Many people question why they were given a ticket for an improper turn when there was no signage prohibiting the turn itself.

An improper turn doesn’t have to do whether the turn itself was legally allowed. The violation has to do with how the turn was executed.

Basically, left and right turns need to be made from as far to the left and right of the roadway as practicable.

A conviction for the traffic violation carries two points.

Here’s the entire relevant section of the NYS VTL.

§ 1160. Required position and method of turning at intersections. The
driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as
follows:
(a) Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn
shall be made as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of
the roadway or, where travel on the shoulder or slope has been
authorized, from the shoulder or slope.
(b) Left turns on two-way roadways. At any intersection where traffic
is permitted to move in both directions on each roadway entering the
intersection, an approach for a left turn shall be made in that portion
of the right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof and by
passing to the right of such center line where it enters the
intersection and after entering the intersection the left turn shall be
made so as to leave the intersection to the right of the center line of
the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be
made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of
the intersection.
(c) Left turns on other than two-way roadways. At any intersection
where traffic is restricted to one direction on one or more of the
roadways, the driver of a vehicle intending to turn left at any such
intersection shall approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand
lane of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the
direction of travel of such vehicle or, where travel on the shoulder or
slope has been authorized, from the shoulder or slope, and after
entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to leave the
intersection, as nearly as practicable, in the left-hand lane lawfully
available to traffic moving in such direction upon the roadway being
entered.
(d) When markers, buttons, signs, or other markings are placed within
or adjacent to intersections and thereby require and direct that a
different course from that specified in this section be traveled by
vehicles turning at an intersection, no driver of a vehicle shall turn a
vehicle at an intersection other than as directed and required by such
markers, buttons, signs, or other markings.
(e) U-turns. U-turns shall be made from and to that portion of the
highway nearest the marked center line. Where more than one lane of a
highway has been designated for left turns, U-turns shall be made only
from the lane so designated that is adjacent to the marked center line.

The video is pretty self explanatory.

If you see an emergency vehicle or worker on the side of the road, slow down and mover over a lane when possible.

The NY Move Over Law is more than just a symbolic violation to honor Officers Ambrose and Searles for whom the law is named.

It’s a new law that went into effect on Jan 1, 2011 and we are starting to see officers out there for crackdowns specifically on motorists who fail to “move over” and switch lanes while approaching an emergency vehicle engaged on the side of the road.

A recent week long enforcement blitz in Poughkeepsie resulted in the issuance of 865 tickets.  A similar two day blitz in the Buffalo area resulted in 43 move over traffic tickets issued.

You can read more about the Ambrose-Searles NY Move Over Law or just keep in mind these two points:

• On all roadways, you must reduce your speed when approaching an emergency vehicle.

• On larger roadways (Parkways, Controlled Access Highways, roadways with multiple lanes) you must reduce your speed and move from the lane immediately adjacent to the emergency vehicle as soon as it’s safe to do so.

If you’ve been issued one of these tickets, let us know.  They carry two points and we’d love to hear the circumstances under which yours was issued.

Submitted by Scott Feifer, Esq

Murray Weiss of DNAinfo.com, who seems to be out in front of the news on this ticket fixing scandal, has reported that the whole mess may be getting worse.

The probe all started with recorded conversations and what was heard on thousands of hours of tape goes far beyond just fixing traffic violations for friends and family. Alleged misconduct includes officers trying to quiet domestic violence and drunk-driving incidents involving off-duty police and officers making arrangements involving prostitutes. Nothing to do with traffic tickets but the alleged misconduct will be tied with the traffic ticket scandal nonetheless.

Evidence is currently being presented to a Bronx grand jury that’s weighing criminal charges. Prosecutors are setting threshold levels to determine which cases will rise to the criminal level and which will remain internal police administrative disciplinary issues.

Weiss points out that right now the number of criminal cases may be near 40 while the number of administrative cases as high as 500.

Weiss also expresses a desire, and I agree, that only the most egregious abuses end up being treated harshly.

The original article can be found here.

Hasidic Williamsburg residents are upset that many of their cars were ticketed and/or towed during the Passover holiday.

One Williamsburg community leader argued that this didn’t make sense and that the ticketing was insensitive to those celebrating the holiday because many were unable to move their cars during the holiday.

City officials argue that they did indeed suspend alternate side of the street rules and that these tickets were issued for other violations like parking in a no parking zone.

Assuming the tickets written were otherwise fair tickets, I tend to agree with the city on this one. Accommodations were made to respect the holiday once alternate side of the street parking was suspended for April 19, 20, 25 and 26. All residents had to do to take advantage was park in an otherwise legal spot. The holiday isn’t an excuse to park wherever you want.

Submitted by Scott Feifer, Esq.

Jim Dwyer of the New York Times wrote an interesting piece in light of the current NYPD traffic ticket fixing scandal on the lengths people go to avoid paying traffic ticket fines.

In his words, “of the many fevers that can grip the human animal, the desire to fix parking and traffic tickets has few equals for absurdity”.

I don’t think that the actual “desire to fix” is itself absurd.  When someone is pulled over for something they didn’t do or something everyone else on the road was doing or is given multiple tickets for the same offense or is treated rudely by an officer or is endanger of losing their license or their job or is facing thousands of dollars a year in additional auto insurance or very high fines and assessments or reads stories about how the DMV has raised fines and surcharges or about how officers are issuing more tickets to compensate for a poor economy or fill a quota….

