COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. Elaine M. McCAFFERTY, Steven Hirsh, Benjamin Mather, Gregory Joseph Skalicky, James J. Greer, George Allen, Michael Proud, Douglas Byer, Brian Walsh, David McIntyre, Phong Hoang Nguyen, Jose Cotto, Walter H. Blatz, Charles Boris, William Tindal, Wayne Zimmerman, Louis Heebner, Michael J. Hofferica, Ronald Ziajka, John Wooten, Daniel Mallon, and Stewart Scott, Appellees.
unknown
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Argued Feb. 1, 1999. Decided Sept. 28, 2000.
758 A.2d 1155
Martin B. Katz, for P. Ngyen.
B. David Marcial, Philadelphia, for J. Cotto.
Bruce Wolf, Caraopolis, for W. Blatz.
George Twardy, Jr., Philadelphia, for J. Wooten.
James J. Greer, Pro Se.
William Tindal, Pro Se.
Elaine M. McCafferty, Pro Se.
Charles Boris, Pro Se.
Michael W. Cassidy, Huntingdon Valley, for Douglas Byer.
Vincent W. Furlong, for G. Skalicky.
Charles G. Nistico, Media, for S. Hirsh.
Donald M. Preminger, Philadelphia, for M. Hofferica.
Paul J. Hetznecker, Philadelphia, for B. Mather.
Ely Goldin, Media, for G. Allen.
Thomas P. Pfender, for M. Proud.
Richard K. Doty, Philadelphia, for B. Walsh.
Daniel L. Dolfman, for L. Heebner.
Wayne A. Zimmerman, Pro Se.
Stewart B. Scott, Pro Se.
Daniel G. Mallon, Pro Se.
Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.
OPINION
CASTILLE, Justice.
This matter comes before this Court pursuant to
The facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. On December 10, 1996, Governor Thomas Ridge signed Act 1996-149 into law, adding sections 1581 through 1585 to the Motor
Appellees, all of whom possessed valid Pennsylvania drivers’ licenses at the time, were convicted of DUI offenses in other states that are parties to the Compact. Appellee Mather was convicted in Ohio; appellee Byer was convicted in Florida; appellee Scott was convicted in Virginia; and the remaining appellees were convicted in New Jersey. Pursuant to their reporting obligations under Article III of the Compact, authorities in those states reported appellees’ DUI convictions to PennDOT. In accordance with the requirements of Article IV(1)(b) of the Compact, PennDOT treated appellees as if they had been convicted of violating
On December 31, 1997, after conducting de novo hearings, the trial court granted appellees’ statutory appeals and reversed the one-year suspensions imposed by PennDOT. Specifically, the trial court determined that the application of Article IV of the Compact to appellees violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the
Because the instant appeal presents this Court with pure questions of law, our scope of review is plenary and we are not bound by the trial court‘s conclusions of law. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Clayton, 546 Pa. 342, 346 n. 4, 684 A.2d 1060, 1062 n. 4 (1996). At the outset, appellee Steven Hirsh argues that there is no statutory authority for the license suspensions at issue.6 Be
First, Hirsh contends that there is no statutory authority to implement a suspension of a Pennsylvania license for an out-of-state offense that is the equivalent of § 3731(a) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code (relating to driving while under the influence). We disagree. The Compact, which is incorporated into the Motor Vehicle Code at
Article II
Definitions
As used in this compact:
*
*
*
*
*
*
(c) “Conviction” means a conviction of any offense related to the use or operation of a motor vehicle which is prohibited by state law and which conviction ... is required to be reported to the licensing authority.
Article III
Reports of Conviction
The licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee....
Article IV
Effect of Conviction
(a) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state in the case of convictions for:
*
*
*
*
*
*
(2) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If the laws of a party state do not provide for offenses or violations denominated or described in precisely the words employed in subdivision (a) of this article, such party state shall construe the denominations and descriptions appearing in subdivision (a) of this article as being applicable to and identifying those offenses or violations of a substantially similar nature and the laws of such party state shall contain such provisions as may be necessary to ensure that full force and effect is given to this article.
Thus, by the plain terms of the Compact, whenever a person licensed to drive in Pennsylvania is convicted in a party state of DUI, Pennsylvania is required to give the same effect to the out-of-state conduct as it would give to that conduct if it had occurred in Pennsylvania. PennDOT is required to suspend the license of any Pennsylvania licensee who is convicted of DUI.
