Tag Archives: DUI

MONUMENTAL DECISION – Federal Court Rules It’s Unconstitutional to Strip Second Amendment Rights as a Result of a Second DUI

Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince and attorney Adam Kraut secured a major victory for Second Amendment jurisprudence in Holloway v. Sessions, et al., 1:17-CV-00081, where Chief Judge Christopher Connor of the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled in a 21 page memorandum that it was unconstitutional as-applied to Mr. Holloway to preclude him in perpetuity from exercising his Second Amendment rights as a result of a 2005 DUI.

Specifically, after finding that DUI is a non-violent offense and calling the Defendants out in footnote 7 for their erroneous contention that “[f]orty-six states punish DUIs as felonies on a first or subsequent conviction,” the Court found that “[t]he government has not shown consensus regarding the seriousness of a generic second DUI offense, let alone a second DUI offense at a high rate of alcohol.” Thereafter, the Court went on to hold that “[a]fter a careful weighing of the Binderup factors, the court concludes that Holloway’s crime was not a ‘serious offense’ within the ambit of Section 922(g)(1).”

In turning to the second prong of Binderup, the Court held

The government has not satisfied its burden of proving that disarmament of Holloway, and other individuals like him, will promote public safety. It relies heavily on an expert report to support the proposition that individuals like Holloway “are substantially more likely to intentionally use firearms to harm others, inflict self-harm, and cause inadvertent harm. The expert report states that individuals with alcohol dependency or
abuse are more prone to violence and cites one study that suggests just over 50 percent of DUI offenders were alcohol dependent. (Doc. 61-4 at 4-5 & n.8). It further notes that alcohol abuse is often comorbid with mental illness and is strongly linked with domestic violence, youth violence, violent crime, and road rage. (Id. at 6-7). But nothing in the record suggests that Holloway was ever diagnosed with or suffered from alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, or mental illness. Moreover, the report acknowledges that “it is not possible to determine with certainty whether these associations are causal.” (Id. at 6).

The Court then goes on to hold that “[t]he government has not demonstrated a substantial fit between Holloway’s continued disarmament and the important government interest of preventing armed mayhem.”

As such, the Court concludes:

Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Holloway. Holloway’s disqualifying conviction was not sufficiently serious to warrant deprivation of his Second Amendment rights, and disarmament of individuals such as Holloway is not sufficiently tailored to further the government’s compelling interest of preventing armed mayhem. The court will grant summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and permanent injunctive relief to Holloway.

The accompanying Order declares:

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 58) for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and defendants’ motion (Doc. 60) to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 58) for summary judgment is GRANTED.
2. Defendants’ motion (Doc. 60) to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED.

3. It is ORDERED and DECLARED that the felon-in-possession ban of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff Raymond Holloway, Jr. (“Holloway”) in violation of the Second Amendment to
the United States Constitution. Defendants, together with all those acting in concert with them, are ENJOINED from enforcing, directing enforcement, or permitting enforcement of the felon-in-possession ban of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) against Holloway.
4. The Clerk of Court shall enter declaratory judgment in Holloway’s favor on his Second Amendment claim, brought pursuant to Binderup v. Attorney General, 836 F.3d 336, 339 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied 137 S. Ct. 2323 (2017), challenging the felon-in-possession ban of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as applied to him, said judgment to be entered in accordance with paragraph 3.
5. The Clerk of Court shall thereafter close this case.

 

If your constitutional rights have been denied by the U.S. Government, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

 


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

1 Comment

Filed under ATF, Constitutional Law, Firearms Law

US Supreme Court Decision Affects Firearms Rights – Ability to Obtain Relief from Certain DUIs!

On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that case of Birchfield v. North Dakota, 14-1468, in which the Court held that while implied consent laws relative to driving under the influence (DUI) may impose civil penalties, it is unconstitutional for them to impose criminal penalties for refusing to consent.

Specifically, as the Syllabus to the decision declares:

Motorists may not be criminally punished for refusing to submit to a blood test based on legally implied consent to submit to them. It is one thing to approve implied-consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply, but quite another for a State to insist upon an intrusive blood test and then to impose criminal penalties on refusal to submit. There must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads. Pg 36-37

So how does this affect your firearm rights?

