TRAFFIC Category Archives — Page 2 of 9 — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

Can a New York Police Officer Assume the Person Driving a Car Is the Registered Owner?

May 25, 2020 | Peter Howard Tilem

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme court issued a written opinion in a criminal law case discussing an issue that will become very important in many New York drug possession and firearms cases. The case involved the question as to whether a police officer can reasonably assume that the person who is operating a vehicle is the registered owner of that vehicle. While this inquiry may seem like an unimportant one, in reality, it will have a major impact on motion practice and suppression hearings across the country.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a sheriff deputy ran the license plate on the back of a pick-up truck to find that the registered owner had a revoked license. The deputy pulled the vehicle over, assuming that the registered owner was driving the vehicle. When the deputy discovered that the defendant was indeed the one driving, he cited the defendant.

The defendant filed a motion requesting to suppress all the evidence gathered from the stop, arguing that the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion when he decided to pull the defendant over. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, but the appellate court reversed. On appeal to the state’s high court, the case was again reversed, this time in favor of the defendant. That court held that the deputy was acting on a “hunch” when he assumed that the registered owner of the car was the one who was driving it. The prosecution appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Are New York Police Officers Permitted to Assume That a Driver Is the Vehicle’s Registered Owner?

January 21, 2020 | Tilem & Associates

Police officers must have a justifiable reason when they decide to pull over a motorist and initiate a traffic stop. Typically, an officer must have either probable cause or a reasonable suspicion, depending on the surrounding circumstances. When the police pull over a driver without a sufficient reason, anything that an officer finds in a subsequent search of the vehicle is subject to a motion to suppress by a New York criminal lawyer.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that touches on this very issue and can have a dramatic effect on the enforcement of Aggravated Unlicensed Operation in New York. Specifically, the question that the Court must answer in its upcoming opinion is whether it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle, absent any information to the contrary. This is critical, when a plate reader mounted on a police car shows that the registered owner of the car has a license that has been suspended or revoked.

The case arose when police officers ran the plates on the defendant’s vehicle. Upon doing so, the officers determined that the registered owner of the vehicle had a suspended license. Assuming that the person driving the car was the vehicle’s registered owner, the police officers pulled over the defendant. The officers confirmed that the defendant was also the registered owner of the vehicle, and they issued him a ticket.

New York Court Determines Officer Lacked Reasonable Suspicion to Stop Motorist, Suppressing Breath-Alcohol Test Results

November 27, 2018 | Tilem & Associates

Recently, a New York court issued a written opinion in a New York DWI case granting the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the field sobriety tests administered by the arresting officer. The court also granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the chemical testing that was performed on the defendant’s breath.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was pulled over by a police officer after the officer believed he had witnessed a traffic violation. Evidently, the officer was about 300 feet behind the defendant’s vehicle with another car between them when the officer saw the defendant’s car swerve within its lane. The officer testified that the swerving lasted for a few seconds. At one point, the defendant’s car briefly crossed the fog line and then returned to its lane.

The officer explained that after he pulled the defendant’s vehicle over, he noticed that the defendant smelled of alcohol. A field sobriety test was administered, and the defendant was arrested and taken to the station for a breath-alcohol test. The defendant was later charged with two counts of DUI and filed a motion to suppress the field sobriety and chemical test results.

Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Following a Traffic Stop for Tinted Windows

August 7, 2018 | Tilem & Associates

In the past, we have written several blogs about the importance of suppression in criminal cases in general and specifically with DWI cases. Recently, a court granted a defendant’s motion to suppress in a New York DUI case that was initiated by police officers pulling the defendant over for having tinted windows. The court granted the motion based on a total lack of testimony regarding the officers’ observations of the degree of tint on the defendant’s windows. The court noted that excessive tint is a valid basis for a New York traffic stop. However, here the prosecution failed to elicit evidence that the tint on the defendant’s windows was greater than that which was legally permissible.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was pulled over by an off-duty police officer based on the vehicle’s tinted windows. The off-duty officer testified that he instructed the defendant to pull over and, through his open window, could smell the odor of alcohol and could see that the defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot. The officer also testified that he based these conclusions on his twelve years as a New York City police officer. The officer explained that the only reason he pulled the defendant over was that he noticed “tinted windows.”

