32 A.3d 677
Pa.2011Background
- Appellee was arrested for DUI in Florida in 1997 and convicted in 1998.
- In 2007 he was arrested for DUI in Pennsylvania and entered ARD in 2009 after a court determined Florida DUI did not preclude ARD.
- ARD releaseance suspended his license for 60 days starting January 16, 2009, as part of ARD terms.
- Department required ignition interlock on all owned vehicles as a condition of license restoration under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3805.
- Trial court held ARD did not constitute a DUI violation and thus ignition interlock was improper; Commonwealth Court affirmed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding ARD acceptance can constitute a violation of § 3802 for purposes of § 3805.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ARD acceptance for a second DUI trigger ignition interlock? | Whalen: ARD is not a conviction, but ARD satisfies 'prior offense' and 'violation' text. | Department: ARD acceptance is not a violation; requires a conviction to trigger § 3805. | Yes; ARD acceptance can constitute a § 3802 violation for § 3805 ignition interlock. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 575 Pa. 5, 834 A.2d 488 (Pa. 2003) (ignition interlock statute context and ARD considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Lutz, 508 Pa.297, 495 A.2d 928 (Pa. 1985) (ARD as rehabilitation tool rather than a conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Pleger, 934 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (ARD as a conviction-like consideration for sentencing purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Krall, 434 A.2d 99 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981) (ARD as rehabilitation mechanism prior to conviction)
- Alexander v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 880 A.2d 552 (Pa. 2003) (purpose of ignition interlock as public safety measure)
- McGrory v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 915 A.2d 1155 (Pa. 2007) (statutory interpretation framework)