 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cummings v. Commonwealth3/12/2004
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that sustained the appeal of Gary F. Cummings 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 vacate and remand with the instructions that the trial court quash Cummings' appeal.
On February 7, 1990, Cummings was charged with violating Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, relating to driving while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (DUI). As a consequence of the charges, Cummings accepted Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) for the offense.
On July 1, 2001, Cummings was charged by New Jersey police with violating N.J.S.A. §39:4-50(a), relating to driving while intoxicated. On September 26, 2001, he was convicted of the charge. The New Jersey trial court did not order the installation of an approved ignition interlock device as a component of its sentence.
On November 13, 2001, the Department sent to Cummings official notice that as a result of his New Jersey conviction of an offense similar to that defined by Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, his operating privileges were being suspended for one year pursuant to Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b), and Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver's license Compact of 1961 (Compact), 75 Pa. C.S. §1581. Section 1581, Article IV provides for the suspension of Pennsylvania operating privileges following the operator's conviction, in a state that is a party to the Compact, for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to a degree rendering the operator incapable of safe operation of the motor vehicle, or a "substantially similar" offense. The notice further informed him 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. Cummings did not file a timely appeal from this suspension notice.
On November 26, 2002, however, Cummings filed a nunc pro tunc appeal with the trial court, arguing that he did not have to comply with the Department's ignition interlock requirement because the interlock device had not been ordered by the sentencing court pursuant to Section 7002(b) of the Law. After a de novo hearing, at which the Department presented a packet of certified documents showing Cummings' DUI convictions and driving record, the trial court granted Cummings' nunc pro tunc appeal and sustained his argument that he did not have to comply with the ignition interlock installation requirement imposed in the suspension notice. In arriving at this decision, the trial court relied on Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), and Watterson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
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. In Watterson, we held that the trial court may review a late appeal from a suspension notice that notified the licensee that as a precondition to the restoration of his o
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|