 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Commonwealth3/24/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) sustaining Leon M. Miller's (Licensee) appeal from the Department's requirement that he install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles owned by him before his operating privilege could be restored.
On May 19, 2001, Licensee was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (DUI) in violation of Section 3731(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731(a). He was convicted of that offense on July 18, 2002. At the time of his conviction, Licensee's record showed three prior violations of Section 3731(a), but the trial court did not order that he install an ignition interlock system on his motor vehicle as required by Section 7002 of the Ignition Interlock Device Act (Interlock Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §7002.
On September 10, 2002, the Department sent an "Official Notice of Suspension" to Licensee informing him that as a result of his conviction on July 18, 2002, his operating privilege was being suspended for a period of one year pursuant to Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(3).
Licensee was further notified that following the completion of the one-year suspension, he would be obligated to equip his vehicles with the ignition interlock system based upon his previous DUI convictions, and that failure to comply with that requirement would result in an additional one-year suspension of his operating privilege. The notice also informed Licensee that he had the right to appeal the action to the trial court within 30 days of the letter's mailing date, i.e., September 10, 2002. Licensee did not file an appeal within that time frame.
On December 17, 2002, the Department sent Licensee a "Restoration Requirements Letter" outlining the steps that he would have to follow in order to have his operating privilege restored once he had completed his suspension. One of the requirements set forth in that letter was the requirement that he equip all his motor vehicles with approved ignition interlock systems. On July 16, 2003, Licensee filed a nunc pro tunc petition with the trial court, challenging the December 17, 2002 letter.
At the hearing, the Department presented documentary evidence and moved to quash Licensee's appeal as untimely because Licensee failed to appeal within 30 days of the mailing date of the "Official Notice of Suspension." The trial court entered an order on August 4, 2003, sustaining Licensee's appeal and striking the requirement that he install ignition interlock systems on his motor vehicles based on our decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (holding that the department does not have independent authority to order the installation of interlock devices). The Department appeals from this order.
The Department argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Licensee's appeal because he never appealed from the official notice of suspension. Under Section 1550(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1550(a), any person may appeal a suspension of his or her license to the court of common pleas. That section carries with it a 30 day time limit - i.e., a licensee who wishes to appeal a suspension of his or her license must appeal within 30 days from the date of the official notice of suspension. See 42 Pa. C.S. §5571.
Henning v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 687 A.2d 20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Where a licensee fails to appeal from the date of the official notice of suspension, a t
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|