§ 1542. Revocation of habitual offender's license.
(a) General rule.--The department shall revoke the operating privilege of any person found to be a habitual
offender pursuant to the provisions of this section. A "habitual offender" shall be
any person whose driving record, as maintained in the department, shows that such
person has accumulated the requisite number of convictions for the separate and distinct
offenses described and enumerated in subsection (b) committed after the effective
date of this title and within any period of five years thereafter.
(b) Offenses enumerated.--Three convictions arising from separate acts of any one or more of the following offenses
committed by any person shall result in such person being designated as a habitual
offender:
(1) Any violation of Subchapter B of Chapter 37 (relating to serious traffic offenses).
(1.1) Any violation of Chapter 38 (relating to driving after imbibing alcohol or utilizing
drugs) except for sections 3808(a)(1) and (b) (relating to illegally operating a motor
vehicle not equipped with ignition interlock) and 3809 (relating to restriction on
alcoholic beverages).
(1.2) Any violation of section 1543(b)(1.1) (relating to driving while operating privilege
is suspended or revoked).
(2) Any violation of section 3367 (relating to racing on highways and trafficways).
(3) Any violation of section 3742 (relating to accidents involving death or personal injury).
(3.1) Any violation of section 3742.1 (relating to accidents involving death or personal
injury while not properly licensed).
(4) Any violation of section 3743 (relating to accidents involving damage to attended
vehicle or property).
(c) Accelerative Rehabilitative Disposition as an offense.--Acceptance of Accelerative Rehabilitative Disposition for any offense enumerated in
subsection (b) shall be considered an offense for the purposes of this section.
(d) Period of revocation.--The operating privilege of any person found to be a habitual offender under the provisions
of this section shall be revoked by the department for a period of five years.
(e) Additional offenses.--Each additional offense committed within a period of five years, as measured from
the date of any previous offense, shall result in a revocation for an additional period
of two years.
(Dec. 7, 1994, P.L.820, No.115, eff. imd.; Dec. 12, 1994, P.L.1048, No.143, eff. 9
months; Dec. 21, 1998, P.L.1126, No.151, eff. 60 days; Sept. 30, 2003, P.L.120, No.24,
eff. Feb. 1, 2004; Oct. 16, 2024, P.L.992, No.103, eff. 11 months)
2024 Amendment. Act 103 amended subsec. (b)(2).
2003 Amendment. Act 24 amended subsec. (b).
1994 Amendment. Act 143 amended subsecs. (b) and (e).
Cross References. Section 1542 is referred to in sections 1516, 1534, 1541, 1543, 1554, 1575, 1783,
6503.1 of this title; section 5502 of Title 30 (Fish).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
122
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1542. Raven’s conviction for AIDPI while not properly licensed required the Commonwealth to demonstrate that Raven caused an accident that resulted in the injury or death of a person, and that his operating privilege was either disqualified, canceled, recalled,…”
Frontini v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 593 A.2d 410 (Pa. 1991).
· cites it 6× “[5] Wherefore, we find the three convictions for homicide by vehicle, having resulted from a single act, are not to be considered as separate offenses for the purpose of classifying this appellant as an habitual offender pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542. The Commonwealth Court is…”
Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828 A.2d 1066 (Pa. 2003).
· cites it 2× “On March 7, 1999, Appellee was arrested for driving a car while under a suspended license which led to his being charged as a habitual offender under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542. The March arrest took place in Chambersburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania and the matter proceeded to trial…”
Bureau of Traffic Saf. v. McDevitt, 427 A.2d 280 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981).
· cites it 4× “Opinion by Judge Palladino, The Department of Transportation (Department) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County which held that the Department could not revoke appellee’s operating privileges under the habitual offender provision, Section 1542 of the…”
Freundt v. Com. Dept. of Transp., 883 A.2d 503 (Pa. 2005).
· cites it 2× “2d 410 (1991), which involved a similar issue: whether a driver could be classified as a habitual offender under 75 Pa. C.S. § 1542, when his convictions for three counts of homicide by vehicle arose from the same accident.”
