 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rinnegan v. Commonwealth3/16/2004
to apply to for an ignition interlock restricted licensee. 42 Pa. C.S. § 7003(2)." Mockaitis, 834 A.2d at 502.
DOT argues that Mockaitis grants it the authority to order an ignition interlock device. However, in Cinquina v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), (Nos. 1640, 1641 C.D. 2003, filed January 9, 2004, slip op. at 4), this Court discussed the holding in Mockaitis and noted as follows:
Thus, after Mockaitis, the only portion of the Act under which has authority with respect to second or subsequent offenses is Section 7003(2), and the only authority contained within that section is to issue interlock restricted licenses. Nowhere does the remaining Act grant the independent authority to require installation of interlock devices. The trial court was correct in finding exceeded its statutory authority when it purported to require [licensee] to install ignition interlock devices on all vehicles he owns.
As such, we reject DOT's allegation that it had any authority to order the installation of an interlock device.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.
JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2004, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, dated February 25, 2003, is hereby affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|