DocketNumber: 229 WAL 2010
Judges: Per Curiam
Filed Date: 12/22/2010
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 *901 ignition interlock as a condition of license restoration?