Under Pennsylvania law, if an individual refuses his/her consent relative to a second (or third) DUI, the criminal grading becomes a misdemeanor of the 1st degree, which is federally prohibiting for purposes of purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition. I previously blogged about a similar situation in Pennsylvania, when the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided Musau. Unfortunately, as a result of the Superior Court’s decision, the General Assembly amended the statute, so that anyone who refused consent on a second (or third) DUI would be penalized by a misdemeanor of the first degree, instead of an ungraded misdemeanor (which would not be prohibiting under state or federal law).

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield, those individuals in Pennsylvania who have been convicted or pled guilty to a misdemeanor of the first degree as a result of a second (or third) DUI, due to their refusal to consent, have been subjected to an unlawful sentence and have a limited opportunity to file for relief under Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).

Therefore, if you or a family member were convicted of a second or third DUI, where you refused to submit to chemical testing, contact us immediately, as you have the ability to petition the court to have your conviction properly reflect the grading as an ungraded misdemeanor, which would not trigger a state or federal firearms disability.

As Federal Firearms Relief is not currently available and the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons does not with any frequency grant pardons to those who have been convicted of repeat offenses, this may be your ONLY extremely limited opportunity to obtain relief!

Contact Us Today to Discuss YOUR Rights and How We Can Restore Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms – info@princelaw.com or 888-313-0416

3 Comments

Filed under Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

PA Supreme Court Decision in Musau Affects Firearms Rights – Ability to Obtain Relief from Certain DUIs!

I previously blogged about the Monumental Firearms Law related Decision from the Superior Court in relation to DUI. In Commonwealth v. Musau, 2013 PA Super 159, the Superior Court held that an individual who, during a first or second DUI, refused to provide blood or breath testing, could only be punished by a maximum of six (6) months in jail, although it is graded as a misdemeanor of the 1st degree. As the maximum sentence that could be imposed was six months, although graded as a misdemeanor of the 1st degree, such a conviction would not trigger the federal disability, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922.

While the Commonwealth filed a Petition for Review with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding the Superior Court’s decision in Musau, which was docketed at 510 EAL 2013, the General Assembly acted and amended the law, which was signed by former Governor Corbett on October 27, 2014. As a result, SB 1239 effectively changed section 3802, so that the maximum sentence that can be imposed upon an individual who, during a first or second DUI, refuses to provide blood or breath testing, is five years, which consistent with most misdemeanors of the first degree.

BUT, the PA Supreme Court took no action on the appeal of the Superior Court’s decision in Musau. That is until June 10, 2015, when the Court DENIED the Commonwealth’s Petition for Review. This means that the Superior Court’s decision in Musau is still controlling.

Therefore, if you or a family member were convicted of a first or second DUI, where you/they refused to submit to chemical testing, you may have the ability to petition the court to have your conviction properly reflect the sentencing, which could not be punished by more than six (6) months and therefore would not trigger a state or federal firearms disability. Under the Post-Conviction Relief Act, time is LIMITED.

Contact Us Today to Discuss YOUR Rights – info@princelaw.com or 888-313-0416

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law

New DUI Law That Affects Firearms Rights

I previously blogged about the Monumental Firearms Law related Decision from the Superior Court in relation to DUI. In Commonwealth v. Musau, 2013 PA Super 159, the Superior Court held that an individual who, during a first or second DUI, refused to provide blood or breath testing, could only be punished by a maximum of six (6) months in jail, although it is graded as a misdemeanor of the 1st degree. As the maximum sentence that could be imposed was six months, although graded as a misdemeanor of the 1st degree, such a conviction would not trigger the federal disability, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922.

Today, Governor Corbett signed SB 1239, which effectively changed section 3802, so that the maximum sentence that can be imposed upon an individual who, during a first or second DUI, refuses to provide blood or breath testing, is five years, which consistent with most misdemeanors of the first degree. Accordingly, those individual who are now convicted under the amended DUI Code will be prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922 from possessing or purchasing a firearm, regardless of the sentence imposed.

Of course, there are constitutional questions of whether an individual’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be infringed in relation to non-violent misdemeanor crimes. If you have been convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor offense and wish to discuss what options you have to petition the federal courts or are facing a DUI related to a refusal to submit to chemical testing, contact us today.

