JOHN THOMAS LINKOSKY, Appellee v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellant
No. 16 WAP 2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
DECIDED: MARCH 25, 2021
SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. [J-89-2020] ARGUED: October 21, 2020
JUSTICE BAER
This appeal presents the issue of whether the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Department) erred by denying a licensee‘s application for a duplicate camera card after he lost the camera card and, by the time he sought its replacement, his operating privileges had been suspended in the State of Ohio for driving under the influence.1 For the reasons set forth herein, we hold that the Department did not err by denying the application for a duplicate camera card. Accordingly, we reverse the order
of the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the trial court‘s sustaining of the licensee‘s statutory appeal.
I. Background
The material facts of this case are undisputed. On October 4, 2018, Appellee John Thomas Linkosky applied for renewal of his Pennsylvania driver‘s license. The Department granted the renewal application and issued him a temporary internet driver‘s license, which was valid from October 4 to October 18, 2018. The accompanying instructions advised Linkosky that he would receive a camera card within ten days. The instructions further directed Linkosky to present the camera
On October 16, 2018, Linkosky pled guilty in Ohio to a violation of
At some point during October 2018, Linkosky received his camera card from the Department, but misplaced it. On December 4, 2018, nearly two months after his Ohio DUI conviction, Linkosky filed an application with the Department seeking a replacement camera card. By notice mailed December 11, 2018, the Department denied Linkosky‘s request, opining that as of the date of his application for a replacement camera card, the National Driver Register (NDR or Register) indicated that his operating privileges were
suspended in Ohio.3 The Department relied upon
On December 12, 2018, Linkosky filed a statutory appeal from the Department‘s denial of his application for a duplicate camera card. The trial court held a hearing on January 17, 2019, during which the aforementioned facts were established. Following the hearing, the common pleas court sustained Linkosky‘s appeal, and ordered the Department to provide Linkosky with a duplicate camera card and issue him a driver‘s license upon his presentation of the camera card at a photo license center.
The Department timely filed a notice of appeal. In the common pleas court‘s subsequently issued opinion, the court found that the Department incorrectly mischaracterized [Linkosky‘s] request for a duplicate or substitute camera card as a second request for license renewal. Trial Court Opinion, 4/25/2019, at 2-3. The court reasoned that this mischaracterization caused the Department to check the NDR, which it otherwise would not have done. Because Linkosky was not requesting renewal of his driving privileges, the common pleas court held that the Department erred by denying Linkosky‘s request for the duplicate camera card pursuant to Section 1503(a)(1), which prohibits the Department from issuing or renewing a driver‘s license of a person whose operating privilege has been suspended or revoked.
Instead, according to the common pleas court, the Department was required to issue Linkosky the duplicate camera card pursuant to Section 1513 of the Vehicle Code, which does not require the Department to check the Register before issuing a replacement license. Section 1513, entitled Duplicate and substitute drivers’ licenses and learners’ permits, provides:
(a) General rule. -- 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.
(b) Return of original. -- If a duplicate or substitute learner‘s permit or driver‘s license has been issued, any person who finds or otherwise obtains possession of the original shall return the original to the department.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the common pleas court‘s order. Linkosky v. Commonwealth, 222 A.3d 1213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). Initially, the court observed that the case was moot because Linkosky‘s driving privileges had been reinstated in Ohio as of June 30, 2019, and thus, he was eligible for a renewal of his Pennsylvania driver‘s license, regardless of a NDR check. Finding that the circumstances are capable of repetition, yet may evade review due to the brief timeframes involved in license suspension cases, the court reviewed the matter regardless of its mootness. Id. at 1215 n.1 (citing Harris v. Rendell, 982 A.2d 1030, 1036 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009), aff‘d, 992 A.2d 121 (Pa. 2010) (internal citations omitted) (holding that [i]t is within the court‘s discretion to
On the merits of the appeal, the Commonwealth Court viewed the Department‘s argument as equating Linkosky‘s request for a duplicate camera card with a second request for license renewal, and rejected such contention. Linkosky, 222 A.2d at 1216.
