Where the story differs from the typical traffic ticket defense case is his use of a very technical paper entitled “The Proof of Innocence” to allegedly “prove” that he was not guilty and did come to a complete stop. The media has been reporting the story and setting forth that this man’s ticket was dismissed because he was able to conclusively show that he did indeed stop at the sign.

Personally, I don’t understand a bit of the science involved. Won’t even try. You can read the whole paper and I can tell you I was lost from the start.  The paper opens with “It is widely known that an observer measuring the speed of an object passing by, measures not its actual linear velocity but the angular one” and it only gets more complicated from there as he moves from this “widely known” stuff about linear velocity to a series of increasingly technical charts and trigonometric equations. SohCahToa was hard enough…this is way beyond that.

Sample page from paper. This proves he stopped?

My problem with all this is simple. This is NOT proof that a vehicle stopped. So many people who get traffic tickets seek some conclusion in court that “proves” their innocence. Many times I see people argue that a radar was interfered with or an officer couldn’t see or it was another vehicle who committed the act and call their reasoning “proof” that they did nothing wrong. None of this proves anything just like none of this professor’s Good Will Hunting mathematics proves he came to a complete stop.

Show me authentic video of the incident itself from an angle where I can see conclusively whether the wheels stopped moving prior to the stopping point. Short of that, nothing has been conclusively proven or has removed all doubt. Of course, few people videotape themselves driving so this professor did the next best thing–try to convince the judge that perhaps a mistake had been made and the benefit of any existing doubt should go to the motorist.

How’s this for “proof” that “The Proof of Innocence” proves nothing–He could have written this same paper even if he blew right through the stop sign.

So why was this ticket dismissed then? We don’t know for sure, but just rattling some possibilities off the top of my head…

• The Judge was amused or impressed with the effort and decided to give the guy a break.

• The Judge was getting bored, or hungry, or getting a headache trying to figure it out and decided to just give the guy a break.

• The officer admitted it was possible he made a mistake instead of stating that he was absolutely 100% certain no stop was made.

• The officer failed to testify to some other important piece of information. For example, maybe when it was all said and done he never clearly set forth which corner at the intersection had the stop sign.

My main point here is for people to understand that they shouldn’t expect to walk into court with charts, diagrams, fancy math, pictures, letters from their Rabbi, etc and profess that they have proof no traffic violation was committed. These things can be used to help show that maybe a mistake was made and potentially leave some doubt in the  judge’s head. This type of “proof” may help push a decision in your favor when combined with a  judge in the right mood and an officer who isn’t too combative or thorough, but remember that it still proves nothing with respect to the underlying violation itself.

Scott Feifer

She was pulled over at 8:10 p.m. for driving her Hyundai SUV 103 miles per hour and then a second time by 8:30 p.m. for driving 105 miles per hour. Forty minutes later she was pulled over for going 76 miles per hour. On the third stop, she was arrested and charged with Reckless Driving.

She told officers she was in a hurry because she was on her way to care for a sick relative.

My take on the story isn’t so much about what the penalty should be or how many times someone can/should be stopped on the same roadway in the same county for the same offense. What stood out to me is the fact that too many people think they are justified for speeding and that their actions somehow should be excused by officers, prosecutors and judges.

As I tell clients all the time, there is no justification for speeding. The excuse in this case (an emergency that needed attention) doesn’t work. The law won’t allow a driver’s efforts to help one person to put every other driver on the road in danger by giving an untrained driver in an unmarked car without emergency lights or sirens the OK to drive at incredibly high rates of speed.

I have spoken with many doctors who were rushing to the hospital for surgery or to see a patient or something similar and it’s the same thing in those cases–no legal justification for speeding.

I agree with the legal reasoning. It’s why we have 911 and other emergency responders. If someone at another location is in trouble, the law wants professional emergency services providers to respond. They can do it quickly and efficiently without endangering anyone else.

If you have been charged with speeding and feel you had a good reason to speed, be careful when it comes time to appear in court. In some cases, a legitimate explanation could bring leniency in the form of a more favorable plea bargain. In other cases, you could be hurting your case by outright admitting you were speeding (“I did it but…”).

In New York especially, understand the differences between the typical local court and the TVB before ever appearing and expecting a favorable outcome after an open and honest confession to the court.

Scott Feifer

If you try to leave the scene of the accident without taking responsibility, you’ll risk further penalties under the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Laws. These laws don’t treat all accidents equally, so whether you face any additional charges and what the severity of those charges may be depends on the type of accident/damage involved. The VTL basically breaks accidents down to three categories:

• Damage to property (not animals)
• Damage to (certain) animals
• Damage to people

Leaving the scene of an incident involving property damage NYS VTL Sec. 600-1

Any person operating a motor vehicle who gets into an accident with another vehicle or hits a parked car or hits a mailbox or other property must stop and exhibit their license and registration to the owner of the damaged property. If no owner is at the scene, then the driver must report the incident as soon as physically able to the nearest police station.