6 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

DUI Courts – Proof second chances work & save the state money

I came across a recent article about the Blair county DUI court. This is something many of us in the criminal defense community have been arguing to get in every county for some time. Sure, many counties offer “ARD” or “IPP” or “STOP” programs, but those are primarily administered through the District Attorneys office of each county and usually have many restrictions that vary from county to county that can preclude a person from qualifying.  That in turn puts someone charged with a misdemeanor in the same place as someone charged with murder or rape.

Aside from the obvious benefits to the participants, these courts have proven to save a considerable amount of money versus sending someone to jail.  This needs to be at the forefront of the legislature.  The law differentiates between crimes – e.g. murder, rape, assault, DUI, etc., but all end up having the same punishment – jail.  We treat crimes differently, so it’s time to set up courts to handle the problems differently.

County DUI court a model for others
January 28, 2014
By Phil Ray (pray@altoonamirror.com) , The Altoona Mirror
HOLLIDAYSBURG – Montgomery County Judge Cheryl Austin is a Navy veteran, a former assistant district attorney and is in her third year on the bench.  “I’m always looking for a challenge,” she said last week when she led a group into the Blair County Courthouse and sat with Judge Daniel J. Milliron as he presided over the local DUI Court.  She called the experience “enlightening” and said she could understand how the court handling driving under the influence cases is “rewarding” for both the judge and the participants.  Judges Cheryl Austin and Daniel J. Milliron discuss DUI courts on Jan. 21. Austin said the local DUI court system is a great model for what she would like to see in Montgomery County.  For her, it was an opportunity to learn about Blair’s handling of repeat drunken driving offenders who, as Milliron said, have a “problem” with alcohol or drugs.  Austin’s latest challenge, she said, is to find a way to expedite the more than 2,500 DUIs that come through the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas annually.  The DUIs comprise about 25 percent of Montgomery County’s criminal caseload, and, as Blair once experienced, the county’s judges are concerned about drivers who get arrested for additional DUIs while awaiting for the disposition of their first offense.  Those drivers, as Blair found out just a few years ago, are not only a hazard on the roads, but the results can sometimes be fatal.  Milliron and Blair County President Judge Jolene G. Kopriva decided to focus on the problem by separating the cases of those arrested for DUI from the rest of the criminal caseload and to speed up the disposition of the cases, offering a variety of alternatives to jail, like the DUI Court or the Intermediate Punishment Program.  Montgomery County is following the same path. As of Jan. 1, Austin is receiving all of the county’s DUI cases, and her task is to improve the system.  It was suggested Austin visit with Milliron because over the past nine years, he and Kopriva have put together one of the most successful DUI programs in the state, according to P. Karen Blackburn, the specialty court administrator for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  It used to take 16 months or more for a DUI case to move through the Blair court system. That time has dropped to three or four months, Millliron said.  His DUI Court has become popular because it focuses on the most serious cases in which the accused have been arrested three or four times with high rates of alcohol, and, in more recent years, drugs.  These defendants in the normal system face a year in a State Correctional Institution. The DUI Court is their last stop before going “upstate,” as it’s called.  All of those in Milliron’s court do some jail time but much less time than would be the norm, and after jail, they wear a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring (SCRAM) device that reports their location and alcohol content.  They also receive inpatient and outpatient treatment, from agencies like Pyramid Healthcare in the Altoona area.  The treatment program depends on the needs of the defendant as determined by a treatment team.  Art Heinz, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, last year wrote an article in the newsletter of the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts discussing the Blair DUI Court.  “The wide-sweeping changes” in the way Blair handles DUIs has cut the average time between a DUI arrest and a plea from more than 16 months in 2006 to just three months in 2012, Heinz reported.  The number of those who have gone through the Milliron court is approaching 200. The participants go through three phases, each six months in length, and they must earn their way to the next phase.  In the first two phases, the individuals must appear before Milliron for a review every two weeks. When they graduate to Phase III, they must appear before him once a month.  Blackburn explained this past week that most DUI offenders have jobs, so it makes sense to treat them in the community and to keep them out of jail.  Putting them into a state correctional facility or the county prison is expensive, and a trip behind bars for a length of time can mean a loss of job and even a loss of family, which is exactly what Milliron does not want to see.  “I’m trying to change behavior,” Milliron said is his goal in an interview last week.  