Phillips v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
80 A.3d 561
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Licensee (Phillips) pleaded guilty in New Jersey to DWI (N.J. Stat. § 39:4-50(a)) after a July 22, 2010 arrest; the NJ conviction was reported to Pennsylvania under the Driver’s License Compact.
- PennDOT sent a notice suspending Licensee’s PA driver’s license for one year under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(e)(2)(i), referencing an AAMVA A20 code and stating the NJ offense was similar to PA § 3802(a)(2).
- Licensee had a prior PA DUI-related disposition (2003) and therefore faced a one-year suspension for a subsequent out-of-state DUI.
- Licensee argued the Notice was defective because his NJ conviction was not based on a blood alcohol reading (breathalyzer produced “no reading”), so he could not have been convicted under the PA subsection cited (§ 3802(a)(2)).
- PennDOT argued the reference to § 3802(a)(2) was at most a typographical/immaterial error; the Compact only requires the out-of-state offense be substantially similar to PA § 3802, and Licensee received statutory and factual notice and a de novo hearing.
- The Trial Court denied Licensee’s appeal; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the Notice and proceedings satisfied due process and the Compact’s requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PennDOT’s Notice was defective because it referenced PA § 3802(a)(2) when Licensee’s NJ conviction lacked a BAC reading | The Notice was materially defective; Licensee could not have been convicted under § 3802(a)(2) absent a BAC reading, so the Notice misidentified an essential element | The misidentification was immaterial/typographical; Compact requires only that the out-of-state offense be substantially similar and Licensee received adequate notice and a de novo hearing | Held: Error was not material; suspension upheld because Compact/substantial-similarity rules govern and Licensee had sufficient notice and a hearing |
| Whether any defect in the out-of-state report limits PennDOT’s authority to act | Licensee implied the reporting/detail deficiency should invalidate the suspension | PennDOT: defects in a reporting state’s submission cannot be held against PennDOT under the Compact | Held: Compact bars holding reporting-state defects against PennDOT; suspension may proceed |
| Whether due process was denied by the Notice’s inaccuracy | Licensee claimed due process violated because he lacked adequate notice of the precise basis for suspension | PennDOT emphasized the Notice identified the Compact statute, suspension statute, dates, offense type, and appeal process; de novo hearing cured any defect | Held: No due process violation; notice was adequate and the de novo hearing cured any deficiency |
| Whether precise statutory subsection matters to suspension term/calculation | Licensee argued the subsection distinction could affect culpability/sanction | PennDOT pointed to statutory presumption and Compact guidance treating out-of-state DUI convictions as substantially similar and presuming § 3802(a)(2) for suspension calculation | Held: Subsection distinction irrelevant for suspension here; statutory scheme presumes comparability and supports one-year suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Meter v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 41 A.3d 901 (review scope for license-suspension appeals)
- McCafferty v. Department of Transportation, 758 A.2d 1155 (due process notice and plenary review on pure legal questions)
- Siekierda v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 860 A.2d 76 (Driver’s License Compact purpose and reporting rules)
- Harrington v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 763 A.2d 386 (notice need not follow formality; due process flexibility)
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (driver’s license as protected property interest requiring due process)
- Crooks v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 768 A.2d 1106 (adequacy of notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Sutton v. Department of Transportation, 660 A.2d 46 (de novo hearing can cure notice defects)
- Hoenisch v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 785 A.2d 969 (Compact/substantial-similarity analysis)
- Scott v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 291 (NJ DWI provisions found substantially similar to PA law)