A violation of this section carries three points and it is a violation, not a misdemeanor or more serious criminal category of offense.

Leaving the scene of an incident involving injury to certain animals NYS VTL Sec. 601

Any person operating a motor vehicle which shall strike and injure any horse, dog, cat or animal classified as cattle must stop and exhibit their license and registration to the owner of the damaged property. If no owner is at the scene, then the driver must report the incident as soon as physically able to the nearest police station.

A violation of this sections carries three points and it is a violation, not a misdemeanor or more serious criminal category of offense.

It’s interesting to note here the distinction made between animals which seem to have some value to humans and all other animals. Dogs and cats have the emotional value, horses and cattle the financial value. I’m not quite sure about the “classified as cattle” part of it but I imagine that legal research can wait until I have a client charged with injuring goats or sheep or other potentially protected animals and not stopping. Squirrels, geese, raccoons…sorry guys. The law allows a driver to leave a trail of your carcasses in his wake without even slowing down.

Leaving the scene of an incident involving personal injury NYS VTL Sec. 600-2

Any person operating a motor vehicle who injures another person must stop and exhibit their license and registration to the injured individual. The operator must also report the incident as soon as physically able to the nearest police officer or station.

A violation of this sections is actually significantly more serious than a traffic violation.  It’s a misdemeanor. It will be treated as a criminal matter and may result in a permanent criminal record and can have lasting ramifications well beyond those of simple violations.

Oddly enough the misdemeanor version is the only one which does not come with any points. The law which sets forth point values specifically allots three points for “leaving the scene of a property damage incident or injury to an animal without reporting”. Personal injury is clearly omitted and falls under a catchall for a number of different violations that don’t carry any points at all.

Scott Feifer

I recently came across a study insurance.com completed last year.  While there still is no way to predict exactly what will happen to insurance after a conviction for a moving violation, the study at least give some people an idea about the potential increases.

Insurance.com surveyed more than 32,000 auto insurance policies sold through their site in 2010 and found that costs jump a substantial 18 percent higher after one moving violation and a way more substantial 53 percent after three violations when compared to rates for drivers with no violations.

On average, drivers with no violations pay $1,119 annually for car insurance. By contrast, drivers with three violations pay $1,713.

Insurance.com analysis reveals the effect that moving violations have on the average auto insurance policy:

0 Violations – Average annual premium cost of $1,119
1 Violation – Average annual premium cost of $1,318, an 18 percent increase
2 Violations – Average annual premium cost of $1,497, a 34 percent increase
3 Violations – Average annual premium cost of $1,713, a 53 percent increase

Remember that these are annual increases.  The increase might very well last 3 yrs or until the conviction(s) in question no longer are counted against you by the insurer.

Also remember  to keep in mind how many other variables are in play.  These statistics are averages based on the number of convictions, but each individual in the study lived in different places, drove different cars, were of different ages and were convicted on different violations.  We can’t expect a conviction for failing to signal on a turn to be treated the same as reckless driving or a high speed in a work zone would be.

While the study does at least provide some baseline numbers to work off, the real conclusion is the same one we’ve been working with all along.  Tickets are not good for insurance.  Try not to get them.  If you get them, it may very well be worth while to fight them and try to avoid or minimize conviction.  If you are convicted, take a defensive driving class to help lessen the damage.

Scott Feifer, Esq.

We’ve received a number of inquiries recently concerning reckless driving tickets. Here are some thoughts on the NY Reckless Driving law, including how it is enforced and how it typically plays out in court.

What is Reckless Driving?

Reckless Driving is set forth in § 1212 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Reckless driving shall mean driving or using any motor vehicle, motorcycle or any other vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangers users of the public highway. Reckless driving is prohibited. Every person violating this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Note how vague it is. Essentially, driving in a manner which “endangers users of the public highway”. Talking on the phone, eating a sandwich, driving with a broken headlight…any of these acts could arguably fit within the statute. It can be written as a catchall for almost any traffic violation or driving act/omission an officer believes he witnessed.

Note how serious it is. It’s a misdemeanor, not a violation. It’s a crime that results in a permanent criminal record. On top of that, it’s damaging to your license as it carries five points. I’m confident lawmakers never meant for this to be written as a substitute for any old minor traffic violation, yet that is exactly what we see on a daily basis.