Commonwealth v. Bursick, 584 A.2d 291 (Pa. 1990).
· cites it 3× “Appellant’s license to operate a motor vehicle was suspended pursuant to Section 1542 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542, which requires DOT to revoke the licenses of “habitual offenders.”
Spagnoletti v. Commonwealth, 90 A.3d 759 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Spagnoletti (Licensee) from the five-year revocation of her operating privilege under Section 1542 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542 (relating to revocation of habitual offender’s license).”
Commonwealth v. Becker, 530 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, we note that our interpretation of § 3731(e)(2) is in accord with the Commonwealth Court's interpretation of 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1542 (Purdon 1977), another provision of the Vehicle Code.”
Commonwealth v. Von Altimus, 410 A.2d 1303 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
· cites it 3× “For the third conviction, an additional 5-year revocation was imposed under 75 Pa. C.S. §1542, based upon the determination that licensee was a “habitual offender” as defined by that section.”
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Cern, 604 A.2d 1135 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 5× “he Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (common pleas court) which sustained the appeal of John Cern, III (Cern), from a five-year revocation of his operating…”
Fetty v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 784 A.2d 236 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 4× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1542(a). Licensee does not dispute that his participation in the Washington County AND program and his Fayette County DUI conviction are properly included as two of the three necessary convictions under Section 1542(a) of the Code.”
Freundt v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 804 A.2d 706 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 2× “DOT’s original notice suspended Licensee's driving privileges for five years in accordance to Section 1542 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542. Licensee also received a second notice that his license would be suspend for six months and for one year pursuant to Section 1542(c) of the…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1542(4)(b) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1542(a) — 25 cases
Frontini v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 593 A.2d 410 (Pa. 1991).
“[5] Wherefore, we find the three convictions for homicide by vehicle, having resulted from a single act, are not to be considered as separate offenses for the purpose of classifying this appellant as an habitual offender pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542. The Commonwealth Court is…”
Spagnoletti v. Commonwealth, 90 A.3d 759 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
“Spagnoletti (Licensee) from the five-year revocation of her operating privilege under Section 1542 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542 (relating to revocation of habitual offender’s license).”
Commonwealth v. Bursick, 584 A.2d 291 (Pa. 1990).
“Appellant’s license to operate a motor vehicle was suspended pursuant to Section 1542 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542, which requires DOT to revoke the licenses of “habitual offenders.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1542(b) — 13 cases
Bureau of Traffic Saf. v. McDevitt, 427 A.2d 280 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981).
“Opinion by Judge Palladino, The Department of Transportation (Department) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County which held that the Department could not revoke appellee’s operating privileges under the habitual offender provision, Section 1542 of the…”
Fetty v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 784 A.2d 236 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 1542(a). Licensee does not dispute that his participation in the Washington County AND program and his Fayette County DUI conviction are properly included as two of the three necessary convictions under Section 1542(a) of the Code.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1542(b)(1) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1542(b)(5) — 1 case
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1542(c) — 10 cases
Freundt v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 804 A.2d 706 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
“DOT’s original notice suspended Licensee's driving privileges for five years in accordance to Section 1542 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542. Licensee also received a second notice that his license would be suspend for six months and for one year pursuant to Section 1542(c) of the…”
Bureau of Traffic Saf. v. McDevitt, 427 A.2d 280 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981).
“Opinion by Judge Palladino, The Department of Transportation (Department) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County which held that the Department could not revoke appellee’s operating privileges under the habitual offender provision, Section 1542 of the…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1542(d) — 9 cases
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1542(e) — 12 cases
Frontini v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 593 A.2d 410 (Pa. 1991).
“[5] Wherefore, we find the three convictions for homicide by vehicle, having resulted from a single act, are not to be considered as separate offenses for the purpose of classifying this appellant as an habitual offender pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1542. The Commonwealth Court is…”
Commonwealth v. Von Altimus, 410 A.2d 1303 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
“For the third conviction, an additional 5-year revocation was imposed under 75 Pa. C.S. §1542, based upon the determination that licensee was a “habitual offender” as defined by that section.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.