 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kampmeier v. Commonwealth6/21/2005
Michael K. Kampmeier (Licensee) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (Trial Court) which denied Licensee's appeal from a one-year suspension of his operating privilege by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT). We affirm.
The following facts were found by the Trial Court during the proceedings below, and are not in dispute in the instant appeal. Licensee was cited in the state of New Jersey for driving while intoxicated (DWI) on May 10, 2003, and was convicted for that offense in New Jersey on March 25, 2004. Licensee had no prior convictions for DWI in any state.
Thereafter, on May 18, 2004, DOT notified Licensee that his operating privilege had been 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 (Compact), 75 Pa.C.S. §1581. Licensee timely appealed the suspension to the Trial Court, which subsequently held a trial de novo.
The Trial Court denied Licensee's appeal, and upheld the suspension, by order dated December 7, 2004. Licensee now appeals to this Court from the Trial Court's order.
Licensee argues that the Compact requires DOT to apply the Pennsylvania driving under the influence statute (DUI) that was in effect on the date of Licensee's New Jersey DWI conviction, which statute became effective on February 1, 2004, and which did not authorize a suspension for a first time DUI offender. Licensee further asserts that the Trial Court erred in concluding that DOT's suspension was proper pursuant to the Pennsylvania DUI statute in effect on the date that Licensee was cited in New Jersey, which statute did authorize a one-year suspension. We disagree, on the basis that this issue has already been decided by this Court in a recent decision.
It is axiomatic that, under Article IV of the Compact, a conviction for DWI in New Jersey is to be given the same effect as it would have if a DUI had occurred in Pennsylvania for purposes of an operating privilege suspension. Lepko v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 873 A.2d 47 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). In Lepko, we addressed an issue substantially similar to the instant one, in which the applicability of Pennsylvania's former DUI statute was addressed in relation to the applicability of the current DUI statute, for purposes of applying the Compact to a New Jersey citation and subsequent conviction for DWI. We adopted the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court in our decision in Lepko, which succinctly stated:
The terms of the [Compact], contained in 75 Pa.C.S. §1581 et seq., control when a Pennsylvania driver is convicted of DUI in another state that has legally joined the Compact. Specifically, Article IV of the Compact reads as follows:
Effect of Conviction
(a) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for:
(2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle;
New Jersey is a party state to the Compact. See N.J.S.A. §39:5D-1 et seq. Thus, a conviction for DWI in New Jersey is to be given "the same effect" as it would have if a DUI had occurred in Pennsylvania for purposes of license suspension.
Penn
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|