Why would an officer issue a serious misdemeanor Reckless Driving ticket instead of an ordinary traffic violation upon observing a minor infraction?

There are three theories here.

First, some officers aren’t regular summons writers. They happen to see an infraction, pull someone over, yet aren’t sure what specific section of vehicle and traffic law to site. The officer may know however that Reckless Driving, a vague catchall, is good enough and will likely fit. Many of these officers who don’t regularly deal with car stops and issuing summonses might not even recognize how much more serious the Reckless Driving charge is.

Second, some NYC officers may recognize that for every Reckless Driving charge they issue they likely save themselves a trip to court. For ordinary traffic violations, the officer will be summonsed to the TVB to testify. For minor criminal charges like Reckless, it’s unlikely an officer will ever need to show in court. Most Reckless cases are plea bargained to a disposition before the officer ever needs to appear. This is specific to Reckless Driving in NYC.

Third, there must be cases where the motorist’s behavior after the car stop prompted the officer to write the more serious reckless charge. Arguing with an officer doesn’t help. While not every officer will be swayed one way or another by the motorist’s attitude, we have to acknowledge that officers are human and have discretion when it comes to what they issue. It’s fair to assume that in some small percentage of cases an argumentative motorist can drive away with a reckless charge where a more cooperative motorist would have been issued the simple traffic violation.

What does a Reckless Driving Lawyer do in court?

Luckily, lawyers aren’t the only ones who recognize that Reckless Driving is charged in many cases where a simple traffic ticket should have been issued. The Prosecutors and Judges see the same thing. In cases such as these we are typically able to get Prosecutors to agree and Judges to sign off on significantly reduced charges that result in damages no more severe than a parking ticket.

There is also the Reckless Driving situation where a motorist may have actually been driving recklessly. Trying to evade police, drag racing…these are situations where the charge may actually fit. In these cases, the Prosecutor and Judge may not be as sympathetic but a lawyer’s strategy remains the same–try to negotiate a significantly reduced charge.

If you’ve been charged with Reckless Driving in NY, just make sure you do your research and proceed carefully. While your outlook is good in the vast majority of these cases, the potential penalties are too severe to play around. When you are dealing with a criminal misdemeanor charge you should always consult with an attorney before proceeding.

Scott Feifer

Last year, NY introduced it’s “move over” law to protect police officers and other emergency workers from the dangers of passing vehicles while working roadside (move over law NY).  Now New York’s “move over law” is being expanded as of New Year’s Day to include tow trucks, other emergency vehicles and highway crews.

The law requiring drivers to shift lanes when approaching flashing police lights will now include flashing amber lights as well.

Drivers must slow down when and where it isn’t safe for them to actually change lanes and move over.

Just last month, Kevin Woloszyn was driving in Cattaraugus County on Interstate 90 when his truck broke down. The tow truck driver who responded was killed when a tractor trailer hit him.  It’s a said reminder of the dangers of working roadside and stories like these are the inspiration for the original (and now the expanded) version of the law.

It’s pretty simple from a driver’s perspective.  If you see activity on the side of the road, proceed with caution.  Move over and out of the way if you can, slow down if you cannot.

Scott Feifer

NY attorney Eliott Dear was pulled over in July 2007 by a New Jersey state trooper.  He was issued a speeding ticket for driving 84 mph in a 55 mph zone.

A few days after the issuance of the summons, Dear wrote a letter to the traffic court on his law firm’s letterhead.  He accused the officer of calling him a “Jew Kike.”

When an Internal Affairs officer interviewed Dear by telephone he repeated his claims of anti-Semitic behavior.  Dear also cited the officer’s failure to acknowledge his explanation for speeding: that his pregnant wife needed a bathroom.

Fortunately for the officer, his car and uniform were rigged to video and audio recording devices throughout the car stop.  Neither recording supported Dear’s version of the incident.

Internal Affairs cleared the trooper of wrongdoing and the state police subsequently lodged a complaint against Dear using the recording and the Internal Affairs interview as their primary evidence.

After it was all said and done, Dear paid the $265 ticket.  He admitted that the trooper never used an ethnic slur against him. A disciplinary committee for the New York appellate court’s Manhattan-based first department made five charges against Dear, and the lawyer admitted to them.   Despite Dear’s plea for a censure or reprimand, the hearing panel recommended a six-month suspension, which the appellate division granted on Dec. 8.

This could have caused irreparable damage to this officer’s career, reputation and family.  This could have caused tremendous tension in the community.   Makes you wonder sometimes what people are thinking.

On average, the nation received three stars (out of 5).  New York is a four star state.