The court agreed with the common pleas court that the case was governed by Section 1513 of the Vehicle Code, which specifically addresses the issuance of substitute driver‘s licenses and does not require a Register inquiry, but only proof satisfactory to the [D]epartment that the license or permit has been mutilated, lost, stolen, destroyed, or has become illegible, and the payment of the required fee. Id. (citing
The Commonwealth Court recognized that, pursuant to a federal regulation, the Department is required 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. Id. (citing
The Commonwealth Court concluded, however, that the enumerated federal authority is persuasive only if the court agrees with the Department‘s initial characterization of [Linkosky‘s] December 4, 2018 request, i.e., that such request constituted a second application for driver‘s license renewal, a claim that the court rejected. Id. at 1217. The court reasoned that Linkosky‘s request for a duplicate camera card did not trigger a NDR inquiry because his request did not seek a grant or extension of driving privileges or the issuance of a license that Linkosky did not already possess. Id. On that basis, the Commonwealth Court distinguished the cases of Haubert, which
concerned an original application for a Pennsylvania driver‘s license that could have granted driving privileges, and Flynn, which involved a renewal application that could have extended driving privileges. Unlike those cases, the court opined, Linkosky was a duly-licensed driver in the Commonwealth seeking only a duplicate of a lost license. Id. at 1218. Thus, the Commonwealth Court held that the common pleas court did not commit an error of law or an abuse of discretion in sustaining Linkosky‘s appeal.
This Court granted allocatur to address the following issue:
Where Licensee‘s operating privilege was suspended in the State of Ohio when he applied for a duplicate Pennsylvania camera card (driver‘s license), did the Department of Transportation err in denying his application for the duplicate camera card in accordance with the requirements of
75 Pa.C.S. § 1503(a)(1) ?
Linkosky v. Commonwealth, 235 A.3d 1069 (Pa. 2020).
II. The Parties’ Arguments4
The Department contends that the Commonwealth Court‘s ruling, that it was required
In support of this contention, the Department relies on
The Department next observes that Section § 1503(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code precludes it from issuing or renewing a driver‘s license to an individual whose operating privileges are suspended or revoked. Similarly, it asserts, federal law, specifically
(b) State of inquiry function for driver licensing and driver improvement purposes.
(1)The chief driver licensing official of a participating State shall 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. The issuance of a license includes but is not limited to any original, renewal, temporary, or duplicate license that results in a grant or extension of driving privileges in a participating State.
Emphasizing that the issuance of a license for purposes of Register inquiry is not limited to the original grant or renewal of a license, but expressly includes the grant of a
temporary or duplicate license, the Department interprets
As it did in the lower courts, the Department acknowledges that no NDR inquiry would have been necessary if Linkosky had not lost his camera card, and instead presented the validly-issued camera card at a photo center after his Ohio operating
Contrary to the Commonwealth Court‘s holding, the Department contends, the issuance of a camera card, whether an original or duplicate, clearly results in a grant or extension driving privileges in this Commonwealth pursuant to
Further, the Department posits, the Commonwealth Court erroneously held that this matter was governed exclusively by consideration of Section 1513, relating to duplicate and substitute driver‘s licenses. Surely, the Department contends, the Pennsylvania General Assembly did not intend to violate federal law by mandating the grant of a duplicate license where the licensee‘s operating privileges were suspended or revoked in another state. The Department posits that Section 1513‘s language, directing
the grant of a duplicate license upon proof of loss of the license and payment of a fee, presumes that the licensee is not otherwise ineligible to receive the duplicate license.
In response, Linkosky does not dispute the Department‘s assertion that federal law requires an NDR inquiry in cases where a licensee requests the issuance of an original or renewed license. He argues, however, that this is not such a case because he sought only a duplicate camera card, as his renewal application had already been granted. He submits that the Department has cited no authority to support the proposition that a NDR inquiry must be performed prior to issuing a duplicate camera card.
Mirroring the Commonwealth Court‘s analysis, Linkosky contends that Section 1513 governs this matter and requires only proof satisfactory to the [D]epartment that the license or permit has been mutilated, lost, stolen, destroyed, or has become illegible, and payment of the required fee. Brief for Appellee at 5 (citing
Linkosky echoes the Commonwealth Court‘s sentiment that the federal law relied upon by the Department is relevant
privileges would have been granted or extended upon the issuance of a duplicate camera card because his renewal had already been granted. Linkosky further reiterates that if he had not lost the card, he could have obtained a photo driver‘s license after his operating privileges were suspended in Ohio without any NDR inquiry. Thus, Linkosky concludes, it is clear that the grant of an application for a duplicate camera card under the circumstances presented is not an act that results in a grant or extension of his driving privileges. Accordingly, he requests that we affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.
III. Analysis
Generally, an appellate court‘s standard of review in a driver licensing matter is to determine whether the factual findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion in reaching its decision. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Boucher, 691 A.2d 450, 453 (Pa. 1997). The issue presented by this appeal, i.e., whether the Department erred by denying Linkosky‘s application for a duplicate camera card, is a question of law as it requires us to interpret state and federal statutes and regulations. Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Shoul v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 173 A.3d 669, 676 n.7 (Pa. 2017).
When presented with matters of statutory interpretation, we are guided by the Statutory Construction Act,
effect to all of its provisions so that no provision is mere surplusage.
