IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert R. Ribnicky :

:

: No. 541 C.D. 2019

v. :

: Submitted: October 11, 2019

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Driver Licensing, :

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: January 21, 2020

The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) 

appeals from the April 18, 2019 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland 

County (trial court) directing DOT to issue a duplicate driver’s license to Robert 

Ribnicky (Licensee).

The material facts are not in dispute. On September 3, 2018, Licensee 

was arrested in Erie County, Ohio, by the local Sheriff’s Department for driving under 

the influence (DUI). (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 4a, 22a.) At the time of his arrest, 

the Sheriff’s Department seized Licensee’s Pennsylvania driver’s license and informed 

him that his driver’s license was suspended. Id. On September 27, 2018, the 

Vermillion, Ohio Municipal Court (Municipal Court) issued an order stating that 

Licensee’s Ohio driving privileges were suspended. (R.R. at 5a, 9a.) Thereafter, on 
2

November 27, 2018, the Municipal Court found Licensee guilty of DUI and suspended 

his Ohio driving privileges for one year from the date of his arrest. (R.R. at 42a.)

On October 2, 2018, Licensee applied to DOT for a duplicate 

Pennsylvania driver’s license. (R.R. at 5a, 11a.) In the application, Licensee checked 

the “NO” boxes next to the questions of whether he (1) had “pending criminal charges 

or driving violations in this state or any other state which may carry a possible penalty 

or suspension or revocation of your driver’s license or driving privilege,” or (2) had his 

“driver’s license or driving privilege suspended or revoked in this state or any other 

state.” (R.R. at 11a.) By letter dated October 9, 2018, DOT rejected Licensee’s 

application. (R.R. at 14a.) In the letter, DOT stated that “[t]he National Driver Register 

(NDR) maintains and provides the personal identification of individuals by state, 

whose driving privilege[s] [are] withdrawn” and that DOT uses the “NDR to check all 

of [its] new driver license applications.” Id. DOT informed Licensee that it refused 

his application because the NDR indicated that his name and personal information were 

similar to a person whose driving privileges had been withdrawn in Ohio. Id. DOT 

advised that, prior to applying for a Pennsylvania driver’s license, Licensee needed to 

contact the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles to have his driving record cleared with the 

NDR. Id.

Licensee filed a statutory appeal with the trial court. On April 18, 2019, 

the trial court conducted a de novo hearing. Licensee argued that, because his 

Pennsylvania driving privileges were not suspended as a result of his Ohio DUI 

conviction, he was entitled to receive a duplicate Pennsylvania driver’s license. (R.R. 

at 24a, 28a, 30a-31a.) In response, DOT’s representative asserted that it is required to 

conduct a search of the NDR whenever someone applies for a duplicate driver’s license. 

(R.R. at 26a.) DOT’s representative also stated that “in Ohio when a driver is stopped
3

for DUI, the law provides that the officer is to take that license and then it’s suspended 

until it’s resolved. So if they are determined to have been convicted of DUI, they get 

credit for that time,” but if “at the preliminary hearing, [] things go differently, then 

they get their license back.” (R.R. at 27a.) DOT’s representative testified that 

Licensee’s Ohio driving privileges were initially administratively suspended by the 

seizure of his license at the time of his arrest, that the disposition of the underlying DUI 

case had resulted in the suspension of Licensee’s Ohio driving privileges for one year, 

and that his driving privileges were still suspended. (R.R. at 27a-28a.) 

The trial court stated that its interpretation of the law was that because 

Licensee’s driver’s license was not suspended in Pennsylvania, he was entitled to have 

a duplicate driver’s license issued to him. (R.R. at 32a.) Accordingly, the trial court 

entered an order sustaining Licensee’s appeal and directing DOT to issue Licensee a 

duplicate Pennsylvania driver’s license. (R.R. at 43a.)

DOT timely appealed the trial court’s order. Following the appeal, the 

trial court issued an order directing DOT to file a statement of errors complained of on 

appeal (statement). In its statement, DOT argued that pursuant to Haubert v. 

Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 124 A.3d 360 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2015), because Licensee’s driving privileges had been suspended by the state 

of Ohio, DOT was prohibited from issuing a duplicate driver’s license to Licensee. 

