 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiore v. Commonwealth1/9/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT) appeals the May 7, 2003, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) that sustained the appeal of Michael Guido Fiore (Licensee) "as to PennDOT'S order to equip all vehicles with an ignition interlock system" before his operating privilege could be restored. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 42a. We affirm.
The history of this matter is not in dispute. In 1999, Licensee pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in violation of Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code. 75 Pa. C.S. §3731. Licensee accepted and successfully completed an Accelerated Disposition Program (ARD). R.R. at 35a. On September 2, 2001, Licensee was charged with another DUI offense. Following Licensee's guilty plea, the trial court sentenced him to 30 days, gave him credit for the 30 days he spent in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility, fined him $400.00, imposed six months probation, and ordered that he not operate a motor vehicle until PennDOT reissued him a valid driver's license. R.R. at 21a-22a. The District Attorney advised the trial court that, what is commonly referred to as the Ignition Interlock Device Act (Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001-7003, was not applicable to Licensee. R.R. 20a. The trial court did not order installation of an ignition interlock and so notified PennDOT. R.R. 29a.
PennDOT, nevertheless, sent Licensee a letter in which it informed him that it could not restore his driving privileges until, among other things, all his vehicles were equipped with an ignition interlock system. The letter went on to note if Licensee failed to comply his driving privilege would remain suspended for an additional year.
Licensee appealed, and the trial court held a de novo hearing. At that hearing, PennDOT unsuccessfully moved to continue the matter. Licensee moved to dismiss his suspension and offered into evidence the transcript of his guilty plea hearing and his sentencing sheet. R.R. 17a-23a, 13a. PennDOT offered two packets of certified documents containing, among other things, Licensee's convictions, and his driving history. R.R. at 29a, 31a-33a, 34a-38a.
In the opinion supporting his order sustaining Licensee's appeal, the trial court noted only it, not PennDOT, could order the installation of an ignition interlock device. 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b); Turner v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 805 A.2d 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). PennDOT appeals.
PennDOT argues it has an independent mandatory duty under Section 7003 not to restore the operating privilege of a repeat DUI offender unless the offender installs interlock devices on each motor vehicle he owns. PennDOT claims its position is required despite the lack of a trial court order.
PennDOT concedes that this Court's opinion in Alexander v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 822 A.2d 92 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), conditions application of the Act on repeat DUI convictions after the September 30, 2000, effective date of the Act. Id. at 94. Nevertheless, PennDOT submits Alexander was wrongly decided and asks that we overrule it. This we decline to do.
Here, Licensee has only one DUI conviction after the effective date of the Act. Consistent with Alexander, the mandatory interlock provisions of Section 7002(b) of the Act do not apply.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order's sustaining Licensee's appeal.
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9 th day of January, 2004, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated May 7, 2003, in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
RO
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|