The off-duty officer called in back-up, who arrived a short time later. The back-up officer was less experienced than the off-duty officer, but testified to having made between 12-15 DUI arrests in his 15 months as a New York City police officer. The officer also noted that the defendant smelled of alcohol.

NEW YORK DWI LAWYERS BEATS ANOTHER REFUSAL HEARING – CLIENT AVOIDS LIFETIME REVOCATION

December 4, 2017 | Peter Howard Tilem

Refusing to take a chemical test in New York can come with very serious consequences. For example, a motorist who refuses a properly requested breath test can have his or her license revoked for a minimum period of one year even if they beat the DWI case. If a person has prior alcohol related incidents, the period of revocation can be much longer, even life. Fortunately, before revoking a license because of an alleged refusal, the motorist is entitled to some level of due process. In New York this requires that the Department of Motor Vehicles hold a hearing to determine whether the motorists’ license will be revoked. In New York the criminal case, the DWI, and the refusal follow two different tracks. The DWI is handled in Court while the refusal goes to a hearing before an administrative law judge that works for DMV. In addition, the burden of proof is lower in refusal hearings.

Last week, Tilem & Associates Partner Peter Tilem conducted a “refusal hearing” in the New York and beat the refusal. That means that the police did not sustain their burden of proving the elements necessary to revoke the license and the matter was dismissed by the DMV administrative law judge. This particular motorist was charged with both DWI and had the refusal. He had two prior convictions for Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol (DWAI) and either a conviction in the DWI case (including a conviction for a reduced DWAI) or a finding that he refused could have resulted in a lifetime revocation of his New York driving privileges. Thankfully, after an almost one hour cross-examination of the police officer the DMV judge dismissed the refusal.

At a New York DWI Refusal hearing the police must establish 4 separate elements in order to win the refusal hearing.

New York’s Highest Court Rules Analysis of License Plate in DMV Database Without Reasonable Suspicion Does Not Constitute an Unlawful Search

June 21, 2017 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent New York court opinion, the court analyzed whether a police officer can enter a license plate into a government database to check for any suspensions, outstanding violations, and the registration of the vehicle without first developing any suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in criminal activity. More specifically, the court ruled that this review of the license plate information does not constitute a search. Given the fact that many modern police cars are equipped with license plate readers and fixed license plate readers are becoming more commonplace, the issue is of paramount importance.

The facts of the case that gave rise to this opinion are as follows. In 2014, a police officer saw a vehicle drive past him. The vehicle was operated by the defendant. During the eventual trial on the matter, the officer stated that he did not see the vehicle engaging in any traffic violations or otherwise erratic behaviors. The police officer entered the vehicle’s license plate into his computer system, which was linked to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The analysis indicated that the registration for the vehicle was suspended due to outstanding parking tickets. The officer then initiated a stop of the vehicle. During that stop, the officer conducted a database search of the defendant’s driver’s license and discovered that his license was also suspended. Ultimately, the officer initiated an arrest of the defendant for driving while intoxicated as well as for operating a vehicle with a suspended license and registration.

TILEM & ASSOCIATES GETS ANOTHER DWI DISMISSED DUE TO AN ILLEGAL STOP – THIS TIME IN ROCKLAND COUNTY

January 18, 2017 | Peter Howard Tilem

As very experienced New York DWI Attorneys we are often asked to assist other attorneys on complex DWI cases. Recently, that request paid off for the attorney and his client after all charges related to a Rockland County DWI were dismissed. In November Tilem & Associates was hired to take the lead in a suppression hearing for a client who was facing DWI charges and who was not being offered any plea bargain. We had sought the suppression of statements and breath that we asserted were taken illegally from our client after he was illegally taken out of his car.

At the suppression hearing, one police officer testified. The officer claimed that in response to a 911 call the officer responded to a location and saw our client in a vehicle that matched the description given to the 911 operator. On cross-examination, by me, the officer admitted that at the time the officer approached the vehicle and removed the driver from the vehicle that there was no reason to believe that the motorist had committed any offense other than a parking violation for parking on the line in a parking lot. The officer claimed that the motorist was asleep in the vehicle and tried to justify further action as a “welfare check” to ensure that the motorist was ok. However after responding that he was ok, I attacked the officers continued investigation, including: removing the motorist from the vehicle, bringing the motorist to the back of the vehicle, questioned the motorist, conducted standardized field sobriety tests and detained the motorists while other witnesses were questioned. The Judge ruled that all of those actions exceeded the authority that the officer had at the the time of incident.

