The issue was whether a plea treating a second offense as a first offense (a "second - first") can be used to avoid the ignition interlock requirement for second offenders.

A driver reached an agreement with a local district attorney that a DUI offense would be treated as a first offense, even though the driver had a prior offense within the last ten years. When PennDOT required the driver to get an ignition interlock (a "blow and go") installed on his car, the driver appealed the decision by PennDOT. Following an administrative hearing, the case was appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

The Commonwealth Court ruled that the agreement between the driver and the district attorney for sentencing purposes had no binding effect upon the licensing case, which was a civil matter. In addition, PennDOT's position was supported by the DUI statute and case law. The driver was treated by PennDOT as a second offender, and the Commonwealth Court agreed that this was the proper result.