 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stair v. Commonwealth5/18/2005
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Driver Licensing, appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County that sustained that part of licensee's appeal of the Department's order suspending his operating privileges directing licensee that, upon completion of his term of suspension, he must apply for and be issued an interlock restricted driver's license. The former Act essentially provided that, where a person is convicted of driving under the influence and has a previous conviction, or had entered into an ARD resolution in lieu of prosecution, the driver must apply to the Department for an interlock restricted license, requiring the licensee to install ignition interlock devices on his vehicles. The Department contends that the trial court erred in concluding that a conviction arising before the effective date of the former Ignition Interlock Device Act, such as occurred in this case, cannot be considered under the Act as a previous conviction.
The facts indicate that on January 3, 2000, licensee was charged with driving under the influence in violation of former Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731(a). Licensee entered an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) with regard to that charge. Licensee was arrested and charged on April 28, 2002 with violating former Section 3731(a)(1) and (a)(4)(i) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §§3731(a)(1) and (a)(4)(i). Licensee was convicted of that charge on February 11, 2004, and the trial court presiding over that proceeding also entered an order under former Section 7002(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §7002(b), directing that licensee was subject to the then-applicable interlock provisions requiring the installation of an ignition device upon the restoration of his driving privileges.
The Department notified licensee that as a result of his February 11, 2004 conviction, it was suspending his operating privileges for one year, effective on the date of conviction, and also informed licensee that, before it could restore his privilege at the end of the suspension period, he was required to have all vehicles he owns equipped with an ignition interlock device. Licensee appealed that order to the common pleas court, which as noted above, concluded that, in accordance with a binding decision of this court, Alexander v. Department of Transportation, 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), it could not count licensee's first charge, which resulted in ARD, toward the two-conviction requirement for applying the Act.
In Alexander, this Court held that the Bureau could not retroactively apply the Act. The Court noted that " he effective date of the provision of the Ignition Interlock Law imposed on Alexander was September 30, 2000, and his conviction on September 5, 2001 was the first recorded after the effective date." Id. at 94. The Court opined that the law against retroactive application of legislation precluded such retroactivity where the "conviction would clearly have a legal effect different from that which it had under the law in effect when he was convicted." Id.
In this case, licensee's first conviction, the ARD, occurred on April 18, 2000, a date before the effective date of the Act. The Department's only argument in this case is that the Court wrongly decided Alexander. The Department has not argued that any aspect of this case is distinguishable from the facts in Alexander. While we understand the Department's interest in preserving issues for appeal, we will not here reconsider our conclusion in Alexander, but await the Supreme Court's evaluation
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|