Next, Hirsh argues in the alternative that his license should have been suspended, if at all, under Section 1581 of the Motor Vehicle Code (the provision incorporating the oper
Having concluded that we cannot affirm the Order of the trial court on the alternative statutory grounds proffered by appellee, we must now address whether the trial court erred in determining that the Compact was unconstitutional. Initially, we note that a statute is presumed to be constitutional and will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution. Commonwealth v. Hendrickson, 555 Pa. 277, 280-81, 724 A.2d 315, 317 (1999); Commonwealth v. Barud, 545 Pa. 297, 304, 681 A.2d 162, 165 (1996). Therefore, the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has a heavy burden of persuasion. Barud, supra.
PennDOT first contends that the trial court erred by determining that the imposition of one-year suspensions of appellees’ operating privileges violated the Double Jeopardy Clauses of both the
The states of the Union are considered separate and distinct sovereigns for double jeopardy purposes. The dual sovereignty doctrine compels the conclusion that successive prosecutions by two states for the same conduct are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Id. Thus, as long as appellees violated the sovereignty of Pennsylvania by driving with a valid Pennsylvania driver‘s license while under the influence of alcohol in another state, PennDOT may impose a separate sanction beyond that imposed by the other state without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The conduct of appellees here did in fact violate the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This Commonwealth granted appellees the privilege of driving, a privilege that permitted appellees to operate their motor vehicles in our sister states without separate or additional licensure there. Along with that privilege comes a responsibility to abide by the rules of the road. This Commonwealth has a compelling interest in protecting our citizens, and even the citizens of our sister states, from the dangers posed by Pennsylvania-licensed intoxicated drivers. Occhibone v. Dept. of Transp., 542 Pa. 588, 592, 669 A.2d 326, 328 (1995) (citations omitted). This
Although the dual sovereignty principle set forth above precludes appellees from advancing a double jeopardy argument on federal or state constitutional grounds, appellees also argue that the additional sanction imposed by the Commonwealth in this case violates statutory double jeopardy principles incorporated in
§ 111. When prosecution barred by former prosecution in another jurisdiction.
When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this Commonwealth and of the United States or another state, a prosecution in any such jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in this Commonwealth under the following circumstances:
(1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for the same offense) and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct ... [exceptions not applicable].
In order to find that the additional sanction imposed on appellees by Pennsylvania authorities violated
In Commonwealth v. Duffey, 536 Pa. 436, 639 A.2d 1174 (1994), this Court held that license suspensions are collateral civil consequences rather than criminal penalties. Although that case involved a mandatory 90-day license suspension triggered by a criminal conviction for underage drinking in Pennsylvania, this Court, citing a number of other cases that reached the same conclusion in other circumstances, held that a difference in the circumstances that resulted in the license suspension did not alter the nature of the suspension. Id. at 440-41, 639 A.2d at 1176 (citing Commonwealth v. Englert, 311 Pa.Super. 78, 457 A.2d 121 (1983) (suspension imposed following a conviction for failing to stop at the scene of an accident constituted a civil collateral consequence) and Brophy v. Department of Transportation, 94 Pa. Commw. 310, 503 A.2d 1010 (1986) (operating privilege suspension as a habitual offender constitutes a collateral civil consequence of acceptance of ARD on the underlying offense) (other citations omitted)).
In reaching this conclusion, the Duffey Court noted that “[a] consequence is civil in nature where, ‘imposition has been
PennDOT further contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the imposition of a separate license suspension by Pennsylvania authorities violates the
PennDOT‘s final argument is that the trial court erred in concluding that the imposition of a separate license suspension by Pennsylvania authorities in these cases violates procedural due process.10 Decisions of the United States Supreme Court have made it clear that a person‘s interest in his driver‘s license is “property,” which a State may not revoke or suspend without satisfying the due process guarantee of the
The trial court concluded that the official Pennsylvania driving records certified by PennDOT in these cases were deficient because they stated that appellees were convicted for violations of
Furthermore, nothing in PennDOT‘s certified records resulted in PennDOT‘s decision to suspend appellees’ licenses; to the contrary, the record of suspension is the result of that ministerial determination. If appellees wish to challenge the accuracy of their driving records on the grounds that it is not clear from the records that the suspensions were based on out-of-state convictions, they may do so under
Appellee Hirsh also argues that N.J.S. § 39:4-50(a), the New Jersey DUI provision that he violated, is not “equivalent
Finally, appellee Hirsh suggests that the report of his conviction provided by New Jersey to PennDOT in his case did not strictly comply with New Jersey‘s obligation under Article III of the Compact.12 To the extent that appellee attempts to raise a separate claim relating to the non-compliant report, he has failed to include it in his Statement of Questions Involved and has not developed it as a separate argument. Accordingly, the claim is waived. Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Nonetheless, because the trial court opinion indicates its belief that the Compact must be strictly enforced, PennDOT has addressed the question, and because the concurring and dissenting opinion addresses the question, we will discuss it briefly.
