Tail Light Justice, con't - #4

Well, I no longer have the threat of financial penalties or jail time looming over me.

My court date was scheduled for this morning at 10:30AM. After an hour of waiting, my case was finally brought up at 11:30. (Tip: if your time is important and you get into a lot of legal trouble, change your last name to something like "Aaaaaaaa"; they went through cases alphabetically.)

The Assistant District Attorney had been pretty liberally dismissing non-moving violations if defendants brought proof that they had remedied the problem. When I came up though, upon seeing my insurance card, he initially made me an offer to dismiss the insurance charge if I plead guilty to the taillights. You can be sure if that was his final offer, I would have wound up going to a trial date - I didn't do anything wrong and wasn't about to plead guilty to anything.

I told the ADA that my taillights weren't actually ever broken and showed him the signed Statement of Correction. Fortunately, that was enough to get him to change his mind and motion to dismiss both charges, which the judge accepted.

(Phew).

I'm glad both charges were dismissed. I don't really feel like "justice" was served though, since this whole ordeal should have never happened.

My next step will be filing a formal complaint with the Monroe County Sheriff's Department. I don't have a particularly high level of faith in "the system" at this point, so I don't really expect anything to come from my complaint, but I feel rather compelled that filing such a complaint is the right thing to do.


Also, just some interesting observations from the whole court room experience:

First, only myself and the ADA bothered to wear a suit. Out of the approximately 50 defendants in the court room with me, close to around 40 or more of them wore the equivalent of jeans and a t-shirt.

Second, there were two cases that came up while I was waiting where the officer who issued the ticket/arrest was needed. In both, the officers weren't present, and rather than dismissing, the judge made the defendants wait to see if the officer would arrive during the entire court session. If the defendant has to be there on time, I think officers should have to be as well. Maybe that's just me.

Third, in the first case that came up, the defendant made a deal with the DA to plead guilty and have a sentencing recommendation of probation. The ADA turned the tables on him, and in court asked for incarceration, and the judge wound up sentencing him to the maximum time (90 days). I'm all for bad people going to jail, but this left a pretty sour taste in my mouth, especially as I was waiting for my case to be heard before the same judge.

Fourth, the one thing I did appreciate, was that during a court recess, the ADA explained generally what would happen once the judge got back: How he would make you an offer before the judge, and you could take it or plead not guilty. He also pointed out that because of policies of "the Court" or "the District Attorney's Office", no deals would be made for two things. One was using a cellphone while driving; I'm not remembering what the other one was, but it seemed equally frivolous.

Tail Light Justice, con't - #3

Well, with my court date looming, I thought I'd comment on my planned "legal strategy". Perhaps some of the research I've done in preparing for my own case will help someone else down the line... (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer).

What ticks me off the most the whole ordeal is that since the cop pulled me over because my "taillights weren't working," but they obviously were working, well - that leaves me feeling (and understanding) that my Constitutional 4th Amendment rights were violated. I wasn't doing anything against the law, so the officer clearly had no reason to pull me over. Without such a reason, to pull me over (in my mind) clearly constitutes an "unreasonable search".

My interpretation of various New York State legal decisions I found seems to back up my opinion. An example is THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. CLIVE SPENCER, APPELLANT:

The question presented is whether the police may stop a moving vehicle in order to request information of the driver concerning the whereabouts of a criminal suspect. We conclude that the stop in this case was an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

...

Although the right to stop a vehicle is generally analogous to the right to stop a pedestrian, police/motorist encounters must be distinguished from police/pedestrian encounters when the police are operating on less than reasonable suspicion. This is because "the obvious impact of stopping the progress of an automobile is more intrusive than the minimal intrusion in stopping a pedestrian" and constitutes "at least a limited seizure subject to constitutional limitations" (People v John BB., 56 NY2d 482, 487), whereas the common-law right of inquiry -- much less the right to request information -- does not include the right to unlawfully seize (see People v Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559, 563; People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 418).

We have stated, time and again, that the stop of an automobile is a seizure implicating constitutional limitations (People v May, 81 NY2d 725; Sobotker, 43 NY2d 559, supra; Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, supra; see Delaware v Prouse, 440 US 645, 653 ["stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a 'seizure' within the meaning of [the Fourth Amendment], even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention brief"]). Contrary to the urging of the dissent that we allow preventative "informational stops" so long as some articulable basis exists for that interference, police stops of automobiles in this State are legal only pursuant to routine, nonpretextual traffic checks to enforce traffic regulations or when there exists at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime (see People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 476 [an automobile stop is "a limited seizure of the person which at least requires reasonable suspicion"]; Sobotker, 43 NY2d, at 563; Ingle, 36 NY2d, at 417-420).

