Tripson v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.

• Decision Date: 21 March 2001
• Citation: 773 A.2d 195
• Parties: Frank TRIPSON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Bureau of Driver Licensing.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

773 A.2d 195

Frank TRIPSON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Bureau of Driver Licensing.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted September 29, 2000.

Decided March 21, 2001.

Reconsideration Denied May 25, 2001.

Carol L. Rosen, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Terrance M. Edwards and Timothy P. Wile, Asst. Counsel In-Charge, Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before SMITH, Judge, KELLEY, Judge, and RODGERS, Senior Judge.

Reconsideration En Banc Denied May 25, 2001.

SMITH, Judge.

Frank Tripson (Tripson) appeals from the March 23, 2000 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County that dismissed his appeal of a one-year suspension of his driving privileges by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) pursuant to Article IV(a)(2) of the Driver's License Compact (Compact), Section 1581 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1581. Tripson contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a West Virginia criminal case history and abstract of judgment in violation of Article III of the Compact, that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Tripson had been convicted in West Virginia of a "substantially" similar offense pursuant to Article IV(a)(2), and that Section 1584 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1584, does not permit the Department to deviate from the requirements of Articles III and IV of the Compact.

By letter dated December 14, 1999, the Department notified Tripson that it had received notice from West Virginia of his conviction on October 1, 1999 for the June 12, 1999 offense of violating W. Va. Code § 17C-5-2, driving under the influence, and that the Department would suspend his driving privileges for a period of one year as mandated by Section 1532(b) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1532(b). The trial court admitted into evidence, over objection, a number of documents signed and sealed by the Secretary of Transportation and by the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing. Those documents included the abstract of judgment and the criminal case history of the West Virginia violation. No testimony was presented. The trial court dismissed the appeal.¹ Tripson first argues that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the criminal case history and the abstract of judgment in violation of Article III of the Compact. Article III requires that "[t]he licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee." (Emphasis added.) Tripson contends that the certification of the Secretary and the Bureau Director is insufficient for two reasons: Section 1550(d)(1) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1550(d)(1), does not permit the Department to certify the identity of the administrative body of the other state from which the Department received the records, and the Department's certification does not identify or misidentifies the administrative body from which it received the documents.

The Department, citing Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Tarnopolski, 533 Pa. 549, 626 A.2d 138 (1993), acknowledges that it has the burden of establishing that the licensee was actually convicted of the purported violation, but it argues that it has satisfied its burden by introducing documents properly certified by the Secretary and the Bureau Director. The Department asserts that these certifications complied with the requirements of Sections 6109 and 6103 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6109 and 6103, and Section 1516(b) of the Vehicle Code, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1516(b).² The Department argues that because the West Virginia case history and abstract of judgment were forwarded to it in accordance with Article III of the Compact,³ they became records of the Department and were properly admitted by the trial court.

Despite arguments to the contrary, reports of convictions submitted to the Department pursuant to the Compact must be received from the proper licensing authority of the reporting state. The Department may not certify that the documents are reports of convictions from other jurisdictions' licensing authorities if the documents themselves contain no such certification from the reporting jurisdiction. Therefore, the Department's argument that the documents it offered were properly admitted as Department records pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1516(b) is without merit if the Department cannot demonstrate that the documents were received from the licensing authority of West Virginia.

Tripson contends that the Department has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the documents were received from the licensing authority of the party state, citing Boots v. Department of Transportation, 736 A.2d 64 (Pa. Cmwlth.1999). In Boots this Court held that records pertaining to a motorist's conviction in Indiana for driving while intoxicated were not admissible because there was no evidence that the documents were received from Indiana's licensing authority. The Court stated that "the words `the licensing authority of a party state shall report' evidences a legislative intent to require that the licensing authority be the reporting body" and that the requirement of the Department to show that the documents upon which it sought to base Boots' suspension were received from the proper authority was "not onerous in that the Department can always request the necessary information be sent from the licensing authority of party states." Id. at 66. The Department argues that Boots is inapposite because here, unlike in Boots, the Bureau Director certified the documents as having been received from the West Virginia licensing authority.

The Department contends that certification by a public official is entitled to great weight and is prima facie proof that creates a rebuttable presumption that the facts and information contained in the documents are correct. Mateskovich v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 755 A.2d 100 (Pa. Cmwlth.2000). The burden then shifts to the licensee to present evidence to rebut the presumption. However, there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that the documents...