Appellee Hirsh merely argues that the lack of specific details regarding the conduct underlying the conviction in New Jersey makes it impossible to determine whether that
Finally, Article III is clearly mandatory for a party state reporting a conviction within its jurisdiction. Article III therefore imposes an obligation on PennDOT only when it is the state reporting the conduct, not when it is the home state.13 It does not prohibit PennDOT, as the licensing authority in the home state, from relying on the information contained in the report even if the report lacks certain information specified in Article III. Nor does anything in Article III render the New Jersey report of conviction inadmissible if
In sum, under the Compact, PennDOT properly suspended the licenses of appellees in this matter. The trial court erred by concluding that the provisions of the Compact, as enacted in
Justice CAPPY files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice FLAHERTY and Justice ZAPPALA join.
I concur in the result reached in the disposition of this case with regard to one appellee, Douglas C. Byer, for reasons stated herein. However, I respectfully dissent with regard to the remainder of appellees, since I am unable to accept the majority‘s analysis of Article III, which ignores the rules of statutory construction.
Initially, I must point out that I am perplexed by the majority‘s conclusion that this issue was waived since appellee failed to present it in the Statement of Questions Involved. Slip opinion at 13-14. PennDOT, as appellant, raised this issue in its Statement of the Questions Involved and discussed it at length in its brief to this court. Appellant‘s Brief at 3, 37-40. PennDOT does not allege that the trial court acted improperly in reviewing this issue or that appellee failed to preserve this issue for our review, but rather addresses the merits of this issue. Thus, at the very least, PennDOT waived any argument that appellee‘s failure to raise the issue to this court did not preserve it. For these reasons, I simply cannot see how this issue is waived. Thus, I believe that our court can properly review it.
The majority approves PennDOT‘s lack of compliance with Article III on the basis that the details omitted from the report would not have shed light on the conduct underlying appellee‘s conviction. However, this conclusion ignores the fact that the requirements of Article III are mandatory. Based upon the rules of statutory construction, I would conclude that before PennDOT can suspend a license based on an out-of-state conviction report pursuant to Article IV, it must ensure that the report, which provides the foundation for the suspension, complies with the requirements of Article III.
Article IV of the Compact gives PennDOT the power to revoke, suspend, or limit the license to operate a motor vehicle on the basis of an out-of-state conviction that is reported pursuant to Article III.
Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted, describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated, identify the court in which action was taken, indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond or other security and shall include any special findings made in connection therewith.
Id. Thus, when Article III and Article IV are read together, it is clear that PennDOT is revoking, suspending or limiting the operating licenses on the basis of the out-of-state reports that are submitted to PennDOT pursuant to Article III.
Appellee asserts that the requirements of Article III must be strictly followed because of the detrimental consequence, i.e., the suspension of a driver‘s license, that the out-of-state conviction reports have on a Pennsylvania operator.1 Conversely, PennDOT acknowledges that the reports submitted to it by the party states do not comply with Article III of the Compact, but argues that, for purposes of Article III, “shall” should be construed as directory instead of mandatory, and thus, the subsequent license suspensions based on the incomplete conviction reports were proper.2 Thus, this issue is distilled to whether “shall” for purposes of Article III is mandatory or directory.
Contrary to the urgings of PennDOT and the conclusion of the majority opinion, I cannot agree that “shall” is intended to be merely directory in the instant case. The rules of statutory construction provide that the plain meaning of statutes are not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.
I similarly reject the majority‘s suggestion that PennDOT must only comply with the requirements of Article III when PennDOT is reporting the conduct to other states. Slip opinion at 16. Once more, the majority seems to be examining the intent of the legislature rather than the plain language of the statute. Article III does not direct that only the home state must comply with the requirements. Indeed, that section begins by enumerating what the “licensing authority of a party state” must report. (Emphasis added). If the legislature intended that this requirement would only apply to PennDOT‘s reports submitted to party states, it could have clarified this intent by changing “party state” to “home state.” While I am fully cognizant of the fact that PennDOT does not control the information contained in the conviction reports submitted to it by a party state, PennDOT is clearly the entity in a better position than either licensees or courts to ensure that the information submitted by the party state is complete.
Chief Justice FLAHERTY and Justice ZAPPALA join this concurring and dissenting opinion.