 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Richardson v. Commonwealth11/17/2004
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court) that sustained the statutory appeal of David A. Richardson, Jr. from the requirement that he install ignition interlock devices on all vehicles that he owns before his operating privileges may be restored. The Department imposed the requirement under the act commonly known as the Ignition Interlock Law (Interlock Law), former Sections 7001-7003 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001-7003,*fn1 following Richardson's one-year suspension under Section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(3). We affirm.
Richardson was charged with violating former Section 3731 of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. §3731 (driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance (DUI)),*fn2 on September 7, 1999 and was placed into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program. On August 21, 2001, Richardson was again convicted of committing a DUI offense on December 11, 2000. The sentencing judge did not, however, order Richardson to install an approved ignition interlock device under former Section 7002(b) of the Interlock Law, 42 Pa. C.S. §7002(b).*fn3 On October 24, 2001, the Department notified Richardson that as a result of his August 21, 2001 DUI conviction, his operating privilege was suspended for one year effective September 25, 2002, that he must install approved ignition interlock devices on all vehicles he owned to restore his operating privilege after serving the suspension period, and that upon his failure to do so, his operating privilege would remain suspended for an additional year.
Richardson filed a timely appeal, contending that the court had the sole authority to impose the ignition interlock requirement under Section 7002(b) of the Law, and because the trial court did not impose such requirement in the sentencing order, the Department had no authority to do so in the suspension notice.
After a de novo hearing, at which the Department presented a packet of certified documents showing Richardson's DUI convictions and driving record, the trial court sustained Richardson's appeal from the ignition interlock installation requirement imposed in the suspension notice, relying on Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), appeal discontinued (No. 20 MAP 2004, filed March 31, 2004). In Schneider, this Court held that the courts have the sole authority under former Section 7002(b) of the Interlock Law to impose the ignition interlock requirement, rejecting the Department's contention that it has independent authority to impose the requirement, regardless of whether the sentencing court complied with former Section 7002(b) of the Interlock Law. The Department's appeal to this Court followed.*fn4
On appeal, the Department argues that (1) the trial court erred by not requiring that Richardson "obtain" an ignition interlock restricted operator's license as a condition of restoration of his operating privilege; and (2) this Court should reconsider and reverse Alexander v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 822 A.2d 92 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), appeal granted, ___ Pa. ___, 849 A.2d 1129 (2004).
First, the Department does not raise any argument with respect to the trial court's actual disposition of Richardson's statutory appeal. Rather, it argues that the trial court, in its order, should have taken the additional step of requiring that Richardson obtain an ignition interlock restricted operator's license as a condition of restoration of his operating privilege.
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|