(R.R. at 51a.) 

Thereafter, on June 25, 2019, the trial court entered an opinion and order. 

The trial court concluded that after considering Haubert, for which the “citation was 

not provided to the [c]ourt until the filing of the [s]tatement,” the court was constrained 

to follow that case. (Trial court op. at 1.) Therefore, the trial court requested that the 

Commonwealth Court reverse its previous order. Id. The trial court also held that DOT 
4

was “required by federal law [] to follow the [NDR] Pointer System, 49 U.S.C. 

§30304(e), [] 75 Pa.C.S. §1503(a)(1)” and that the trial court was required to follow 

the dictates of Haubert. (Trial court op. at 1.)

On appeal,1 DOT argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in 

holding that DOT was required to issue Licensee a duplicate driver’s license, despite 

the fact that Licensee’s driving privileges were suspended in Ohio. DOT argues that it 

complied with federal law by checking the NDR when Licensee applied for a duplicate 

driver’s license. DOT contends that because the NDR showed that Licensee’s driving 

privileges were suspended in Ohio, DOT properly denied Licensee’s application. 

Section 30304(e) of Title 49 of the United States Code, titled “Driver 

record inquiry,” provides that “[b]efore issuing a motor vehicle operator’s license to an 

individual or renewing such license, a State shall request from the Secretary [of 

Transportation] information from the [NDR] . . . on the individual’s driving record.” 

49 U.S.C. §30304(e). Further, section 1327.5(b) of Title 23 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, titled “State of inquiry function for driver licensing and driver 

improvement purposes,” provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The chief driver licensing official of a participating State 

shall submit an inquiry to [] the NDR . . . for each driver 

license applicant before issuing a license to that applicant. 

The issuance of a license includes but is not limited to any 

original, renewal, temporary, or duplicate license that results 

in a grant or extension of driving privileges in a participating 

State.

 

1

“This Court’s scope of review of a trial court decision in a driver’s license appeal is limited 

to a determination of whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law 

was committed, or the court abused its discretion.” Fowler v. Department of Transportation, Bureau 

of Driver Licensing, 2 A.3d 1282, 1284 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
5

23 C.F.R. §1327.5(b) (emphasis added). All 50 states, including Pennsylvania,

participate in the NDR system. Fowler, 2 A.3d at 1286; Taddei v. Department of 

Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 982 A.2d 1249, 1252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). 

Thus, “[f]ederal law requires DOT to check the NDR prior to the issuance or renewal 

of a Pennsylvania driver’s license.” Haubert, 124 A.3d at 362.

Additionally, section 1503(a)(1) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code 

provides that DOT “shall not issue a driver’s license to, or renew the driver’s license 

of, any person . . . [w]hose operating privilege is suspended or revoked in this or any 

other state.” 75 Pa.C.S. §1503(a)(1) (emphasis added). In Haubert, we held that 

“[t]he language of [s]ection 1503(a)(1) is clear and unambiguous. The Vehicle Code 

admits no exception for a driver seeking a Pennsylvania license while under a license 

suspension or revocation in another state.” Haubert, 124 A.3d at 362.

In Haubert, the licensee applied to DOT for a driver’s license. After a 

report from the NDR demonstrated that the licensee’s driving privileges had been 

withdrawn in both New York and New Jersey, DOT denied the licensee’s application. 

On appeal of the license suspension, the licensee testified that his New York driving 

privileges had been restored, but admitted that he had been unable to clear up his New 

Jersey record. We observed that the evidence, at a minimum, demonstrated that the 

licensee’s New Jersey driving privileges remained suspended. Relying on the 

Pennsylvania and federal statutes and regulations cited above, we concluded that 

“[u]pon application for issuance of a driver’s license, DOT is statutorily obligated to 

determine whether a driver’s license has been withdrawn through a query of the NDR 

and further obligated to deny a license application where a driver’s operating privileges 

have been revoked or suspended by another jurisdiction.” Id. Thus, we held that “DOT 

[was] strictly prohibited from issuing a license to [the licensee] until it receive[d] [an]
6

NDR report stating that he [was] eligible for licensing in New York and New Jersey.” 

