Freundt v. Com. Dept. of Transp.

I dissent on two points. First, the majority holds an “offense” for purposes of § 1532(c) means a single criminal episode; I believe this interpretation is inconsistent with both the language and the aim of § 1532(c). Secondly, even if the statute means “episode” when it says “offense,” the burden of establishing that 16 crimes over several months are really a single episode must fall on the party so claiming—it cannot be PennDOT’s burden to establish the “lack of single episode” when it is not a party to the underlying criminal investigation or conviction, and unlike appellee, has no…