Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Riggs

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lebanon County

Decided April 19, 2001No. 2000-11119PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

CHARLES, J.,

Before us is a constitutional challenge to Pennsylvania’s Ignition Interlock *311Law. The above-referenced defendant has filed a motion seeking to modify his sentence to eliminate the requirement that he comply with Act 63 of2000. The defendant’s motion claims that the Ignition Interlock Law violates the equal protection clause of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitutions. The defendant also claims that the law is unconstitutional because it imposes upon the judiciary functions which traditionally belong to the executive branch of government. For reasons that will follow,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Sweeney v. TuckerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McCaffertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Curtis v. KlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Commonwealth v. DuffeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. STANDER v. KelleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Commonwealth v. MockaitisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API