Title: Hoenisch v. PA D.O.T., Bureau of Driver Licensing (Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 233 MAP 1999
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: December 3, 2001

[J-63-2000] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ROY HOENISCH, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 233 MAP 1999 Appeal from the order of the Commonwealth Court entered March 18, 1999 at No. 998 C.D. 1998, affirming the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County entered March 5, 1998 at No. 97-07488-20-6. ARGUED: May 1, 2000 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: November 30, 2001 As the North Carolina offense for which Appellant is being penalized does not reflect conduct which is substantially similar to conduct that is punishable in Pennsylvania, I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority insofar as it finds that Pennsylvania’s DUI offense of driving with a .10% BAC level is substantially similar to Article IV of the Compact, which proscribes being “incapable of safely driving.” The majority then determines, however, that North Carolina’s per se offense of a .08% BAC level is conclusive evidence of “appreciable impairment”, which, in turn, is substantially similar to Article IV’s “incapable of safely driving.” Based on this reasoning, the majority concludes that Appellant can be reciprocally punished in Pennsylvania. [J-63-2000] - 2 Yet Appellant was not convicted on the basis of any evidence that he was driving in an unsafe manner. Appellant’s North Carolina conviction was based upon a .08% BAC level. This is a per se offense that results in a conviction without any inquiry as to whether the driver was in fact incapable of safely driving. In contrast, in Pennsylvania, a driver will not be sanctioned for a .08% BAC level alone. See Kline v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 725 A.2d 860 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (refusing to suspend Pennsylvania driver’s license due to Virginia conviction based on .08% BAC level; noting that a person driving with a BAC level of .08% will suffer no consequences in Pennsylvania if he is still capable of being a safe driver), alloc. denied, 743 A.2d 924 (Pa. 1999). Moreover, in my view, the twenty percent difference between the North Carolina and Pennsylvania per se offenses is significant, and renders the respective legal limits substantially dissimilar. The majority authorizes PennDOT to sanction a Pennsylvania driver for out-of-state conduct which falls well below the threshold of conduct that the General Assembly has deemed to be punishable in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, I dissent. Mr. Chief Justice Flaherty and Mr. Justice Zappala join.