Since my taillights were functioning properly, there was no "reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime", making the stop an unreasonable seizure.

So, my initially intended approach was to have the taillight charge heard, have a not-guilty verdict rendered based on my photographic evidence, and then use that as a basis to argue that since my taillights were working, the "Failure to Provide Proof of Insurance" charge should be dropped since that ticket was issued as the result of a Constitutionally unreasonable seizure.

That's a bit of grandstanding on my part, admittedly. One doesn't generally raise Constitutional issues for traffic court. But, frankly, I find this cop's behavior to be outrageous. Having the fact that my taillights were working and he pulled me over without cause recorded in the official court record is really what I'd like to see in order to feel like justice was served here.

Looking into the laws behind the tickets issued to me has made me change my mind as to my approach, however.

(Also, btw, the interface New York State provides to view their laws online is awful. For no good reason it uses a.) frames and b.) JavaScript; neither is necessary and they make the whole thing an accessibility nightmare.)

The first infraction, the tail lamps (VTL 0375 2A3), isn't too big of a concern:

2. (a) Every motor vehicle except a motorcycle, driven upon a public
highway during the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half
hour before sunrise or at any other time when windshield wipers are in
use, as a result of rain, sleet, snow, hail or other unfavorable
atmospheric condition, and at such other times as visibility for a
distance of one thousand feet ahead of such motor vehicle is not clear,
shall display:
1. at least two lighted head lamps on the front, one on each side,
having light sources of equal power;
2. if manufactured prior to January first, nineteen hundred fifty-two,
at least one lighted lamp on the rear which shall display a red light
visible from the rear for a distance of at least five hundred feet;
3. if manufactured on or after January first, nineteen hundred
fifty-two, at least two lighted lamps on the rear, one on each side,
which lamps shall display a red light visible from the rear for a
distance of at least one thousand feet; and

I can pretty easily prove that my lights work, and even if I couldn't, I have the Statement of Correction to rescue me.

The failure to provide proof of insurance (VTL 0319 01U) is where I'd get screwed though if my approach didn't work:

3. Every person who operates a vehicle registered in this state, or a
vehicle required to be registered in this state, shall, when required by
the commissioner's regulations, produce an insurance identification card
when requested by any peace officer, acting pursuant to his special
duties, police officer or magistrate. The failure to so produce such a
card shall be presumptive evidence that such person was operating the
vehicle without having in effect financial security required by the
provisions of this chapter.

Now this is an awful law if I've ever seen one. The intent of the law is obviously to make sure New York drivers have insurance. But this law doesn't criminalize not having insurance. It criminalizes failing to be able to immediately prove you have insurance.

If a judge denied my approach's planned motion for dismissal on Constitution grounds, I don't think I could prove myself innocent under this law. I had valid insurance when I was pulled over, but this law makes my handing the officer something other than my current insurance card "presumptive evidence" that I didn't have insurance at all.

Couple this with:

319. Penalties. 1. Any owner of a motor vehicle registered in this
state, or an unregistered motor vehicle, who shall operate such motor
vehicle or permit it to be operated in this state without having in full
force and effect the financial security required by the provisions of
this chapter and any other person who shall operate in this state any
motor vehicle registered in this state, or an unregistered motor
vehicle, with the knowledge that the owner thereof does not have in full
force and effect such proof of financial security, except a person who,
at the time of operation of such motor vehicle, had in effect an
operator's policy of liability insurance, as defined in section three
hundred eighteen, with respect to his operation of such vehicle shall be
guilty of a traffic infraction and upon conviction may be fined not less
than one hundred fifty dollars or more than one thousand five hundred
dollars or may be imprisoned for not more than fifteen days or both. In
addition to the penalties herein set forth, such person, upon
conviction, shall also become liable for payment to the department of
the civil penalty provided in subdivision five of this section.

...

5. The civil penalty for a violation of subdivision one of this
section shall be seven hundred fifty dollars.

And apparently I'm risking a penalty of $150 + $750 = $900 to $1500 + $750 = $2250 for this. (Note: not being a lawyer, I may be reading how those penalties apply incorrectly, but the potential that I'm reading it correctly is enough to concern me quite greatly.)

Initially, I was thinking I was risking like $60 on each ticket. Grandstanding is worth a reasonable risk at being found guilty and paying out $120. $2250, just for the one ticket, is quite a different story.

As a result, my hope is that at my court appearance, I will simply be able to provide my Statement of Correction and current proof of insurance and plead with the District Attorney to drop the charges, which is what the cop implied would happen in the first place, so I feel I have a reasonable chance of making this happen.

