 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Minnich v. Commonwealth5/13/2005
Ronald B. Minnich (Licensee) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County denying his appeal from the one-year suspension of his operating privileges imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT), pursuant to Sections 3731 and 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code and the Driver's License Compact (Compact).
The facts in this case are not in dispute. Licensee was arrested in New Jersey on December 19, 2003, for operating a motor vehicle while driving under the influence (DUI). On March 16, 2004, he was convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in New Jersey for violating N.J.S.A. § 39:4-50(a) (relating to DUI). This was Licensee's first conviction for DUI. In May of 2004 PennDOT notified Licensee that his driving privileges were being suspended for one year, pursuant to Sections 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code and 1581 of the Compact, as a result of the out-of-state conviction.
Licensee filed a timely appeal of the suspension. After a hearing, the trial court denied his appeal and reinstated the suspension. Licensee now appeals to this Court.
On appeal, Licensee argues that reinstatement of his suspension was improper because the Act of September 30, 2003, P.L. 120, commonly referred to as Act 24, amended sections of the Vehicle Code, and PennDOT no longer has authority to suspend his driving privileges for a first-time DUI offense that occurred in another state prior to Act 24's effective date, which was February 1, 2004. Under Section 3804(e)(2)(iii) of the Vehicle Code, as amended by Act 24, PennDOT may no longer suspend the license of a driver convicted of DUI if that driver has no prior offense. 75 Pa. C.S. § 3804(e)(2)(iii).
Act IV of the Compact, "Effect of Conviction," provides:
(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 ... to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle;
75 Pa. C.S. § 1581(a)(2) (emphasis added). Section 1586 of the Compact, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1586, requires that PennDOT treat an out-of-state DUI offense as "substantially similar" to that described in Section 3802 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 3802.
The central inquiry issue here is whether the trial court properly suspended Licensee's driving privileges under the law as it existed prior to Act 24, or whether the court should have applied the provisions of Act 24. Licensee argues that his date of conviction, (which occurred after the effective date of Act 24), determines which version of the law applies. However, the trial court concluded that the date of the offense, (which occurred prior to the effective date of Act 24), applies and, therefore, Licensee's suspension was proper under the DUI law as it existed prior to Act 24. The court focused on the language of Section 21(5)(i) of Act 24 which refers to an "offense" committed before February 1, 2004. The court did not refer to the date of conviction because it found that it was the date that the offense was committed that determined the applicable law. (Trial Ct. Op. at 3.)
We note that the trial court's opinion is consistent with our recent holding in Lepko v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1556 C.D. 2004, filed April 26, 2005) (en banc). The facts in Lepko, moreover,
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|