That’s the tough part – to convince an alcohol or drug abuser to “stay clean” and to get them to realize the responsibility they have to themselves and to others – he explained. “The responsibility of the DUI Court is not to look good or create statistics. The purpose is to make the roads safe and save lives,” Milliron said. A whirlwind of a court As Austin and Milliron took the bench in the county’s largest courtroom last week, it was cold and snowy outside, but inside the action was fast and intense. In a matter of less than an hour, Milliron called 24 participants before the bench, four panels of five and one panel of four persons. Some of the participants had done well the past couple of weeks and were given gift cards. Two men had done so well, they asked outright, “When do I go to Phase III?” Others had experienced relapse, which is part of trying to change behavior, Milliron explained. The holidays were a problem. It is a festive time – a time for some to celebrate in a way unacceptable in DUI Court. A tall, middle-aged man with gray hair was called forward by the judge. He was in an orange prison suit because he had relapsed. He tested “hot” for cocaine and alcohol, the judge was told. The judge used the case to emphasize a couple of points. The participant had not admitted that he relapsed, and Milliron said to him, “Truthfulness, accountability are the keys to the program.” He was in orange, the judge said, because he didn’t admit to what he did. The man fessed up, stating, “The cocaine, I take responsibility for.” The alcohol in his system, he believed, did not come from drinking but from cough medicine. As a sanction, Milliron delayed his graduation to Phase III, and he concluded, “You’ve got to quit hanging around the wrong people.” Then came a man wearing a sweatshirt that said, “Phillies.” He was a graduate of the DUI court who had relapsed. He was sent back to prison for two days and will now spend another 90 days in the program. He’ll be wearing a SCRAM device. He replied to the judge: “I deserve it. I’d rather learn now than end up where I was.” “The number of success stories is staggering,” Milliron said when interviewed. When someone graduates from the program, that person addresses others going through the process. Just two weeks ago, a woman told the other participants that entering the DUI program “was the most significant decision I ever made.” A male graduate said the program turned his life around. Milliron said a third graduate “looked like a different person.” That spirit of optimism was seen in others who stood before Milliron last week. A woman said she was beginning to think about graduate school. Another woman had done so well that Milliron said he would meet with her, prepare a resume with her and begin the process of helping her get her a job. For a young man named Brad, the day was not a good one. Milliron washed him out of the DUI program and sentenced him to 130 days in the county prison because, in the past 21 months, he relapsed five times despite outpatient treatment through Pyramid and inpatient treatment at a treatment facility in Eagleville, Centre County. According to the Blair County Parole and Probation Office, he “exhausted all resources available to him from the DUI Court program.” Milliron said the 26-year-old complained he only had one beer, but as the judge concluded, in his court, “One beer is a huge deal.” Despite the inmate’s failure to get through the DUI program, the judge insisted that he will stay in jail until he completes an in-prison drug and alcohol program. Moving forward Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney Bradford Richman, a former Philadelphia prosecutor, said four attorneys in his county are assigned to the DUI cases, and he said the new way to handle cases is just beginning. “Blair County is certainly a model,” he said. What type of program will be forged in Montgomery County remains to be seen. He said of the his view in Blair County, “It [the DUI Court] seems to be an excellent program driven by judges and other [very dedicated] people.” The next step will be to determine what parts may be workable in his county, which has a population of nearly 800,000 and a 23-judge court system, much larger than Blair’s five-judge system. Judge Austin said DUIs are a “major issue” in Montgomery County, and her first step will be to expedite cases. In the initial stages, her DUI Court will not focus on treatment. Milliron’s court receives grants from PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency and some federal funds, which help provide the treatment. Right now, Austin said, “I see it [DUIs] as a safety issue.” Milliron and Austin agreed that a key to Blair’s success has been the experience of the parole and probation officers and the employees of the Blair County Drug and Alcohol Program, a nonprofit agency that monitors the participants daily. Jennifer Ruffley, of the parole and probation department, has been with Blair’s program for eight years, and she simply said, “It works.” Yes, she said, there are relapses. “They are only human,” she said of the participants. Milliron, who has been a judge for 11 years, including nine as an elected judge, said his effort to have participants gain insight into themselves – “What motives behavior … The reason we do it [drink],” – takes a big part of his time as a judge. His program has a 3 percent recidivism rate or rearrest for DUI. He said, “Besides the people, it [the DUI Court] may be the only thing I miss when I’m gone.”

