Click here to subscribe today or Login.
he law on installing ignition locks is made clearer by the high court.
By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@www.timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter
A Luzerne County prosecutor is applauding a state Supreme Court ruling that closes a legal loophole that could have let some repeat drunken drivers avoid installing an interlock ignition device in order to restore their driving privileges.
The high court’s ruling resolves a dispute regarding whether entry into a first-time offenders program constitutes a “conviction” that triggers a law requiring an offender to install an interlock ignition – a device that prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver’s breath reveals alcohol use.
In a ruling issued last week, the court overturned the decision of a Mercer County judge in the case of John Whalen, who had challenged a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation directive that required him to install the interlock ignition as a condition to get his driver’s license back.
First Assistant District Attorney Jeff Tokach said he’s not aware of any case in Luzerne County in which a driver has challenged the interlock law. He said he’s pleased by the Whalen ruling, which will have statewide impact, because it will help ensure repeat drunken drivers can’t circumvent a law designed to protect the public.
“The ruling is good because it requires an interlock ignition device for any person who already had a DUI,” Tokach said. “That will hopefully prevent people who are intoxicated from having the ability to operate a vehicle.”
At issue was a civil law that requires any driver who has had two or more drunken driving convictions within a 10-year period to install an interlock device in order to restore driving privileges.
Whalen was charged with drunken driving, his second offense, in 2007. The criminal case was resolved in 2009 after he entered into Mercer County’s Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program. The program allows a defendant to have their record expunged if they successfully complete a term of probation.
Whalen argued he was not subject to the interlock ignition law because, technically, he was not “convicted” of drunken driving in the 2009 case because it was resolved through the ARD program. A Mercer County judge agreed. That ruling was later upheld by the state Commonwealth Court.
In overturning those rulings, the Supreme Court acknowledged that acceptance of an ARD is not considered a conviction. The court noted that an ARD has been found to be the equivalent to a conviction under certain circumstances, however, including for purposes of computing sentences for subsequent convictions.
The court determined a person who enters into the ARD program has acknowledged they committed the crime, regardless of whether it technically constitutes a conviction, by virtue of their acceptance of the terms of the ARD program. They would not accept those terms, the court reasoned, if they did not acknowledge they committed the offense.