Sondergaard v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
2012 WL 7008701
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Sondergaard held a CDL since March 24, 2000.
- Bureau notified on August 17, 2011 that his first DUI prompted a one-year CDL disqualification and a second DUI prompted a life disqualification under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1611(c).
- Sondergaard appealed to the trial court, arguing life disqualification requires the offense to occur while operating a commercial vehicle.
- Trial Court found §1611(a) ambiguous and applied the rule of lenity, concluding the offenses did not trigger lifetime disqualification because they occurred while operating a non-commercial vehicle.
- Bureau appealed to the Commonwealth Court seeking reversal and enforcing lifetime disqualification.
- Court held that §1611(a) and (c) are explicit and that the lifetime disqualification applies to CDL holders committing the disqualifying offenses regardless of the vehicle operated at the time of the offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the lifetime disqualification under §1611(c) conditional on the offense occurring while operating a commercial vehicle? | Sondergaard argues offenses while driving non-commercial do not trigger life disqualification. | Bureau argues §1611(a) applies to all CDL holders for DUI offenses, regardless of vehicle type. | No; §1611(c) applies regardless of vehicle type; offenses from separate incidents trigger life disqualification. |
| Should the rule of lenity apply to interpret §1611(a)/(c) as penal and ambiguous? | Lenity should apply if statute is penal and ambiguous. | Language is explicit; no ambiguity; lenity not applicable. | Lenity does not control; statute is explicit and unambiguous as to life disqualification. |
| Is §1611(a) remedial or penal in the lifetime context, given its impact on a CDL holder’s profession? | Treat as remedial; applies broadly to safeguard road safety. | In lifetime form, the sanction is penal in nature. | In the lifetime context, the provision takes on a penal character and applies to CDL holders regardless of vehicle at offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 931 A.2d 104 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (reiterates remedial aim of the Act; distinguishes one-year vs. lifetime disqualification in context of purposes)
- Whalen v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 32 A.3d 677 (Pa.2011) (analyzes statutory construction factors when interpreting DUI-related licensure terms)
- Johnson v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 59 A.3d 10 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (en banc; discusses protected property interest in practicing a profession and public licensure)