YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS IN PENNSYLVANIA - SO LONG AS YOU CAN GET THERE ON FOOTBy: Steven F. Fairlie, Esquire
Imagine a scenario where a single mother of two is earning a living as an overworked litigator at a small firm in Montgomery County. Pressed for time, she calls a client from her cell phone on her way to pick up the kids from daycare and gets in an accident. She was at least negligent and perhaps reckless, so she is cited for Reckless Driving and Careless Driving. Unaware that Reckless Driving carries a six month license suspension, she pleads guilty to both citations by mail. More than 30 days elapse before she receives notice of the suspension from PennDOT, so by then it is too late to appeal from her guilty plea. Even if she was erroneously advised by counsel or the District Justice that her license would not be suspended, she would have no remedy at a license suspension hearing because Pennsylvania's appellate courts have not recognized a Constitutional right to drive. Instead, it has been held repeatedly that driving is a privilege, and not a right. Plowman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation 635 A.2d 124 (Pa. 1993). The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania guarantees all "men" the right to enjoy liberty and pursue their own happiness. These guarantees are found in the very first section of the first Article of the document, and come under the heading "Inherent Rights of Mankind." We all know that one of the most revered documents in this country, the Declaration of Independence, immortalized these same rights as "self-evident" and "inalienable." What could be more firmly established? Now fast-forward from 1776 to the fast-paced twenty-first century world we live in and take away a person's right to drive. Would that cause a major impact on that person's enjoyment of liberty and pursuit of his or her happiness? Of course. Could it destroy the livelihood of the suspended driver? Of course. Does a citizen of Pennsylvania have a Constitutional right to his or her driver's license? No. There are certain offenses that cry out for license suspensions and no one would argue otherwise. But why not take the time to do it the right way? What's wrong with a constitutional right to drive? That right could still be suspended whenever warranted, but citizens would enjoy more protection from mistakes, unfair circumstances, and surprise. Speak with any practitioner who handles license suspension cases and he or she will regale you with countless stories of personal tragedy and unfair results dictated by the lack of constitutional safeguards standing between PennDOT and an individual's right to drive. The United States Supreme Court recently held in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2000), that while it once was Constitutional to execute the mentally retarded in this country, evolving standards of decency now compel a rule prohibiting such executions. A similar argument can be made that our society has evolved since 1776 to a fast-paced, frenetic world where the right to navigate the infrastructure by automobile is essential to the ability of a large percentage of our population to enjoy their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Keep your eyes open for the right case in which to present this issue, and perhaps a member of our bar can convince our appellate courts to recognize the right to drive as an essential component of our "self-evident" and "inalienable" rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. |
