McCann v. Commonwealth5/12/2005
Thomas Joseph McCann, III (Licensee) appeals from the September 14, 2004, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court), denying Licensee's appeal from the one-year suspension of his operating privileges imposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) pursuant to sections 1532(b)(3) and 3731 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(3) & §3731, and the Driver's License Compact (Compact), 75 Pa. C.S. §1581. We affirm.
The facts here are not in dispute. On October 12, 2003, Licensee was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in the State of New Jersey, and, on January 20, 2004, Licensee was convicted there. This was Licensee's first DWI offense in any state. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Services notified DOT of Licensee's conviction via letter postmarked February 2, 2004. On March 22, 2004, DOT notified Licensee that his driving privileges were being suspended pursuant to the Compact, as a result of his out-of-state conviction because Licensee's New Jersey violation was substantially similar to a violation of section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731.
Licensee appealed his suspension to the trial court, which, following a hearing on the matter, issued an order denying Licensee's appeal and reinstating the previously imposed license suspension. Licensee now appeals to this court.
Licensee argues that the Compact requires DOT to apply the Pennsylvania DUI statute in effect on March 22, 2004, the time DOT received notice of Licensee's out-of-state conviction, because it is only after DOT is notified of the conviction that it can determine what effect the conviction would have in the Commonwealth. Assuming this premise, Licensee contends that the trial court should have applied section 3804(e)(2)(iii) of the act commonly referred to as Act 24, 75 Pa. C.S. §3804(e)(2)(iii), which became effective on February 1, 2004, before DOT received notice of Licensee's conviction. According to Licensee, because Act 24 no longer authorizes suspensions of driving privileges for first-time, out-of-state DWI offenses, DOT may not suspend Licensee's driving privileges. We disagree.
In Lepko v. Commonwealth Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1556 C.D. 2004, filed April 26, 2005), we considered a similar argument and held that it is the date of a licensee's offense for DWI in another state that controls the suspension provisions of the Vehicle Code. Our reasoning, which we adopted from the trial court opinion, was based on the fact that " llowing the date of the suspension letter or the date of conviction to determine which version of the DUI law applied would ... produce disparate and unjust results for similarly situated drivers" because of the possibility that drivers who were arrested for the same offense on the same date could have different dates of conviction and notification. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v. Lepko (No. 04-1387-30-6, filed August 19, 2004), slip op. at 3. Because Act 24 went into effect on February 1, 2004, after the licensee committed the offense, we held that licensee's driving privileges were properly suspended under the Commonwealth's old DUI law, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, not Act 24. Lepko.
Here, Licensee drove under the influence and was arrested for DWI in the State of New Jersey on October 12, 2003, when 75 Pa. C.S. §3731, was in effect. Thus, applying Lepko, we conclude that there was no bar to DOT's suspension of Licensee's driving privileges pursuant to that section of the Vehicle Code, notwithstanding that Licensee was a first-time, out-of-state DWI offender.
<
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|