1) and the last clause of Section 7003(5) of the Interlock Law, and it severed those provisions from the remainder of the Interlock Law. The court held that with those provisions severed a driver seeking restoration after a suspension still was required to apply for an ignition interlock restricted license under Section 7003(2) and was prohibited from operating any vehicle not equipped with such a device under Section 7003(3). The court observed, however, that the striking of provisions requiring applicants to install interlock devices "on each motor vehicle owned" removed the "factual predicate" for equal protection challenges based upon claims of discrimination against lessees and other non-owners of vehicles and against owners of multiple vehicles. Mockaitis, ___ Pa. at ___, 834 A.2d at 503.
This Court recently stated in clear and unequivocal language in Cinquina v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 840 A.2d 525, 527 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), that after Mockaitis, the only portion of the Interlock Law under which the Department has authority is Section 7003(2) and that such authority is limited to issuing interlock restricted licenses: "Nowhere does the remaining Act grant PennDOT the independent authority to require installation of interlock devices." Accordingly, the trial court correctly sustained the appeal of Loch from the Department's imposition of a requirement that he install ignition interlock devices on each vehicle that he owns and submit certification of that installation to the Department before his operating privileges may be restored. Its order is therefore affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2004, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County is affirmed.
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|