1 Comment

Filed under Criminal Law

OCCUPATIONAL LIMITED LICENSE (OLL) – What You Need to Know

Many people always ask when they have their driver’s license suspended if they can qualify for the Occupational Limited License (OLL), or more commonly called the bread and butter license since people use it to drive to and from work.
 
I pulled this fact sheet directly from PennDOT’s website in an effort to answer some common questions.
 
OCCUPATIONAL LIMITED LICENSE (OLL)

June 2013 FACT SHEET

Q: What is an Occupational Limited License?
A: An Occupational Limited License (OLL) is a limited driver’s license issued to a driver whose Pennsylvania driving privilege has been suspended. If your driving privilege has been revoked, disqualified, cancelled or recalled, you are not eligible for an OLL. If you have never been licensed by this or any other state, you are also ineligible to apply. An OLL authorizes driving a designated motor vehicle, under certain conditions, only when it is necessary for the driver’s occupation, work, trade, medical treatment or study.

Q: What types of suspensions are NOT eligible for an OLL?
A: If you are currently, or about to be suspended for any of these violations, you are not eligible for an OLL.

  • Passing a School Bus
  • Racing on Highways
  • Homicide by Vehicle
  • Fleeing a Police Officer
  • Driving Without Lights
  • Homicide by Vehicle/DUI
  • Reckless Driving
  • Accidents Involving Death or Injury
  • Accidents Involving Death or Injury while not properly licensed
  • Leaving Scene of an Accident Driving Under the Influence (possible exceptions see below)
  • Failure to Respond to a Citation
  • Driving while Suspended (possible exceptions see below)
  • Refusal to Submit to Chemical Testing (possible exceptions see below)
  • Unsatisfied Judgment as a result of a motor vehicle operation – (Unless judgment is satisfied or an agreement is made under 1772(b), 1774, or 1775)
  • Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility

  • Removal or falsification of identification number

  • Dealing in vehicles with removed or falsified numbers
  • Dealing in titles and plates for stolen vehicles
  • Application for certificates of title or registration
  • Altered, forged or counterfeit documents and plates
  • Unsatisfied Judgment as a result of a motor vehicle operation – (Unless judgment is satisfied or an agreement is made under 1772(b), 1774, or 1775)

  • Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility

  • Removal or falsification of identification number

  • Dealing in vehicles with removed or falsified numbers
  • Dealing in titles and plates for stolen vehicles
  • Application for certificates of title or registration
  • Altered, forged or counterfeit documents and plates

Q: Does a DUI violation qualify for an OLL?
A: A DUI conviction qualifies only if the violation is your first offense and given a one year suspension. However, the OLL cannot be issued until the 60 days have been served for the suspension of the DUI.

Q: Does a DUI violation which results in an 18 month suspension qualify for an OLL?

A: It qualifies only if you have no more than one prior DUI offense within the past ten years, have served 12 months of the 18 month suspension, have satisfied all restoration requirements and have the ignition interlock installed on your vehicle.

Q: Does a refusal to submit to chemical testing qualify for an OLL?

A: It qualifies only if it results in an 18 month suspension, have no more than one prior DUI offense within the past 10 years, have served 12 months of the 18 month suspension, have satisfied all restoration requirements and have the ignition interlock installed on your vehicle.

Q: Does an underage alcohol offense violation qualify for an OLL? A: You qualify only if the violation is your first offense.

Q: Does a driving while under suspension violation qualify for an OLL?
A: If your driving record shows that this suspension occurred only as a result of a prior indefinite suspension due to an unpaid citation or non-payment of a judgement, failure to attend a Departmental hearing or failure to undergo a Special Point Examination, you may be eligible. However, the OLL cannot be issued until three (3) months have been served for the suspension for driving while under suspension.

Q: Can a suspended CDL driver get an OLL?
A: Yes, you would be eligible for a non-commercial OLL only.

  • ARD Ordered Suspension for DUI
  • Controlled Substance, Drug, Device & Cosmetic Act Violations
  • Underage Alcohol Violations (possible exceptions see below)
  • Any Serious Traffic Offense (Chapter 37, Subchapter B)
  • Any Violations Relating to Accidents and Accident Reports (Chapter 37, Subchapter C)
  • Failure to take and pass a required examination

Q: What are the first things I must do in order to qualify?
A: If your suspension is in effect, you must surrender your driver’s license if you have not done so already. If your driver’s license has expired, you must submit an application for renewal, along with the appropriate fee. All fines, costs and restoration fees must be paid at the time of petition.

