 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Denney v. Commonwealth2/10/2004
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County that sustained the appeal of William F. Denney from the ignition interlock installation requirement imposed by the Department under 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001 - 7003, commonly known as the Ignition Interlock Law (Law), as a condition to restoration of his operating privilege. We affirm.
Denney was charged with violating Section 3731 of the Motor Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731 (driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance (DUI)) on April 22, 1989 and was placed into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program. On July 18, 2002, Denney was again convicted of committing a DUI offense on October 26, 2001. The sentencing judge did not order Denney to install an approved ignition interlock device under Section 7002(b) of the Law, 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b). On October 2, 2002, the Department notified Denney that as a result of his July 18, 2002 conviction, his operating privilege was suspended for one year effective June 19, 2003, that he must install approved ignition interlock devices on all vehicles he owned to restore his operating privilege after serving the suspension period, and that upon his failure to do so, his operating privilege would remain suspended for an additional year.
Denney then filed a timely appeal, contending that the court had the sole authority to impose the ignition interlock requirement under Section 7002(b) of the Law, and because the trial court did not impose such requirement in the sentencing order, the Department had no authority to do so in the suspension notice.
After a de novo hearing, at which the Department presented a packet of certified documents showing Denney's DUI convictions and driving record, the trial court sustained Denney's appeal from the ignition interlock installation requirement imposed in the suspension notice, relying on Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). In Schneider, this Court held that the courts have the sole authority under Section 7002(b) of the Law to impose the ignition interlock requirement, rejecting the Department's contention that it has independent authority to impose the requirement, regardless of whether the sentencing court complied with Section 7002(b) of the Law. The Department's appeal to this Court followed.
On appeal, the Department reiterates its previous contention rejected in Schneider and contends that Schneider was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Department further contends that although Denney's first conviction of the DUI offense occurred before the effective date of Section 7002(b), September 30, 2000, Section 7002(b) should be still applied to require his to comply with the ignition interlock requirement.
In Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, ___ Pa. ___, 834 A.2d 488 (2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently invalidated Sections 7002(b), 7003(1) and 7003(5) of the Law, finding that those sections violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by delegating to the courts the executive responsibility of regulating whether and when repeat DUI offenders are entitled to conditional restoration of their operating privileges. The Court further held that the remaining sections of the Law are severable from the invalidated sections, and that the Law "still requires recidivist DUI offenders seeking restoration of driving privileges to apply to the Department for an ignition interlock restricted license" and "still authorizes the Department to impose an ignition interlock rest
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|