 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Held v. Commonwealth2/11/2004
SUBMITTED: September 19, 2003
OPINION NOT REPORTED
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County (common pleas) that sustained Thomas Paul Held's appeal from the Department's requirement that he install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles that he owns before his operating privilege could be restored. The Department imposed the ignition interlock requirement pursuant to what is commonly referred to as the Ignition Interlock Device Act (Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 7001 - 7003. Citing 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, May 9, 2003), common pleas held that the Department lacked authority to require installation of an ignition interlock device absent a court order and sustained Held's appeal. Because we conclude that Held's statutory appeal to common pleas was untimely, depriving common pleas of jurisdiction over the appeal, we vacate and remand with instructions that common pleas quash the appeal.
On May 9, 1996, Held was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731 of the Vehicle Code. As a result, Held was admitted into an accelerated rehabilitative disposition (ARD) program. On March 29, 2001, Held was convicted of another DUI violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731. When common pleas sentenced Held for that violation, it did not require Held to install an ignition interlock device as provided for in 42 Pa. C.S. § 7002.
On April 17, 2001, the Department notified Held that his driving privilege was suspended for one year, and that he was required under the Act to have all vehicles owned by him equipped with an ignition interlock device before his driving privilege could be restored, otherwise his driving privilege would be suspended for an additional year. Additionally, Held received a restoration requirements letter dated January 30, 2002, which again addressed the ignition interlock requirement. On February 22, 2002, Held filed an appeal challenging the Department's imposition of the ignition interlock requirement as a condition of the restoration of his license at the end of one year. At the de novo hearing before common pleas, the Department moved to quash Held's appeal on the basis that it was untimely because Held failed to file his appeal within 30 days of the April 17, 2001 suspension notice. Held argued in response that the Department lacked the authority to impose the requirement absent an order to do so by common pleas. Common pleas agreed with Held's argument that the Department lacked authority to impose the ignition interlock requirement without a court order and sustained Held's appeal, ordering the Department to restore Held's driving privilege without requiring installation of an ignition interlock device, subject only to the other provisions pertaining to restoration of driving privileges. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Department first contends that common pleas erred in failing to quash Held's appeal as untimely because he failed to appeal within 30 days of the notice of suspension and failed to establish circumstances warranting an appeal nunc pro tunc. In response, Held argues that pursuant to this court's decision in Watterson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), where the Department imposes the ignition interlock requirement absent a court order, the Department's action is void ab initio justifying equitable relief.
As we made clear in our recent en banc decision in Freedman v. Depa
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|