My point?  There are many valid reasons for fighting traffic tickets and trying to “fix” the situation.

Tickets should be fought the right way, however. Plead not guilty, speak to a prosecutor, speak to an attorney, etc.   There are risks trying to fix tickets any other way (as the officers currently under investigation now know) and this NYT article makes a good point–the lengths people go to to get tickets fixed any other way does sometimes seem to be a bit too much.

Submitted by Scott Feifer, Esq.

Over the last few days there have been multiple news reports about a traffic ticket fixing scandal in NYC. We’ll be following and commenting on this story as it develops. Here is what we know thus far:

• Two dozen or so Bronx NYPD officers may face criminal charges after a lengthy inquiry into the practice of traffic ticket fixing.
• The tickets in question are almost all moving violations.  The investigation focuses mostly on the time before a system was put in place which made it harder for an officer to simply “lose” a ticket.
• Wiretaps were used in the investigation and the transcripts show how common traffic ticket fixing is and how open officers often were discussing it with each other.
• The investigation started when wiretaps in place for an unrelated matter turned up a conversation about helping fix a ticket.
• It’s not clear when the grand jury investigation being conducted by the Bronx DA’s Office and/or the administrative investigation conducted by the NYPD Internal Affair’s Bureau will be completed.
• While the number of criminal charges may be around two dozen, on the police administrative end we may 200 or so cases pursued.

It’s difficult to comment until more details emerge.  For now, safe to say it might not be the best time to ask that officer to see “what he can do” about that ticket you just got.

Submitted by Scott Feifer, Esq

Traffic ticket quotas usually cost the ordinary driver more money. In a twist on that usual theme, theses quotas just cost the city of Los Angeles $4 million dollars.

Two LAPD officers, who set forth that their reputation was affected and their career damaged by refusing to meet certain traffic ticket quotas, were awarded the damages as compensation. The quota system in question was put in place by their captain at the LAPD’s West Traffic Division. The system called for issuance of at least 18 tickets per day, including a certain number of “big mover” traffic violations like speeding or red light.

“Big mover” referred to the particularly high fines associated with certain violation.

The city argued that productive traffic ticket writing was simply about trying to make roads safer, not specific quotas.

My take on the quota issue has always been that of course there are quotas. There are “quotas” in every job to some extent. I expect a certain level of productivity out of my employees and that is their “quota”. I evaluate how much they get done and how well they do their job. They get positive feedback if they meet my expectations of a productive employee, negative feedback if they produce below my expectations.

When an officer is sent out on traffic enforcement, what happens if he returns having issued zero summonses? What if he did that day after day? A supervising officer would certainly not be happy and would argue the officer isn’t doing his job. Now what happens if he issues one ticket? Two? Five? At what point is the supervising officer happy with the productivity? Whatever the answer, there’s your “quota”.

In theory, quotas aren’t entirely wrong. If an officer sits on the side of the road reading a magazine his entire shift and ignores traffic violations, he deserves to be reprimanded and accused of underperforming. The problem starts when there’s a legitimate slow day–bad weather, a holiday, Dancing with the Stars finale or other phenomenon that has reduced traffic on the road–and an officer feels pressure to produce certain numbers nonetheless. As soon as that pressure leads to the issuance of one single ticket that otherwise wouldn’t have been written we see why “quota” is a bad word that can lead to multi million dollar lawsuits.

The solution? As with just about everything else in life it’s finding a balance. Officers should be vigilant and issue tickets when they observe violations while supervising officers need to understand that officers cannot feel any pressure to issue tickets they don’t feel comfortable with. Not necessarily easy, but the other option–a hard quota–is unacceptable.

Submitted by Scott Feifer, Esq.

In Onondaga County, NY 1,280 window tint tickets were issued in March.

This is an unusually high number and is a result of a push by the Onondaga County Traffic Safety Advisory Board to focus on specific traffic violations.

The Board started with tinted windows in March. One officer explained that excessively tinted windows present officer safety issues and help drivers hide other potential moving violations inside the car such as seat belt and cell phone violations.

Now, enforcement will focus on a different violation in April and every month through the end of the year.

In order for an effort like this to ever really be effective, all violation issuing agencies would need to be on the same page. Town and village police, sherriff’s deputies and state police have all agreed to focus on the same violation at the same time. Officers have been asked to have a zero-tolerance policy for the particular targeted offense.

In my opinion, “targeting” particular violations can be problematic in some situations. Tell an officer to go out and issue speeding tickets and he may suddenly issue tickets that he would not have previously issued. An officer may feel the need to err on the side of issuing a ticket, instead of letting a motorist go, in situations where he was not 100% certain a traffic violation was committed.

That said, this initiative doesn’t appear on it’s face to be a malicious one. The monthly offenses scheduled do stand out as some of the more common and potentially problematic violations. Police, children, pedestrians and the safety of other motorists on the road are all taken into consideration. As long as the summonses are fairly issued and adjudicated, this may be a way to get some drivers to develop some new habits that would only make the roads that much safer.

Here’s a list of the violations and the months they’ll be targeted:

April-cell phone/texting

May-seat belt/child restraint

June-motorcycle safety/helmet

July-speed/move over a safe distance for stopped police cars

Aug.-stop sign/pedestrian/crosswalk safety

Sept.-school zone speed/passed school buses

Oct.-cell phone/texting

Nov.-seatbelt/child restraint

Dec.-impaired driving

Submitted by Scott Feifer, Esq.