Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1586 (2026)

Duties of department.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 1586. Duties of department.

The department shall, for purposes of imposing a suspension or revocation under Article IV of the compact, treat reports of convictions received from party states that relate to driving, operating or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired by or under the influence of alcohol, intoxicating liquor, drugs, narcotics, controlled substances or other impairing or intoxicating substance as being substantially similar to section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance). The fact that the offense reported to the department by a party state may require a different degree of impairment of a person's ability to operate, drive or control a vehicle than that required to support a conviction for a violation of section 3802 shall not be a basis for determining that the party state's offense is not substantially similar to section 3802 for purposes of Article IV of the compact.

(Dec. 21, 1998, P.L.1126, No.151, eff. imd.; Sept. 30, 2003, P.L.120, No.24, eff. Feb. 1, 2004)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 33 cases, 1999–2017 · leading case: Wroblewski v. Commonwealth, 809 A.2d 247 (Pa. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wroblewski v. Commonwealth, 809 A.2d 247 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 14× “§ 1581, and the effect of the legislature's passage of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1586. For the reasons herein, we affirm.”

Commonwealth v. Estman, 915 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2007). · cites it 4× “Section 1586 required that Pennsylvania shall treat convictions received in states party to the Driver's License Compact as being substantially similar to § 3802 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code (driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance).”

Crytzer v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 770 A.2d 820 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 6× “The trial court also held that Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1586, represents an improper attempt by the legislature to alter the terms of the Compact and is therefore a legal nullity.”

Wexler v. Hecht, 847 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “2d 1264 , 1269 (1999) (superseded by statute on other grounds, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1586) (declining to apply statutory amendment to action in process prior to its enactment because amendment did not require such application in express terms); see also Moyer v.”

Squire v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 769 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1586 (emphasis added). The Petrovick court did not apply the amended statute because it was enacted after the case was heard, and was not merely a procedural change entitled to retroactive application.”

Folsom v. Com., Dept. of Trans., 771 A.2d 118 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 6× “Prior to the enactment of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1586, the difference in the degree of impairment between § 2411 and Article IV(a)(2) would have precluded a finding of substantial similarity because a conviction under § 2411 would not demonstrate that the driver had driven under the…”

Hoenisch v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 785 A.2d 969 (Pa. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1586. This provision would appear to anticipate the trend toward lowering the per se method threshold in a number of other jurisdictions.”

Barnas v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 874 A.2d 169 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “[6] 75 Pa.C.S. § 1586. Moreover, on September 23, 2003, section 1532(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code stated that DOT shall suspend a licensee's operating privileges for twelve months upon receiving a certified record of an out-of-state DUI conviction.”

Phillips v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 80 A.3d 561 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “The General Assembly has relaxed the “substantially similar” requirement for DUI offenses, providing that the “fact that the offense reported to the [Department by a party state may require a different degree of impairment of a person’s ability to operate, drive or control a…”

Perry v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 764 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “[9] Section 1586 provides as follows: The department shall, for purposes of imposing a suspension or revocation under Article IV of the compact, treat reports of convictions received from party states that relate to driving, operating or being in actual physical control of a…”

Petrovick v. Com., Dept of Transp., 741 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 1999). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1586,1998, Dec. 21, P.L. 1126, No.”

Horvath v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 773 A.2d 199 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 1584, 9 and the *204 enactment of Section 1586 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1586, are unlawful unilateral changes to the Compact.”

Show all 33 citing cases →

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.