 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Braund v. Commonwealth1/30/2004
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County that sustained the appeal of Georgianna Braund (Braund) 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 her operating privilege. We affirm.
Braund 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 July 4, 1991 and was placed into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program on February 14, 1992. On July 3, 2002, Braund was again convicted of committing a DUI offense on December 18, 2001. The sentencing judge did not order Braund to install an approved ignition interlock device under Section 7002(b) of the Law, 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b). On October 8, 2002, the Department notified Braund that as a result of her July 3, 2002 conviction, her operating privilege was suspended for one year effective September 24, 2002, that she must install approved ignition interlock devices on all vehicles she owned to restore her operating privilege after serving the suspension period, and that upon her failure to do so, her operating privilege would remain suspended for an additional year.
Braund then filed a timely appeal, contending, inter alia, that the court had the sole authority to impose the ignition interlock requirement under Section 7002(b) of the Law; 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; the Law is unconstitutional because it violates the right to equal protection and procedural due process, and the separation of powers doctrine.
After a de novo hearing, at which the Department presented a packet of certified documents showing Braund's DUI convictions and driving record, the trial court denied Braund's appeal from the one-year suspension. The court then sustained her 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 Braund'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 her 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,
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|