 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carpenter v. Commonwealth6/17/2005
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (trial court). The trial court sustained David Wayne Carpenter's (Carpenter) appeal of PennDOT's imposition of an ignition interlock requirement when Carpenter's driving privileges are restored. We affirm.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are undisputed. Carpenter was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (DUI) under Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code (Code). Reproduced Record (R.R.) 6a. After his 2004 conviction, PennDOT informed Carpenter that it was suspending his driving privilege for one year. R.R. 6a. PennDOT's suspension notice also informed Carpenter that in order to restore his driving privilege after suspension he must install ignition interlock devices on all his vehicles. R.R. 7a. Carpenter appealed to the trial court, contesting only imposition of the ignition interlock requirement. He did not contest the one-year suspension of his operating privilege.
The trial court conducted a de novo hearing. Without objection, the trial court admitted PennDOT's exhibit of Carpenter's driving record. R.R. 11a. In addition to showing Carpenter's 2004 DUI conviction, the exhibit revealed Carpenter's 1990 and 1997 DUI convictions. R.R. 26a, 24a.
Before the trial court, PennDOT conceded Alexander v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 822 A.2d 92 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 578 Pa. 29, 849 A.2d 1129 (2004), is the lead case. R.R. 13a. In Alexander, this Court decided more than one DUI conviction must occur after the effective date of the act popularly called the Ignition Interlock Device Act (former Act) before its mandatory provisions may be imposed.
The trial court found Carpenter's previous DUI convictions predated the effective date of the former Act. R.R. 36a. Relying on Alexander, the trial court sustained Carpenter's appeal. Id.
In its appeal here, PennDOT raises two issues. First, PennDOT asks that we reverse the trial court to the extent its Order permits restoration of Carpenter's operating privilege after his suspension without requiring him to obtain an interlock restricted license. Second, PennDOT maintains Alexander was wrongly decided and urges that the case be overruled.
The Court recently decided a case that controls the outcome here, Beck v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Diver Licensing, 868 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), petition for allowance of appeal pending, No. 251 MAL 2005. In that case, as in this case, the licensee had two DUI convictions predating the former Act, and one after the effective date of the former Act. PennDOT conceded that the licensee was not required to install ignition interlock devices on all vehicles he owned. PennDOT maintained, however, that the licensee was required to obtain an interlock restricted license. This Court disagreed, holding the former Act's mandatory requirements, including the restricted license requirement, only applied where multiple DUI convictions occurred after the effective date of the former Act.
Such is Carpenter's situation. The trial court found Carpenter's first two DUI offenses predated the Act. Under the currently controlling cases, PennDOT cannot require Carpenter to obtain an ignition interlock restricted license upon restoration of his driving privilege.
As to the second issue, PennDOT maintains Alexander was wrongly decided and should be overruled by the Court en banc. As in Beck, we decline this invitation. Beck, 868 A.2d at 1289, n. 5. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
AND N
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|