H.E. Ferguson v. Bureau of Driver Licensing
123 C.D. 2021
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 22, 2021Background
- In 2012 Licensee was arrested for 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) (DUI, general impairment) and accepted into ARD, which he completed, resulting in dismissal of the prior charge.
- In July 2020 Licensee pleaded guilty to another § 3802(a)(1) DUI; DOT mailed a notice suspending his driving privileges for 12 months as a repeat offender under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(e)(2)(i).
- Licensee appealed the administrative suspension to the Cumberland County Common Pleas Court; after a hearing the trial court denied the appeal (Jan. 21, 2021). Licensee appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
- Licensee relied on Commonwealth v. Chichkin, arguing that prior ARD acceptance is not a conviction and therefore cannot be used to treat him as a repeat DUI offender for license-suspension purposes (substantive and procedural due process claim).
- DOT argued Chichkin applies only to criminal sentencing enhancements, not to civil license suspensions, and produced certified court records showing the prior ARD and the later conviction; Licensee presented no clear-and-convincing evidence to rebut those records.
Issues
| Issue | Licensee's Argument | DOT's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using a prior ARD-DUI as a “prior offense” to impose a 12-month civil license suspension violates substantive and procedural due process | ARD is not a conviction; using it to classify Licensee as a repeat offender (and impose suspension) is unconstitutional under Chichkin | Chichkin invalidated using ARD to enhance criminal punishment only; license suspensions are civil collateral consequences and ARD may be considered for suspension purposes | Court affirmed suspension: Chichkin applies to criminal sentencing only and does not invalidate Section 3806(a) for civil suspension purposes; DOT met its prima facie case and Licensee failed to rebut it by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959 (Pa. Super. 2020) (ARD cannot be treated as a conviction for purposes of criminal sentence enhancement; facts increasing punishment must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Diveglia v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 220 A.3d 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (interprets § 3804(e)(2)(iii) and the limited role of "prior offense" in license-suspension exceptions)
- Brewster v. Dep’t of Transp., 503 A.2d 497 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (license suspensions are civil collateral consequences and ARD acceptance may be considered in administrative suspension proceedings)
- Spagnoletti v. Dep’t of Transp., 90 A.3d 759 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (DOT must produce certified conviction records to establish a prima facie case for suspension; inquiry is whether conviction exists and law was followed)
- Glidden v. Dep’t of Transp., 962 A.2d 9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (official record of conviction is essential to meet DOT’s prima facie burden)
- Mateskovich v. Dep’t of Transp., 755 A.2d 100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (licensee must rebut conviction record by clear and convincing evidence)