Case ID: a3d_10/html/0900-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John K. WHALEN, Respondent v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Petitioner.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Dec. 22, 2010.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of December 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Does [Licensee’s] acceptance of ARD for his second DUI charge establish a DUI violation and thereby trigger the statutory ignition-interlock requirement where: the general assembly and the courts have consistently treated the acceptance of ARD for a DUI charge as an adjudication mandating the imposition of suspensions or revocations, even where the language of the statute required conviction; and the statute at issue here only requires a violation and suspension in order to require installation of an ignition interlock as a condition of license restoration?