Articles Posted in TRAFFIC

In a previous blog I explained that one doesn’t not have a statutory right to a speedy trial in a New York traffic violation case (such as speeding, red light, stop signs violations, etc). Does this mean that a New York court can take years to schedule your trial? The answer is yes and no. While there is no statutory right to a speedy trial in a traffic violation case, the courts have held that one charged with a New York traffic violation has a constitutional right to have his or her trial held within two years. This constitutional right is found in CPL § 30.20 which basically states that after a criminal prosecution is commenced the defendant is entitled to a speedy trial. This section does not set forth what constitutes a speedy trial however. It also applies to traffic violations because for purposes of procedure, traffic violations are treated as misdemeanors. See VTL § 155. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution also guarantees a right to a speedy trial even in traffic violation cases.

Numerous New York court cases have held that the speedy trial provision found in CPL § 30.20 applies to traffic violation cases. The question becomes therefore, what is considered an acceptable time frame within which one charged with a New York traffic violation must be brought to trial in light of CPL § 30.20? Two years seems to be the limit provided the delay is not caused by the defendant. Below are reviews of relevant cases:

In People v. Thorpe, 160 Misc.2d 558, 613 N.Y.S.2d 795 (1994) the Appellate Term dismissed a conviction due to an unexplained two year delay in bringing the case to trial. This is the case to rely on when making a speedy trial motion. See also People v. Matera, 2003 WL 21974065 (N.Y.Sup.App.Term), 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51180(U)(unexplained delay of over two years in bringing traffic infraction to trial warranted dismissal); People v. Rogoish, 2003 WL 21700087 (N.Y.Sup.App.Term), 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51120(U)(unexplained delay of over three years in bringing the traffic infraction to trial warranted dismissal)

The simple fact is, a motorist charged with a New York traffic violation has no statutory right to a speedy trial. The denial of a statutory right to a speedy trial in a New York traffic violation case is yet another example of the New York Judiciary completely disregarding the laws duly enacted by the Legislature and imposing their own will. It is yet another example of what I consistently refer to as judicial supremacy as opposed to judicial oversight. Such rulings by the courts quite simply amount to a judicial hijacking of the legislative role thus destroying the separation of powers.

A review of the relevant laws reveals that the Courts’ denial of speedy trial rights in traffic violation cases (as well as the denial of other rights in traffic violation cases) is completely contrary to the clear and unambiguous wording of the laws; laws that the judiciary is constitutionally obligated to enforce and carryout whether they agree with them or not.

First of all, the New York State Legislature has determined that, with some exceptions, traffic “violations shall be deemed as misdemeanors and all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors . . . shall apply except that no jury trial shall be allowed for traffic infractions.” See VTL § 155. Therefore, if the Legislature has determined that traffic violations are to be treated procedurally as misdemeanors, under what possible theory could the speedy trial statutes not apply? See for example People v. Solomon, 1984, 124 Misc.2d 33, 475 N.Y.S.2d 749 (1984) where the court held that the right to speedy trial does not attach to actions commenced for traffic violations. See also People v. Howell, 158 Misc.2d 653, 601 N.Y.S.2d 778(1993)(Speedy trial statute applies only to felonies, misdemeanors, and violations, and “violation” is specifically defined to exclude traffic infractions.)

As I explained in a previous blog, the practice of officers prosecuting the New York traffic tickets they issue was upheld by the New York Court of Appeals case; People v. Soddano. Soddano and it’s holding that officers may act as prosecutors for their tickets is flawed for several glaring reasons. First, the practice violates a principle as old as trials themselves – a witness may not act as an advocate at a trial. In other words, if the lawyer is a witness in a case, he may not act as one’s lawyer in that same case. For example, if I witness a car accident, I am forbidden from representing someone involved in that car accident. This is commonly referred to as the “Witness-Advocate Rule”. In fact, this ancient rule is codified in the Disciplinary Rules that attorneys in this State are obligated to follow. See N.Y.Ct.Rules, § 1200.21(c); (DR 5-102(c).

This is a very basic rule that most sixth-graders could comprehend once it was explained to them. If you are a witness in the case, you can’t represent someone in the case. Therefore, in a traffic ticket case, the issuing officer is not only a witness; he or she is usually the complaining, and sole witness in the case. Accordingly, under the “Witness-Advocate Rule”, the officer should be barred from representing the People. The officer should be barred from acting as an advocate in the very case he or she is the main witness. Very simple, right? Wrong!

You see, in most New York local criminal courts, “up is down” “down is up” “left is right” “right is left” and the Constitution and Due Process are mere annoyances that are simply cast aside. When I first became an attorney, I thought I was missing something. I became hesitant to even open my mouth in court because apparently in local criminal court, words have different meanings and statutes are interpreted and applied without regard to the plain wording of the law. I came out of law-school thinking the judges were the most wise and legally educated individuals in the equation. Quickly, however, I realized that I wasn’t misreading the law; I came to learn that the law doesn’t matter. It’s that simple – THE LAW DOESN’T MATTER. The extent to which most local criminal court judges will contort the law to ensure conviction and accommodate the prosecution is mind boggling.

The answer to this question is fairly simple; when it comes to New York traffic violations, the Courts of New York State have allowed deeply rooted judicial principles founded on fairness to be disregarded. As I said in a previous blog, far too many judges have no apparent concept of the presumption of innocence and proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This fact is more prevalent in traffic court where, in most (but not all) courts, if a traffic violation actually goes to trial, the guilty outcome is a foregone conclusion. The trial, sadly, is a rubberstamp process and the rubberstamp says “Guilty”.

The New York criminal justice system particularly as it pertains to lower level offenses is designed for speed. Some New York courts handle hundreds of tickets per day; others handle dozens per day. Needless to say, fair trials are not on the top of the judge’s list of things to do. In my opinion the desire to “move cases” has eroded our rights to a fair trial in New York traffic court. A prime example of placing the need to “move cases” over the rights of defendants is the practice of having the police officer who issued the ticket both plea bargain the ticket and if necessary, prosecute the ticket. This practice has been condoned by the highest court in New York. See People v. Soddano, 86 N.Y.2d 727, 631 N.Y.S.2d 120 (1995) where the New York Court of Appeals held that officers may, upon a proper delegation from the duly elected District Attorney, prosecute the traffic tickets they issue. The Court acknowledged that the elected county District Attorneys are ultimately responsible for all prosecutions in their particular county (See County Law § 700) but held that the County District Attorneys could properly “delegate” the authority to prosecute traffic infractions to the issuing police officers.

In reality, I doubt the officers have any formal delegation of authority from the elected District Attorney to prosecute their own tickets. Tilem & Campbell handles hundreds of traffic tickets each year and I only recall one time where a local village prosecutor actually presented a written delegation of authority from the elected District Attorney allowing that local prosecutor to prosecute traffic violations within that village. In fact, if you were to ask the issuing officer under what authority he was acting as prosecutor, he or she would most likely have no idea what you were talking about. Most police officers probably learned as rookies that they negotiate and/or prosecute their own tickets. It is in reality, a matter of custom. Ask a local judge to dismiss or inquire as to what delegation of authority the officer has to act as prosecutor and most (not all) local court judges will look at you like you are speaking an unknown foreign language. That’s the reality of New York traffic court.