Stars are awarded as follows:

1. Requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers
2. Conducting sobriety checkpoints
3. Creating enhanced penalties for those who drive drunk with children in the vehicle
4. Participating in “no-refusal” activities for those suspected of drunk driving
5. Utilizing Administrative License Revocation for drunk driving offenders

New York did not receive a fifth star in relation to the “no-refusal” point.  I imagine just about every state has some law or method to address those who refuse to immediately submit to a BAC test because it’s necessary to prevent people from getting away with DWI just by saying no to a field test.  In New York Section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides for the temporary suspension (pending a hearing on the matter) and subsequent revocation (if the hearing shows you did indeed refuse) of a license or operating privilege when a person refuses to submit to a chemical test.  MADD is actually talking about “no refusal activities” like the no refusal weekends some states have set up.  These are enforcement periods where checkpoints are set up and people are asked to submit to a test and if they refuse judges are on call all weekent to issue warrants authorizing the police to draw blood on the spot.  The intent here is to publicize the fact that refusal will not be an option.

Overall, NY did well with it’s four stars according to this report and is “working diligently to stop drunk driving.”

Scott Feifer

MADD rates each state

The simulator aims to replicate some real world distractions.  These distractions come via the voice of an annoying passenger who fails to wear her own seat belt, asks the driver to drive faster and then requests that the driver calls and texts her brother.

Through the distractions the driver must maneuver local streets and then highways while using either a real cellphone or the one integrated with the video simulation.

During a demonstration yesterday, test subjects routinely got into fake accidents while trying to multitask.  Scarsdale police Chief John Brogan quickly got into an “accident” while trying the simulator himself.

Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore said the demonstration should make it very clear that “even one second of distraction can lead to a lifetime of regret” and that distracted driving poses dangers “not only to the driver and the passenger but to everyone who uses the roads.”

The simulator is part of a plan to teach and enforce state laws related to distracted driving that governor Cuomo has shown are clearly a priority in New York.  These laws have gone secondary violations (could only be issued if the car stop was primarily for another violation) which cary no points to secondary violations that carry two points (February) and then to primary violations which carry three points (July) all this year.

While distracted driving is something every single driver needs to avoid, it is particularly prevalent with younger (and thus the least experienced) drivers.   In March, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood released a poll that said 30 percent of people under 30 acknowledged sending text messages while driving.

Scott Feifer

There’s a lot of bad news recently surrounding the NYPD and I’ve had a few clients ask me about it.  I get mostly either a question about specific Bronx traffic tickets or just general commentary and grumbling about bad officers issuing bad tickets that may or may not have been justified.

1.  Will the Bronx TVB ticket fixing scandal affect my already closed or still open traffic violation matter in the Bronx?  Start with the premise that only tickets issued by the officers who have been either criminally or administratively involved in the scandal are in play.  Just because your ticket was issued in the same borough does not automatically raise questions about it.  From there, realize that it’s incredibly unlikely for any action to be taken on closed cases.  There are a number of legal and administrative reasons why that’s highly unlikely.  So we’re only talking about active/open TVB traffic tickets issued by officers involved in the scandal and with respect to those the answer is yes–your case may very well be affected.  If the officers are temporarily or permanently banned from testifying in traffic court, you may get lucky and an officer won’t appear in court on your hearing date.  If you have reason to believe a ticket you are currently fighting was issued by an officer named in the ticket fixing scandal, set a hearing date and go to court.  Don’t delay.

2.  Other clients while discussing their traffic tickets with me have either said it outright or insinuated that these multiple scandals are “proof” that that cops lie and do bad things and a judge should and will dismiss their ticket.  It’s here where we need a little perspective.  First, many just express their displeasure with their issuing officer to me but never really bother to tell me they didn’t do what they were accused of doing.   It’s unfair just because you are annoyed you got busted to make the jump and connect officers simply doing their jobs and issuing traffic tickets with an officer planting crack on an innocent person.   Second, even if you really didn’t go through that red light or speed as fast as an officer charged you, it doesn’t mean the officer intentionally or negligently wrote a bad summons.  The officer may have made an honest mistake and again, this is very very far from corrupt behavior.  Finally, you shouldn’t assume the officer you encountered in a traffic stop has any inclination towards corruption just because he’s a police officer.  There are scandals in every profession and clearly that does not make everyone in that profession corrupt.

On that last note, a recent quote from Justice Milton Mollen, a former deputy mayor and longtime judge who explored police corruption two decades ago.  “These are isolated individuals. The vast majority of police are not corrupt,” he said. “If you have 35,000 police officers … think 35,000 clergymen, 35,000 lawyers, 35,000 ditch-diggers, you’re going to find X percent are going to be corrupt.”

Scott Feifer