John Thomas Linkosky v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, Appellant
No. 98 C.D. 2019
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
December 5, 2019
HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
Submitted: October 18, 2019
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: December 5, 2019
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (Department), Bureau of Driver Licensing (Bureau), appeals from the January 17, 2019 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) sustaining
In a previous ruling, this Court set forth the underlying facts of the instant matter as follows:
On October 16, 2018, Licensee, a licensed driver in Pennsylvania, pled guilty in Ohio to a violation of
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.19 (relating to driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs). As a result of his guilty plea, Licensee‘s Ohio operating privilege was suspended for a period of 12 months, with credit awarded to him from June 30, 2018. On October 4, 2018, prior to entering the guilty plea in Ohio, Licensee applied for the renewal of his Pennsylvania driver‘s license. The Department granted Licensee‘s renewal application and issued him a temporary internet driver‘s license. The temporary internet driver‘s license was valid from October 4, 2018, to October 18, 2018, and the accompanying instructions advised that Licensee would receive a camera card in the mail within 10 days. Upon receipt of the camera card, Licensee was to take the camera card to any Department Photo License Center, have a new picture taken, and receive a renewed photo license.Licensee received a camera card from the Department, but later misplaced it, and on December 4, 2018, sought a replacement card. By notice mailed December 11, 2018, the Department informed Licensee that it was unable to issue him a new camera card because as of December 4, 2018, the National Driver Register (NDR) showed his operating privilege was suspended in Ohio. Pursuant to
Section 1503(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code , the Department may not renew the driver‘s license of any person “[w]hose operating privilege is suspended or revoked in this or any other state.”75 Pa.C.S. § 1503(a)(1) . Licensee appealed the Department‘s notice to the [trial court].The trial court held a hearing on January 17, 2019, and sustained Licensee‘s appeal that same day. The trial court ordered the Department to furnish Licensee a duplicate camera card and, upon his presentation of that camera card at a Department Photo License Center, issue him a renewed photo driver‘s license. The Department appealed the trial court‘s January 17, 2019 order, triggering an automatic supersedeas in its favor pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1736(b) .Pa. R.A.P. 1736(b) (the taking of appeal by the Commonwealth shall operate as a supersedeas in favor of such party, which continues through any proceedings in the United States Supreme Court). Licensee then filed an application to vacate the automatic supersedeas in the trial court. By order dated February 14, 2019, the trial court granted Licensee‘s application and vacated the automatic supersedeas.
Linkosky v. Dep‘t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 98 C.D. 2019, filed March 5, 2019) (March 5, 2019 Decision), slip op. at 1-3 (internal record citations and footnotes omitted). The Department petitioned this Court to reinstate the automatic supersedeas, which petition this Court denied by order filed March 5, 2019. Id. at 9 & Order. The Department‘s appeal of the trial court‘s January 17, 2019 order sustaining Licensee‘s appeal now comes before this Court for determination.1
If a learner‘s permit or driver‘s license issued under the provisions of this chapter is mutilated, lost, stolen, destroyed or becomes illegible, the person to whom it was issued, upon furnishing proof satisfactory to the department that the license or permit has been mutilated, lost, stolen, destroyed, or has become illegible, shall obtain a duplicate or substitute license or permit upon payment of the required fee.
Additionally, prior to issuing driver‘s licenses, Federal law requires the Department to “submit an inquiry to both the NDR and the Commercial Driver‘s License Information System for each driver license applicant before issuing a license to that applicant.”
As this Court stated in the March 5, 2019 Decision, “the statute, [F]ederal regulation, and precedent upon which the Department relies is only persuasive if this Court agrees with the Department‘s initial characterization of Licensee‘s December 4, 2018 request, i.e., that such request constituted a second application for driver‘s license renewal.” March 5, 2019 Decision at 7. We do not.
In the instant matter, the Department issued Licensee a driver‘s license in the form of a temporary internet license on October 4, 2018, prior to the suspension of his license in Ohio, which did not occur until 12 days later on October 16, 2018.3 Thus, as of October 4, 2018, Licensee was a properly licensed Pennsylvania driver who needed only to follow the appropriate process to trade in his temporary license - his camera card - for a permanent photo license.4 Therefore, at that point, the only statutorily required process necessary for Licensee to receive a duplicate license was for Licensee to furnish satisfactory proof of the loss of his license and pay the appropriate fee to receive a duplicate license.5 See
Further, Licensee‘s request for a duplicate license renewal camera card did not trigger the NDR inquiry required by Federal regulations. At the time he sought a duplicate license renewal camera card, Licensee was a duly licensed driver in the Commonwealth. His duplicate application did not seek “a grant or extension of driving privileges” he did not already have.
While we acknowledge the Department‘s reliance on Haubert to argue the Federal regulation requirement applies to the instant matter,6 we find Haubert distinguishable because it concerned an original application for a Pennsylvania driver‘s license, which would have granted privileges, as opposed to an already licensed Pennsylvania driver merely seeking a duplicate of a lost license, as is the case in the instant matter. See Haubert. The same distinction is true for Flynn, which concerned a license
As stated, at the time he sought a duplicate license renewal camera card, Licensee was a duly-licensed driver in the Commonwealth. Therefore, once Licensee furnished an acceptable excuse for the loss of his license renewal camera card and paid the required replacement fee, the Bureau should have provided Licensee with a duplicate.
For the above reasons, we affirm the trial court‘s order.
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
John Thomas Linkosky v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, Appellant
No. 98 C.D. 2019
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2019, the January 17, 2019 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is AFFIRMED.
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
Notes
We recognize that, by virtue of Licensee‘s driving privilege in Ohio having been reinstated as of June 30, 2019, upon the completion of the suspension of his driving privilege in that State, Licensee is once again eligible for a renewal or reissuance of a Pennsylvania driver‘s license regardless of an NDR check. Accordingly, the instant matter is now technically moot. However, because this scenario, although unlikely, is capable of repetition and may evade future review due to the brief time frames involved, this Court will now review and decide the matter, its mootness notwithstanding. See Harris.