Anen Motor Vehicle Operator's License Case
| Decision Date | 22 March 1961 |
| Citation | 194 Pa.Super. 379,169 A.2d 600 |
| Parties | ANEN MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR'S LICENSE CASE. Appeal of Harry ANEN, a minor, by Catherine Anen, His Guardian, From an Order of the Department of Revenue of Pennsylvania Suspending His Privilege To Operate a Motor Vehicle. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Elmer T. Bolla, Deputy Atty. Gen., Anne X. Alpern, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
J. Fitzcharles, Bristol, for appellee.
Before RHODES, P. J., and GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, WATKINS and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
Harry Anen and Jack Spaats had a 'drag race' on a four lane highway at about 4:15 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, December 20, 1959. They stopped their automobiles side by side on the highway, and started them simultaneously, accelerating rapidly until they attained a speed which the Commonwealth's evidence indicates was in excess of 65 miles per hour. They raced for nearly a mile until stopped by a state policeman.
The Secretary of Revenue, after a hearing, suspended the motor vehicle operator's license of each participant in the race for one year. Anen appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County which ordered the Secretary of Revenue to reduce the period of suspension from one year to four months. The court found from the testimony taken before it that Anen, who was 18 years old and licensed for less than a year and a half, was engaged in racing, but the court thought it was 'a relatively minor form of racing,' and, as appellant needs a car to get to his place of employment, concluded that the penalty was too severe.
The Secretary of Revenue follows a practice of imposing a one year suspension for racing on a highway. A schedule of the periods of suspensions was adopted by the Secretary and filed in the office of the Department of State according to the provisions of § 21 of the Administrative Agency Law of June 4, 1945, P.L. 1388, 71 P.S. § 1710-21. Unlike many violations of The Vehicle Code which are the result of thoughtlessness, the offense of racing is a planned, wanton, deliberate violation of an exceedingly dangerous nature. It is a premediated offense. It demonstrates the immaturity of the offender and proves that he is not worthy of the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on our public highways. Since the commission of this offense by the appellee, the legislature has made drag racing a misdemeanor subject to a maximum fine of $500 and imprisonment for three years. Act of January 8, 1960, P.L. 2118, 75 P.S. § 1041. A suspension of one year in such cases generally, and in this case particularly, is reasonable, proper and legal. It is not too severe. See Commonwealth v. Antolich, 1960, 194 Pa.Super. 300, 166 A.2d 541.
On appeals from the Secretary of Revenue, the courts of common pleas may sustain or reverse an order suspending a motor vehicle operator's license, but ordinarily they have no authority to modify such order.
Section 620 of The Vehicle Code, which authorizes appeals to the court from a suspension by the secretary, gives the court no authority to alter, change or modify the suspension. The section provides: 'Any person, whose operator's license or learner's permit has been suspended, * * * shall have the right to file a petition, within thirty (30) days thereafter, for a hearing in the matter in the court of common pleas of the county in which the operator or permittee resides, * * * Such courts are hereby vested with jurisdiction, * * * to take testimony and examine into the facts of the case, and to determine whether the petitioner is subject to suspension of operator's license or learner's permit, * * *.' The Vehicle Code of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, § 620, 75 P.S. § 620.
In Commonwealth v. Garman, 1949, 361 Pa. 643, 646, 66 A.2d 271, 272, the Supreme Court said: '* * * As far as the Vehicle Code is concerned, it provides, as already stated, that the court hearing the matter is to determine 'whether the petitioner is subject to suspension of operator's license'; that question must be answered by the court either affirmatively, in which case it should sustain the suspension ordered by the Secretary, or negatively, in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial