TRAFFIC Category Archives — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

When Can a New York Police Officer Pull You Over for a Traffic Stop?

December 26, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

Most drivers are aware that under certain circumstances, a police officer is authorized to pull over vehicles and conduct a traffic stop. What does the law say, though, about what kind of situation allows the officer to legally initiate a traffic stop? Is a traffic stop only allowed if there is a major traffic violation, or do minor ones allow the stop as well?

New York Case Law

According to New York case law, an officer can initiate a traffic stop when that officer has “probable cause to believe that a driver has committed a traffic violation.” The officer uses the entirety of the circumstances to determine whether the driver has committed a traffic violation. The officer can observe any range of traffic violations, whether major or minor. The legal standard is that the officer must have probable cause, i.e. a reasonable basis, for believing that the driver at issue did in fact commit a traffic violation.

Crossing the Fog Line

In a recent case decided by New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, the defendant argued that when an officer pulled him over for swerving, the officer did not have probable cause to believe he committed a traffic violation (and therefore that the officer violated the defendant’s rights). In this case, police officers testified that they saw the defendant cross the fog line in the road three times within a tenth of a mile before they pulled him over under suspicion of driving while intoxicated.

New York Defendant Succeeds in Criminal Appeal on Grounds that Prosecution Failed to Offer Explanation for Unreadiness at Trial

April 24, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

As we have discussed often, New York’s speedy trial statute can be a defendant’s best friend. A March 2024 case before a New York appellate court emphasized the importance of coming to court prepared for trial when the court expects you to be prepared for trial. In this particular case, the prosecution filed a “statement of readiness” prior to a trial for reckless driving, only to later confess it was not ready to move forward and ask for more time to prepare for trial. Once the prosecution asked for extensions (without any explanation) three times in a row, the trial court dismissed the case. On appeal, the higher court decided this was the correct ruling, given that the state declared it was ready and then, without reason, sought an extension three different times.

The Prosecution’s Extensions

The defendant was arrested and charged with reckless driving in early December 2017. A couple of weeks later, when it became apparent the case was going to go to trial, the State filed what is called a “certificate of readiness,” declaring to the court that it was ready for trial. The State and the defendant appeared for the first day of trial on September 5, 2018, at which point the State asked for a 12-day extension. The parties reappeared on October 18, at which time the State again admitted it was not ready for trial. The court extended the trial for a third time, and again, on November 28, the State told the court it was unprepared.

Each time, the State failed to offer any reason that it needed an extension. By the time the parties appeared for the fourth time on February 4, 2018, 420 days had passed between the defendant’s indictment and the first day of trial. The defendant’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The defendant appealed, the higher court reversed, and the State again appealed. The case then came before the New York Court of Appeals.

New York Defendant Unsuccessfully Argues that COVID-19 Face Masks Impeded His Right to Fair Trial

April 12, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent homicide case before a New York Court of Appeals, the defendant challenged his guilty convictions on the grounds that he was unable to fully observe potentially jury members during the jury selection portion of his trial. When the defendant’s case was before the lower court, COVID-19 was in full force, and the potential jurors were required to wear masks inside the courtroom. According to the defendant, the masks presented a problem with regards to his right to observe the individuals’ expressions and demeanors. Ultimately, on appeal, the court disagreed with the defendant and affirmed the guilty convictions.

Procedural Background

The defendant’s case revolved around a three-car collision in 2017, in which the defendant’s blood alcohol content was above the permissible limit. One of the other passengers ended up dying as a result of the crash, and the state charged the defendant with three counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and manslaughter in the second degree.

The defendant pled not guilty, and his trial began in April 2021. At that time, many COVID-19 protocols were still in place, including that potential jury members were told to wear face masks while in the courtroom. They were, however, allowed to remove the masks and put on a clear plastic face shield in its place when the judge or an attorney directly questioned them.

New York Criminal Case Highlights Danger of Providing Inconsistent Statements to Police Officers

December 24, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent criminal case before the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court, the defendant appealed a conviction that he argued was based on an officer’s unlawful search of his vehicle. In the opinion, the court highlighted the defendant’s inconsistent statements to the police officer that searched his car, which ultimately gave the officer reasonable grounds to search the vehicle. Given these inconsistent statements, decided the court, the defendant’s appeal would ultimately be denied.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer on patrol pulled the defendant over one evening through a routine traffic stop. The officer approached the defendant and began speaking with him through the open driver’s side window. At first glance, the officer noticed that the defendant was sitting in a twisted position, and it appeared as if he was trying to hide one side of his body from the officer.

The officer asked a couple of questions, at one point inquiring as to where the defendant was heading. When the defendant then gave inconsistent answers about where he was driving, the officer asked if he could search the defendant’s car. While the opinion did not specify what the officer found in the vehicle, it was certainly enough for the State to criminally charge the defendant. He filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence, which the lower court denied.

Defendant Seeks Reversal of Felony Aggravated Unlicensed Operation Conviction

May 5, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Driving with a suspended license can be an extremely serious offense in New York with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the First Degree being a Felony in New York. A recent decision decided toward the end of April, in the Appellate Division, Third Department, demonstrates why these cases must be treated very seriously and handled by experienced criminal defense lawyers. Originally, the defendant was convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. The defendant’s attorney filed a pre-trial motion to suppress certain incriminating evidence, which the lower court summarily denied without a hearing because the motion was not supported by sworn allegations of fact. When the defendant appealed this denial, the higher court considered the evidence but ultimately decided the trial court’s ruling should stand.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one night when he made two turns without using a turn signal. A patrolling officer pulled him over for a routine traffic stop, at which point the officer learned that the defendant was operating the motor vehicle without a license.

The defendant’s attorney promptly filed a motion to suppress evidence of the conversation between his client and the officer during the traffic stop. The court denied that motion and the defendant pleaded guilty to the crime, and received a sentence of 1 to 3 years in prison.

Defendant in New York Criminal Case Successfully Gets Incriminating Statements Suppressed

March 29, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case involving leaving the scene of an accident or incident before a New York appellate court, the defendant successfully argued that his motion to suppress was improperly denied by the lower court. The defendant was criminally charged and convicted after an incident in which he left the scene of an automobile accident without reporting. On appeal, however, the defendant argued that the police officer questioning him neglected to give him the proper Miranda warnings before soliciting information. Agreeing with the defendant, the appellate court ended up suppressing several of the defendant’s incriminating statements.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, state troopers were patrolling one evening when they pulled the defendant and his acquaintance over to the side of the road. Apparently, the troopers had been informed to be on the lookout for a car that looked similar to the defendant’s, whose driver was on the run after colliding with a motorcycle nearby.

The troopers brought the defendant out of his car, told him to place his hands on top of the vehicle, and began to question him about where he had been earlier that evening. At that point, the defendant admitted that he had been driving the car for several hours, including at the time the motorcycle accident happened. Quickly, the defendant backtracked and said that he had actually been on the train earlier that night. When the officer asked which train the defendant had taken, however, the defendant could not think of anything to say.

New York Court Denies Defendant Relief Under Statute Guaranteeing Right to Speedy Trial

July 13, 2022 | Tilem & Associates

We have discussed in past blogs how New York’s speedy trial statute can be effectively used in many criminal cases. In a recent case coming out of a New York court, the defendant appealed convictions for three misdemeanor counts and three traffic infractions that had arisen in 2014. On appeal, the defendant argued that an amendment to New York’s speedy trial statute should apply retroactively; thus, he was entitled to a dismissal. The court of appeals considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately disagreed, explaining that the statute in question did not apply to the offense for which the defendant was seeking relief.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, approximately eight years ago, the defendant was criminally charged based on traffic violations. 17 months after being charged, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges based on a New York statute that guarantees defendants the right to a speedy trial. The statute includes provisions stating that if a defendant is subject to unreasonable delay because the prosecution is not ready for trial, that defendant can use this statute to argue for a dismissal. At the time of his motion to dismiss, however, the statute did not apply to defendants charged with traffic infractions. Thus, the defendant’s argument was unsuccessful.

In 2019, however, the legislature changed the language of the New York statute, explicitly including defendants charged with traffic infractions as individuals eligible for dismissal because of unreasonable prosecutorial delay. Upon hearing this news, the defendant again brought up this argument, stating that now he was in the class of people that could benefit from the statute. The court of appeals was thus faced with the decision of whether or not the defendant’s case could indeed be dismissed because of the statute.

New York Court Discusses Miranda Requirement in Recent Opinion

March 10, 2021 | Tilem & Associates

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York Leaving the Scene of an Accident case which required the court to analyze whether a defendant’s statements that were elicited before he was given his Miranda warnings were admissible at trial. Ultimately, the court held that, because the defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, the detective interviewing him did not need to Mirandize the defendant. Thus, the statements were admissible and the defendant’s conviction was affirmed.

The Facts of the Case

According to the facts contained in the appellate opinion, a pedestrian was struck by a pickup truck in East Islip. Throughout the course of the investigation, the detective got a lead that the defendant had a pickup truck that matched the description of the one that hit the pedestrian.

The detective went to the defendant’s home. When the detective arrived, he told the defendant why he was there, and the defendant voluntarily answered a few preliminary questions. The defendant also agreed to let the detective check out his vehicle.

NEW YORK TO STOP SUSPENDING LICENSES OVER UNPAID FINES

July 27, 2020 | Peter Howard Tilem

A bill which would end the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) practice of suspending driver’s licenses for unpaid fines and driver responsibility assessments has past both the New York State Assembly and the New York State Senate and is currently awaiting the signature of Governor Cuomo. The new law, if signed could impact millions of New Yorker’s who are currently suspended for unpaid fines and fees such as Driver Responsibility Assessments. In the 26 months from January 2016 until April 2018 New York issued nearly 1.7 million suspensions for traffic debt. The suspensions create a cycle that is hard to get out of since, often, those with suspended licenses, cannot work to pay the debts.

Driving with a suspended license that is suspended based upon unpaid fines or driver responsibility assessments can constitute anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony depending on a number of factors and can have serious consequences including mandatory probation and/or jail.

Similar laws that prohibit suspensions based upon traffic debt have already been passed in at least 9 states including large states such as Texas and California as part of a national trend to stop punishing poverty by eliminating cash bail and terminating suspensions based upon unpaid debts.

New York Court Suppresses Gun Found Following Traffic Stop

May 31, 2020 | Peter Howard Tilem

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York gun case, reversing a lower court that found the defendant’s motion to suppress lacked merit. In holding that the defendant’s motion should have been granted, the appellate court explained that the defendant’s conduct failed to provide the officer with probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer saw the defendant make a left turn without using a signal. As the officer initiated the traffic stop, the defendant pulled into a driveway. The defendant initially got out of the vehicle, but the officer told him to get back inside. The defendant was unable to open the window, explaining to the officer that it was broken. Eventually, the defendant moved to the passenger side, opened the door, and fled.

Once the officer caught the defendant, the defendant explained he ran because he had a warrant for his arrest. The officer went back to the defendant’s car, noticing the smell of marijuana. The officer looked through the car, finding small baggies and a substance that he believed was crack cocaine. The officer then obtained a warrant to fully search the car. Upon searching the vehicle, the officer found a semi-automatic handgun.