When the words of a statute are not explicit, the General Assembly‘s intent is to be ascertained by consulting a comprehensive list of specific factors set forth in
As set forth supra, Section 73.3(b)(1) of the Pennsylvania Code provides:
A qualified applicant for renewal, replacement or initial issuance of a driver‘s license shall receive a camera card which may be used to receive a photographic or valid without photo driver‘s license until the expiration date specified on the camera card. The camera card is valid as a driver‘s license for a period of 60 days from the date of validation by the Department.
This provision establishes that a camera card is, in fact, a driver‘s license to be utilized by the licensee for a temporary duration, up to sixty days, until the licensee presents the card at a photo license center to obtain a photographic driver‘s license. See also
To resolve this inquiry, we first elaborate on the nature and purpose of the NDR. The NDR is a division of the National Center for Statistics and Analysis under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The NDR maintains the computerized database known as the Problem Driver Pointer System, which contains data relating to individuals whose operating privileges have been suspended or revoked or who have been convicted
of serious traffic-related offenses. The NDR was established in 1982 by the enactment of
The enabling legislation directs the chief driver licensing official of each participating State to submit to the Secretary of Transportation a report for each individual who is denied a driver‘s license by that State; whose license is revoked, suspended, or canceled by that State; or who is convicted in that State of enumerated traffic
To determine whether this federal statute‘s mandate (that a participating State may not issue or renew a driver‘s license absent NDR inquiry) applies to Linkosky‘s request for the issuance of a temporary duplicate license such as the duplicate camera card, we look to Chapter III of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which details the federal statute‘s implementation by providing procedures for States to participate in the NDR.
Relevant here, as highlighted by the Department,
(1) The chief driver licensing official of a participating State shall 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. The issuance of a license includes but is not limited to any
original, renewal, temporary, or duplicate license that results in a grant or extension of driving privileges in a participating State.
(2) The chief driver licensing official of a participating State may submit inquiries for other driver licensing and driver improvement purposes.
This federal regulation, governing the inquiry functions of chief licensing officials for driver licensing purposes, directs such officials to inquire with the NDR before issuing an original driver‘s license, a renewed driver‘s license, a temporary driver‘s license, and a duplicate license that results in a grant or extension of driving privileges. See also
Further, we conclude that the issuance of a duplicate temporary license grants or extends driving privileges because without the issuance of the duplicate, the individual possesses no driver‘s license. That the Department had already granted Linkosky‘s renewal of his license at the time he requested the duplicate license is of no moment. It is the request for the duplicate temporary license that triggers the NDR inquiry under the express terms of
Accordingly, because Linkosky requested a duplicate temporary license in the form of a duplicate camera card, the Department had a duty to make an inquiry with the
Register prior to issuing the license
Our holding in this regard does not conflict with Section 1513 of the Vehicle Code, which, as noted, provides:
(a) General rule. — 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.
Linkosky and the lower courts interpret this provision as a mandatory requirement that once proof of loss is established and payment of a fee is remitted, the licensee has a statutory right to receive a duplicate camera license, and the Department has no discretion to deny a request for a duplicate based upon information obtained from an inquiry with the NDR. Respectfully, this proffered interpretation of Section 1513 is unpersuasive as it is not supported by the plain text of the provision itself. Notably, the General Assembly employed the term General rule to preface the directive that a licensee shall obtain a duplicate license upon proof of loss and payment of the required fee. This language makes clear that the enumerated directive is not without exception. To the contrary, adopting Linkosky‘s position would render such language ineffectual, as
it would allow for no circumstance where the Department could exercise discretion to deny a request for a duplicate license, regardless of what traffic-related events may have transpired involving the licensee since the license was renewed or issued, so long as the licensee demonstrated that the license was lost and the requisite payment remitted. It is clear that the General Assembly did not intend such a stringent result when it employed the General rule language in the statutory text.
We acknowledge that Section 1513 does not contemplate expressly that the Department deny a request for a duplicate license based upon information of a suspension or revocation of driving privileges in another state, as discovered upon inquiry with the NDR. The provision, however, in no way precludes the same, and the Department is obligated to abide by both state and federal law when rendering licensing decisions. Thus, the lower courts erred in holding that Section 1513 exclusively governs this matter and precludes the Department from checking the NDR in this circumstance. Instead, we agree with the Department that application of Section 1513‘s general rule, directing the grant of a duplicate license upon proof of loss and payment of a fee, presumes that the licensee is not otherwise ineligible to receive the duplicate license. Here, upon checking the NDR, the Department learned that Linkosky was not eligible to receive a duplicate license and, thus, properly denied his application on that basis.
It is for these reasons that we reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court,
Chief Justice Saylor and Justices Dougherty, Wecht and Mundy join the opinion.
Justice Donohue files a dissenting opinion in which Justice Todd joins.
[J-89-2020] - 16