 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McBride v. Commonwealth6/21/2005
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed this Court's earlier memorandum decision and order in this matter on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Siekierda v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ Pa. ___, 860 A.2d 76 (2004). The Supreme Court then granted in part a petition for reargument filed by Michael McBride and remanded for such further proceedings as this Court deems appropriate. Although the Department of Transportation (DOT) was the appellant originally, on remand McBride is proceeding in the nature of the appellant.
On remand McBride questions (1) whether a party who fails to raise an issue in the statement of questions presented or who fails to develop it in argument has abandoned and waived that issue such that the party is precluded from relying upon a change in law relating to the issue; (2) whether DOT may suspend a driver's license based on the Driver's License Compact (Compact), Sections 1581 through 1586 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §§1581 - 1586, where a foreign state's statute requires only impairment "to any degree whatsoever" and hence is not substantially similar to any offense set forth in the Compact; and (3) whether the decision in Folsom v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 771 A.2d 118 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), was wrongly decided and should be overturned. In Folsom the Court applied Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1586, to eliminate any distinction between Maine's Operating Under the Influence statute and the Compact.
In September 2001 DOT notified McBride that it had received notice from Maine of his conviction on June 8, 2001 for an August 30, 2000 offense that DOT described as similar to violating former Section 3731 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, driving under the influence (DUI), and that DOT would suspend his driving privileges for one year. McBride filed a statutory appeal with Court of Common Pleas of Chester County. DOT presented Exhibit C-1, consisting of a packet of materials including a copy of a notice to McBride by the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles of a court-ordered suspension; an abstract of a court record of violation of the motor vehicle law indicating violation of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 29, §2411 (Operating Under the Influence); and a copy of a notice of suspension by a Superior Court judge to McBride. DOT certified that it received these items from the licensing authority of Maine, although the documents did not indicate on their face that they were sent from the licensing authority and they were not accompanied by an out-of-state-driver violation report from the licensing authority.
The trial court ruled upon three issues. First, the court rejected a constitutional challenge to the application of the Compact at all, noting that the appellate courts consistently had held that imposing driver's license suspensions in Pennsylvania for conduct elsewhere under the Compact is constitutional. Next the trial court rejected McBride's contention that the Maine statute was not "substantially similar" to the offense of driving under the influence in Article IV(a)(2) of the Compact. The court stated that the same argument concerning the Maine statute was rejected by this Court in Folsom. Finally, the court stated that it was constrained to agree with McBride that the documents supposedly originating from the State of Maine had not adequately been shown to have originated with the licensing authority of that state, as required by Article III. The court sustained McBride's appeal and set aside his suspension based upon the holding in Tripson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 773 A.2d 195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), that in very
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|