Source: https://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/category/traffic/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:22:56+00:00

Document:
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
Are New York Police Required To Read A Driver Their “Miranda Rights” Before Questioning Them During a Car Stop?
If you’re stopped by the police in New York (Greenburgh, White Plains, Harrison, etc) for a traffic infraction such as speeding, should the police read you your “rights” prior to questioning you about where you coming from, if you had anything to drink or if you knew why you were stopped? When a person is arrested they lose certain rights. For example, when one is arrested, they lose their right to liberty and they are subject to a warrantless search incident to their arrest. In fact, a search incident to a lawful arrest is one of the many exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
However, while a person loses certain rights when they are arrested, they also obtain certain rights once they are arrested. For example, before the police can question a person who has been arrested they must read that person their “rights” – the police must “Mirandize” an arrested person before questioning.
There is absolutely no doubt that Uniform Traffic Tickets or Simplified Traffic Informations are also appearance tickets. See e.g., People v. Tyler, 1 N.Y.3d 493 (2004)(speeding ticket deemed an appearance ticket); People v. Hollinger, 15 Misc. 3d 130A (App. Term 2nd Dept. 2007)(The front of the uniform traffic tickets directed defendant to appear in the Justice Court of the Village of Old Westbury on September 18, 2003, thus serving as an “appearance ticket” under CPL 150.10); Farkas v. State, 96 Misc. 2d 784, 787 fn 1 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1978)(Appearance ticket includes, by definition, uniform traffic tickets); People v. Litean, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5475, 240 N.Y.L.J. 33 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)(“A summons requiring a defendant to appear in court is the equivalent of a desk appearance ticket . . .”); People v. Genovese, 156 Misc. 2d 569, 571 (J. Ct. 1992)(“the yellow copy of the simplified traffic information is an appearance ticket as defined by CPL 150.10”).
Since People v. Hazelwood, 104 Misc.2d 1121, 1123 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1980) held that the detention of a person by the police for the purpose of issuing such person an appearance ticket creates an “arrest situation” justifying a search of such person just as if they had been formally arrested, doesn’t it follow that the police would have to Mirandize this so-called “arrested” person before questioning them? Why should the police get the benefit of deeming the person “arrested” so they can search them but not allow this “arrested” person the benefit of his Miranda rights just like any other arrested person?
the defendant came from and where the defendant was going.
Furthermore, the police admitted that “when a police officer activates the police lights, the person is supposed to stop and is not free to leave until the police speak with the person.” Id. The court therefore concluded that the police testimony established that the defendant was in custody from the very inception of the defendant’s encounter with the police: “By [Officer Einsfeld’s] testimony alone the custodial status of the defendant from the very inception was admitted by the police.” Id.

References: v. 
 §1180
 § 100
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.