 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rinaldi v. Commonwealth11/5/2004
The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (PennDOT) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (trial court) sustaining the appeal of Leslie A. Rinaldi (Licensee) from the requirement that she install ignition interlock devices on all her vehicles before restoration of her operating privilege. PennDOT required installation of the interlock devices pursuant to what is commonly referred to as the Ignition Interlock Device Act (Act), 42 Pa. C.S. §§7001-03.*fn2 Because we determine Licensee's appeal was untimely, we vacate and remand with direction to quash.
Licensee was accepted into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program following an October 1993 arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 47a. She was convicted of a second DUI offense in November 2002. Id. She was convicted of a third DUI offense in March 2003. Id. In each case the sentencing court failed to order Licensee to install ignition interlock devices on her vehicles.
In December 2002, PennDOT sent Licensee an Official Notice of Suspension, stating her operating privilege was suspended for one year and, as a condition of restoration of her operating privilege, she would be required to install interlock devices on all her vehicles. R.R. at 32a-35a. This suspension was a result of Licensee's second DUI conviction. R.R. at 32a. Licensee did not appeal from this Notice within the required 30-day period.
In January 2003, PennDOT sent License a Restoration Requirements Letter, again noting she needed to install ignition interlock devices on all her vehicles before her operating privilege would be restored. R.R. at 12a-14a.
In April 2003, PennDOT sent Licensee another Official Notice of Suspension, again noting a one-year suspension and an interlock requirement. R.R. at 28a-30a. This suspension was a result of Licensee's third DUI conviction. R.R. at 28a. Licensee did not appeal from this Notice within the required 30-day period.
In October 2003, Licensee appealed from the January 2003 Restoration Requirements Letter. In her Petition for Appeal, Licensee argued the Restoration Requirements Letter was insufficient to notify her that installing ignition interlock devices was mandatory. R.R. at 5a. Licensee also argued PennDOT could not require ignition interlock devices because the trial court did not order them and because she only had one DUI conviction after the effective date of the Act.*fn3 Id.
The trial court held a hearing at which both parties were represented. Licensee attended the hearing but did not testify except under very brief questioning from the trial court about her current employment. R.R. at 21a. Although PennDOT argued Licensee's appeal should be quashed as untimely, the trial court relied on our decision in Watterson v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 816 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) to hold it was permitted to hear the merits of Licensee's case despite its untimely filing. R.R. at 63a. The trial court then relied on this Court's decision in Schneider v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) and our Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 575 Pa. 5, 834 A.2d 488 (2003) to find PennDOT without independent authority to order installation of ignition interlock devices when the sentencing court did not order them. R.R. at 62a-63a.
PennDOT appealed to this Court*fn4 , arguing: 1) the trial court erred in not quashing Licensee's appeal as untimely; and 2) it was authorized to order ignition interlock devices because Licensee had three DUI convictions. Because we find the timeliness issue dispositive, we need not address PennDOT's
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|