As we have discussed extensively in the past, in a case called People v. Debour, New York’s highest Court recognized four different levels of intrusion that police officers may have based on the police officers level of suspicion. The lowest level, level one, the right to inquire, gives the police officer very limited authority to make inquiries about a person. Such inquiries may not be pointed or accusatory in nature. In the case in Rockland County, the Judge correctly ruled that the police officers authority capped at Debour level one there by only giving the officer the very limited right to inquire. Therefore, all of the statements and other evidence derived after that illegal conduct were suppressed, leaving no evidence and therefore no provable case.

WHY ARE NEW YORK STATE TROOPERS PATROLLING NEW YORK CITY HIGHWAYS?

January 8, 2017 | Peter Howard Tilem

New York Traffic Court Attorneys, Tilem & Associates has been able to verify rumors that have made the rounds of social media that for the first time New York State Troopers have been patrolling New York City Highways including the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn, The FDR Drive in Manhattan and the New England Thruway in the Bronx. The Troopers have been seen pulling over cars and handing out summonses for unknown traffic violations most likely speeding and failing to signal lane changes.

CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US ABOUT A DISCOUNT ON FIGHTING TICKETS ISSUED BY TROOPERS

In reality the New York State Police do have a small Troop in New York City that is headquartered at Wards Island by the TriBoro (Robert F Kennedy) Bridge. Although the State Police have chosen not to engage in many law enforcement functions inside of New York City, New York State troopers are Police Officers as defined in the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL 1.20 (34a)) and have the power to issue simplified traffic informations also known as summonses or traffic tickets. In addition, subdivision 34-a of Criminal Procedure Law 1.20 defines the “geographical area of employment” of a police officer employed by a state agency as “New York State”. Meaning that State Police Officers maintain their jurisdiction throughout all of New York State including the five boroughs of New York City.

TRAFFIC TICKET SUMMER SPECIAL – Hire Experienced Attorneys for ONLY $285!* Until August 31, 2016 Delaware, Broome, Lewis, Onondaga, Oswego and Seneca Counties Only

August 1, 2016 | Peter Howard Tilem

For those driving their kids to school at Binghamton or Syracuse Universities or taking summer vacations in upstate New York, Tilem & Associates is pleased to offer a limited time offer to help out with those inevitable but costly traffic tickets. With the cost of traffic violations through the roof and the summer driving season in full swing drivers need experienced legal representation that they can afford. For a limited time and in limited locations we are offering legal representation on traffic infractions for only $285 in Broome, Delaware, Lewis, Onondaga, Oswego and Seneca Counties. Those Counties contain the below Cities, Towns and Villages that will be handling a lot of traffic tickets that are issued over the summer.

CONTACT US NOW TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SPECIAL BEFORE TIME RUNS OUT!

Broome County: Barker, Binghamton, Chenango, Colesville, Conklin, Dickinson, Fenton, Kirkwood, Lisle, Maine, Nanticoke, Sanford, Triangle, Union,

NEW YORK SPEEDING TICKET DISMISSED ON NOVEL SUPPORTING DEPOSITION ISSUE

February 29, 2016 | Peter Howard Tilem

New York Traffic Lawyers Tilem & Associates successfully won a motion which resulted in a speeding ticket being dismissed completely on novel grounds. Our client was charged with a violation of VTL §1180 (c) for traveling 40 miles per hour in a 25 mile an hour zone. Approximately 15 days after receiving the ticket, the Defendant mailed the ticket to court indicating that he was pleading not guilty and further indicating that he was requesting supporting depositions.

New York Criminal Procedure Law § 100.25(2) provides that a defendant charged by a simplified information is, upon a timely request, entitled as a matter of right to a supporting deposition of a complainant police officer and that upon such a request, a court must order the officer to serve a copy of the same within 30 days of the date such request is received by the court, or at least five days before trial, whichever is earlier.

Approximately six days after receiving the Defendant’s request, the Court mailed an order for the supporting deposition to the local sheriff’s department and acknowledged the Defendant’s request. Approximately six days after that the Defendant received a copy of the supporting deposition. However, the affidavit of service accompanying the supporting deposition says that it was mailed to the Defendant but it not specify the address of the Defendant to which the supporting deposition was allegedly mailed.