Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hatzai v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 2, 1996Published

1Dissent

FLAHERTY, Judge.

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the trial court that the Department’s notice which read: “violating Section 13A12 of the Vehicle Code, ACQ/OBT/POSS-CTRL SUB,” is nearly incomprehensible. It does not inform an accused of the charges against him so as to permit him to prepare an adequate defense. Therefore, this notice does not afford the accused procedural due process. This mistake is not simply an immaterial error, like an incorrect date in Sutton1 and Davidson,2 or a typographical error in Hahn3 — the cases relied upon by the Department. The Department should be held to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. SuttonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Commonwealth v. BallochCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Commonwealth v. HahnCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Davidson v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API