 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eichelberger v. Commonwealth3/18/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) sustaining Teresa A. Eichelberger's (Licensee's) appeal from DOT's mandate that she install an ignition interlock device on her vehicle as a condition to her driving privileges being restored. We affirmed the trial court's decision on October 14, 2003, and, thereafter, on December 2, 2003, granted DOT's application for reconsideration to address the applicability of our ruling in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, ___ Pa. ___, 834 A.2d 488 (2003). We affirm.
The facts in the instant case are not in dispute. On September 11, 1996, Licensee was charged with violating 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, by driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Licensee was admitted into the accelerated rehabilitative disposition program (ARD) and after successful completion of the ARD program her driver's license was restored. Then, on August 21, 2002, Licensee was convicted of DUI pursuant to New Jersey's Motor Vehicle and Traffic Laws, N.J.S. § 39.4-50(a). Following her New Jersey conviction for DUI, DOT informed her that she would be subjected to a one-year suspension of her driver's license and that following the one-year suspension she would be required to have the vehicles she owned equipped with an ignition interlock device. Should she fail to so equip her vehicles, her license suspension would continue for an additional year.
Licensee challenged the requirement that she equip her vehicles with an ignition interlock device at the trial court. She argued that a court order was required to impose the installation of the ignition interlock device and no court had ordered her to do so. She claimed that DOT did not have unilateral authority to impose the requirement in absence of a court order.
On December 5, 2002, the trial court upheld the suspension of Licensee's operating privileges, but struck the ignition interlock device requirement placed upon Licensee by DOT. In its Pa. R.A.P. 1925 opinion, the trial court explained that pursuant to Schneider v. Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), ruling on petition for allowance of appeal reserved, (No. 80 MAL 2002, filed May 9, 2003), DOT was not permitted to unilaterally require a licensee to install the ignition interlock device on his/her vehicles.
DOT appealed the ruling of the trial court to this Court and we affirmed. In its motion for reconsideration, DOT alleges that the ruling in Mockaitis establishes: (1) that installation of an ignition interlock system is a license restoration requirement and, thus, any appeal therefrom needed to be taken through DOT's administrative process, not to the trial court; (2) that DOT has the authority to require that repeat DUI offenders comply with the Ignition Interlock Device Act (Interlock Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 7001-7003, as a condition of license restoration; and (3) that 75 Pa. C.S. §3805(g) does not apply to this appeal.
First, we will address DOT's argument that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider Licensee's appeal. The thrust of DOT's argument is that this is an appeal concerning a restoration of privileges, and that, as such, the trial court lacks jurisdiction. DOT points to Section 933 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §933, and Section 1550 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1550, in support of its position.
We note that DOT conveniently ignores the fact that this matter is before this Court as a result of a notice of suspension that DOT issued. As part of that notice of susp
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|