Case Title: Siekierda v. Dept of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-28-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT JOHN W. SIEKIERDA, Appellee v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 172 MAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 2772 C.D. 2001 dated May 22, 2002 affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County at No. 99-02018 dated November 21, 2001. 798 A.2d 840 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002) ARGUED: April 7, 2003 CONCURRING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY Decided: October 20, 2004 I join the instant Majority Opinion despite my continued belief that this Court is required to adhere to the rules of statutory construction when interpreting Article III of the Drivers License Compact of 1961, 75 Pa.C.S. §1581.1 Specifically, the rules of statutory construction provide that when the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the statute is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). In my view, the Majority’s analysis disregards this principle. However, 1 See Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. McCafferty, 758 A.2d 1155, 1165 (Pa. 2000) (Cappy, J., concurring and dissenting). [J-128-2003] - 2 as was the case in Harrington v. Commonwealth, Deptartment of Transportation, 763 A.2d 386, 394 (Pa. 2000) (Cappy, J., concurring), I recognize that the rationale adopted by the Majority Opinion in McCafferty, namely that certain reporting requirements of Article III of the Driver's License Compact need not be strictly complied with in order to meet the requisites of due process, is stare decisis and compels my joinder in this appeal.