Id.; see also Fowler, 2 A.3d at 1286 (holding that because an NDR inquiry showed that 

licensee’s Florida driving privileges were suspended, DOT properly denied the 

licensee’s application for a renewal of his Pennsylvania driver’s license under section 

1503(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code); Rothstein v. Department of Transportation, Bureau 

of Driver Licensing, 922 A.2d 17, 22 & n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (holding that because 

the licensee’s New Jersey driving privileges were suspended, he was not entitled to 

have his Pennsylvania driver’s license renewed under section 1503(a)(1) of the Vehicle 

Code).

Here, when Licensee applied for a duplicate Pennsylvania driver’s license, 

his driving privileges were suspended by the state of Ohio as a result of his DUI arrest. 

Pursuant to federal law, Licensee’s application for a duplicate driver’s license required 

DOT to submit an NDR inquiry. See 49 U.S.C. §30304(e); 23 C.F.R. §1327.5(b). The 

NDR report for Licensee showed that his Ohio driving privileges were suspended. 

Because Licensee’s Ohio driving privileges were suspended, DOT was prohibited by 

Pennsylvania law from issuing Licensee a duplicate driver’s license. See 75 Pa.C.S. 

§1503(a)(1); Haubert, 124 A.3d at 362. Therefore, DOT properly denied Licensee’s 

driver’s license application and the trial court erred as a matter of law in sustaining 

Licensee’s appeal and directing DOT to issue Licensee a duplicate driver’s license.2

 

2 This court’s recent opinion in Linkosky v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver 

Licensing , A.3d (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 98 C.D. 2019, filed December 5, 2019), is distinguishable 

from the instant case. There, the licensee applied for the renewal of his Pennsylvania driver’s license. 

Id. at , slip op. at 2. DOT granted the licensee’s request, issued the licensee a temporary internet 

driver’s license, and instructed the licensee that he would receive a “camera card” in the mail within 

10 days and that, upon receipt of the camera card, he should take the card to a DOT photo license 

center to have a new picture taken and receive a permanent photo license. Id. Shortly after DOT 

granted the licensee’s renewal application, however, the licensee’s driving privileges were suspended

in Ohio. Although the licensee received his camera card in the mail, he misplaced it and then sought 
7

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed. 

 

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

 

a replacement camera card. DOT refused to issue the licensee a new camera card because the NDR 

inquiry showed that the licensee’s Ohio driving privileges were suspended, and the licensee appealed. 

Id. Because DOT had already granted the licensee’s renewal application prior to the licensee having 

his Ohio driving privileges suspended, we held that DOT erred in not issuing the licensee a 

replacement camera card. Id., at , slip op. at 5-6. Our holding was based on our conclusion that 

the licensee’s request for a duplicate camera card was not a second application for a driver’s license 

renewal; that when DOT granted the licensee’s renewal application, the licensee was a properly 

licensed Pennsylvania driver who needed only to follow the appropriate process to receive a 

permanent photo license; and that the licensee’s request for a duplicate camera card did not trigger 

the NDR inquiry required by section 1327.5(b) of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 23 

C.F.R. §1327.5(b). Linkosky, A.3d at , slip op. at 5-6. 

Unlike Linkosky, here Licensee’s Ohio operating privileges were already suspended when he 

applied for a duplicate Pennsylvania driver’s license and Licensee’s duplicate license application 

mandated an NDR inquiry under the federal regulations. See 23 C.F.R. §1327.5(b) (explicitly 

requiring an NDR report where a duplicate license is sought, but not mentioning requests for 

replacement camera cards). In other words, contrary to here, in Linkosky the licensee had his renewal 

application granted before he lost his Ohio operating privileges and, therefore, had already been 

granted a Pennsylvania license at the time of his request for a new camera card. His request for a new

camera card did not affect his already granted Pennsylvania driving privileges and did not trigger an

NDR inquiry. Thus, unlike here, where Licensee’s application required DOT to conduct an NDR 

report, in Linkosky the licensee’s camera card request was more of a pro forma request that was 

unaffected by the relevant federal regulations. Consequently, the instant case is distinguishable from 

Linkosky. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert R. Ribnicky :

: No. 541 C.D. 2019

v. :

:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Driver Licensing, :

Appellant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2020, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, dated April 18, 2019, is hereby reversed.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge