 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schwartz v. Commonwealth5/22/2002
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court) which sustained the appeal of Richard J. Schwartz (Licensee) 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. We affirm.
An ignition interlock system is defined in 42 Pa. C.S. §7001 as " system approved by the department that prevents a vehicle from being started or operated unless the operator first provides a breath sample indicating that the operator has an alcohol level of less than .025%." Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(a), "where a person has been convicted for a first offense under [Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended,] 75 Pa. C.S. § 3731, (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance), the court may order the installation of an approved ignition interlock system on each motor vehicle owned by the person to be effective upon the restoration of operating privileges by the department." Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b), "where a person has been convicted of a second or subsequent violation of 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, the court shall order the installation of an approved ignition interlock device on each motor vehicle owed by the person to be effective upon the restoration of operating privileges by the department."
On April 18, 2001, Licensee was convicted of violating Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code for driving under the influence on December 18, 2000. By notice dated May 31, 2001, the Department informed Licensee that his operating privilege would be suspended for a period of one year due to his April 18, 2001 conviction. The notice also informed Licensee that his operating privilege would not be restored until all vehicles that he owned were equipped by an ignition interlock system. The notice further informed Licensee that if he failed to so equip all vehicles he owned, his operating privilege would remain suspended for an additional year.
Licensee appealed to the trial court challenging the imposition of the ignition interlock system. Licensee contended that the Department was without authority to order Licensee to install such a device. At a de novo hearing, the Department introduced into evidence a packet of documents, including a copy of Licensee's certified driving history which showed that Licensee had been convicted on March 4, 1980 for driving under the influence on September 18, 1979.
On October 9, 2001, the trial court entered an order sustaining Licensee's appeal. The trial court first found that the Department's requirement of the installation of the ignition interlock system as a pre-condition of restoration of a licensee's operating privilege was tantamount to a suspension. Therefore, the trial court found that it had jurisdiction under Section 1550 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1550, to review the Department's action. The trial court then found that under Act 63 of 2000, 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001 - 7003, only courts of common pleas have the discretion to impose the ignition interlock system requirement on first offenders and that, at the time Licensee was sentenced on April 18, 2001, the court did not order the installation of the ignition interlock device. The trial court rescinded the Department's requirement that Licensee equip all vehicles that he owns with an approved ignition interlock system because he was never ordered to do so by the trial court. The Department now appeals to this Court.
On appeal, the Department argues that (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Licensee's challenge to
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|