Q: Will I have enough time to apply and receive the OLL prior to my suspension date?
A: If the DL-15 form is received and approved prior to the effective date of your suspension, one of two things will happen:

  1. If the effective date of suspension is less than 15 days from the process date, the Department will delay the start of your suspension for 15 days and issue an interim license;

  2. If the effective date is greater than 15 days from the process date, the Department will not delay the suspension but will issue an interim license. The interim license provides you with a continuous driving privilege while the surrender of your regular driver’s license is used for the processing of your OLL.

    Note: Credit toward your suspension will begin upon the new effective date or after, if you delay in submitting your license to the Department.

Q: What is the cost?
A: A fee for applying for an OLL is $50.00 and is non-refundable.

Q: After I apply, what happens next?
A: Within 20 days of receiving your petition, the Department will inform you in writing whether or not you qualify for an OLL. If you qualify, you will receive an OLL camera card to obtain a photo OLL. You are to carry your photo OLL and DL-15A together at all times.

Q: When does my OLL expire?
A: The OLL is valid for the length of your suspension term. After your driving privilege has been restored, the Department will return your valid regular driver’s license.

Q: Can the OLL be extended?
A: Maybe, if you are given a suspension due to the result of a Departmental Hearing or if you were convicted of a point related violation which resulted in an “add on” suspension. The Department will notify you and send you the application to extend your OLL. (DL-31OLL)

Q: What happens if I commit a violation while driving on an OLL or if a violation is placed on your record after receiving the OLL?

A: If you are convicted of an offense for which the penalty is a cancellation, disqualification, recall, suspension, or revocation of your driving privilege, the Department will recall your OLL and you must surrender the OLL to the Department.

Q: Can I apply for any permit after my OLL has been issued to me?
A: No, you may apply for any permit upon restoration of your regular driving privileges.

Q: Can I get another OLL if I am suspended again?
A: You may be issued only one (1) OLL every five (5) years.

Q: Can I take any action in the event that my OLL is recalled or my request is denied?
A: Yes. You may file with the Department a petition for an Administrative Hearing accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee of $100.00. Additional information regarding this filing process will be provided upon request. “Hardship or extraordinary medical circumstances DO NOT qualify you to receive an OLL.”

Q: Where do I write to get further information about an OLL or get a petition (Form DL-15)? A: You may write to the following address:

PA Department of Transportation Bureau of Driver Licensing OLL/PL Unit
P.O. Box 68689

Harrisburg, PA 17106-8689

or visit the Driver Vehicle Services website at http://www.dmv.state.pa.us.

Note: You may submit one check or money order for all required fees made payable to: PennDOT

This Fact Sheet is for information purposes only and not a complete resource, all users of this Fact Sheet are advised to consult the Vehicle Code at Section 1553, 75 Pa. C.S. 1553, relating to Occupational Limited License.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Supreme Court Protects Rights and Requires States to Obtain Warrant in DUI Stops

On April 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that has implications throughout the country. The case, Missouri v. McNeely, was based on a motorist who was stopped on suspicion of drunk driving and arrested. McNeely refused to take a breath test, but was then taken to a local hospital for a blood test. The subsequent test revealed that he had a blood alcohol level of .15, and he was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
McNeely moved to have the evidence suppressed, claiming that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled that absent extraordinary circumstances, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before compelling a driver to submit to a blood test. It rejected the notion that officers must act freely (and without warrants) because valuable evidence (specifically alcohol in a driver’s blood) dissipates quickly. (A link to the decision is at the bottom of this post.)
Aside form the obvious benefits to individuals charged with DUI, there are even more protections the Court has inferred upon individuals. If the police take your blood or urine without obtaining a warrant and it is found that extraordinary conditions did not exist, the police may be liable to the individual in civil court for violations of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly referred to as “section 1983” . This law provides, “Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,…” In plain terms, an actor, working for the government is liable to the injured party when that actor deprived the individual of their rights.
Obviously, this change is important and every case or situation is different. If you or someone you know has been charged with a DUI/DWI, contact the Prince Law Firm immediately to protect your rights.

MISSOURI v. MCNEELY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
No. 11–1425. Argued January 9, 2013—Decided April 17, 2013

Leave a comment

Filed under Criminal Law