Com. v. Myers, N.
1464 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- On December 22, 2014, Officer Hicks stopped Nicholas Myers after observing him drive the wrong way on a one-way street; record checks showed an interlock-restricted license suspended effective July 8, 2014.
- Myers was charged with illegally operating a motor vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock (75 Pa.C.S. § 3808(a)(1)) and driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked, second offense (75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b)(1)); a wrong-way count was dismissed.
- Following a non-jury trial on September 1, 2015, the trial court convicted Myers of both counts and sentenced him to an aggregate 45–90 days’ incarceration and $500 in fines/costs.
- Myers appealed, arguing the underlying statutes violate a constitutional right to operate a vehicle on public highways; trial court authored a Rule 1925(a) opinion rejecting that claim.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous; the Superior Court conducted independent review, affirmed the judgment, and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3808 and § 1543 violate a constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle on public highways (and related equal protection claims) | Myers: statutes infringe his constitutional right to operate a vehicle on public highways and may raise equal protection concerns | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: there is no constitutional right to drive; driving is a state-regulated privilege; classifications affect non-suspect classes and are rationally related to public safety | Court: No constitutional right to drive exists; statutes regulate a privilege and survive rational-basis/equal protection review; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders requirements for counsel seeking withdrawal on appeal)
- Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979) (legislation protecting highway safety from intoxicated drivers permissible under rational basis)
- Probst v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 849 A.2d 1135 (Pa. 2004) (statute requiring ignition interlock or further suspension survives equal protection challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Jenner, 681 A.2d 1266 (Pa. 1996) (§ 1543(b) application withstands equal protection scrutiny)
- Commonwealth v. Mudd, 907 A.2d 1048 (Pa. 2006) (operation of motor vehicle is a privilege subject to state regulation)