I hope to provide an update on how this all goes after my court date - stay tuned...

Tail Light Justice, con't - #2

For those of you still tuning in to my personal Law & Order spin off, Law & Order: Tailight Enforcement Unit, I thought I'd include some pictures of the various documents related to this entire saga. Just fyi, a.) the documents have been redacted so they don't contain information that's a bit more personal than I'd like to post to the interweb; and b.) redacting things is fun!

Let's get started...

Tickets

Here are the traffic tickets I got:

Insufficient Tail Lamps Ticket

Note the cop's name is "T. Wiebeld." If this guy pulls you over and tells you your taillights aren't working, I strongly suggest you be suspicious.

Failure to Produce Proof of Insurance Ticket

Statement of Correction

Blank Statement of Correction

I found their choice of spelling for "letterhead" to be rather interesting... Of course, they aren't entirely alone.

Completed Statement of Correction

My hat goes off to the service folks at John Holtz Honda. That's where I got both my car and my wife's car. My wife raves about their service; I don't use their service department quite as regularly, but the Monday morning I took my car in to have this Statement of Correction completed, I barely had to wait at all, and the guy who filled it out for me was extremely nice. They filled it out for me for free and didn't try to get me to pay to fix my non-broken tail lights.

Letter from the Court

As you might have assumed, I mailed back both tickets with Not Guilty pleas. And, now, as I write this, my above scheduled court appearance fewer than 12 hours away. Hopefully in the near future I can let the interweb know how my disposition goes...

Tail Light Justice

So, it's Friday night. And I was driving from Kwik-Fill, where I just got gas, to Wegmans. I'm driving into the plaza Wegmans is in and notice there is a cop behind me, with his lights flashing.

I pull over and the cop informs me that he pulled me over because a.) my muffler is too loud and b.) my tail lights are out.

Well, per the muffler, I informed him that I have my car's stock muffler, and fortunately that was about the last I heard about the muffler. But then he proceeded to write me a ticket for my my tail light being out. Now, I'm totally for driving around without tail lights being illegal. That's dangerous. Makes sense. But why not simply inform the person, record the fact you warned them "in the system" and then only if the person gets pulled over again do you give them a ticket? After all, I really don't think there are a bunch of people intentionally and maliciously driving around without tail lights!

He then gave me an extra ticket because although my insurance is plenty up to date, my insurance card is out of date. It expired at the end August. It's now November 10.

The cop informs me that if I get the tail light fixed, when I go to court they should dismiss the ticket. And if I bring proof of insurance, they should dismiss that too.

OK, so Mr. Cop - why are you writing me tickets you believe will be dismissed?! That seems like a great use the tax payer's dollars!

Finally, he asks me if I have any questions. I don't really, and maybe I should have just shut up. Instead, I said something like "this seems strange to me; I grew up in Pennsylvania where if your tail light is out, they simply give you a warning." His initial response was that basically this isn't Pennsylvania. Fair enough. He also made reference to "well, in Pennsylvania, they give you a ticket if you are doing 1 over (the speed limit.)" I wonder what the speed limit really is in New York. Funny how they paint those numbers on the signs and then apparently cops quasi-officially or even really officially don't even enforce the actual number (but don't get me started on speed limits!). Anyway, at least now I realize I got's it so good in New York!

Then, in his continued response to my question, he decided to point out that, if he wanted to, he could have my car towed and he totaled the towing fees and the storage fees (since it's Friday and I wouldn't be able to pick my car up until Monday) which came to like $150. Fortunately, he didn't decide to do this. I didn't make me like him any more though. Neither did it make me more appreciative that he was forcing me to go to court over a tail light when a warning would have served the public interest equally well (and perhaps even better).

He then further continued (my previous quotations, this is, in fact, verbatim):

Officer: Where do you work?
Me: In Pittsford.
Officer: What do you do?
Me: Computer stuff.
Officer: If you boss asks you to do something, do you do it?
Me: Uhh, Yeah.
Officer: Well, my boss told me to go write tickets.

UGH! I'd be quite glad if his boss told him to go "enforce the law" -- that's what the tax payers pay him to do! -- but then it became quite clear that the reason he wrote me a ticket instead of giving me a warning is because he obviously has (officially or otherwise) some quota of tickets to give out. Lucky him, he got to take care of two!


AND - it gets better! (And this is what spurred me to blog about this!)

MY TAIL LIGHTS WORK FINE!!

Immediately after getting the ticket, I checked them out in the parking lot. Observe... (sorry for the crappy quality, camera phone.)

Exhibit A:


Exhibit B:


Exhibit C:


JERK!