header image
Home arrow DUI News arrow Commonwealth Court discusses ignition interlock
Commonwealth Court discusses ignition interlock PDF Print E-mail
The Commonwealth Court issued a decision dealing with when ignition interlock (a "blow and go") has to be imposed as part of getting your license back. 

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. 

Back
Newsflash
In a decision issued on April 25, 2008, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that an investigatory stop of a car with a loud muffler was permitted where the investigating officer did not have any of the required, specialized training necessary to issue a noise citation for faulty exhaust. During the stop, the driver was arrested for DUI. No muffler violation was ever filed. This decision essentially validates a form of pretext stops in Pennsylvania. The full text of the case can be found here. The dissent raises serious and legitimate concerns about the potential for abuse that this decision permits.