Conflicting info with cop - can prove that he lied

[copper00]

(New York, Failure to show turn signal)

I just had a DMV court hearing for my "Failure to Signal" ticket.

My main argument was that there was a sudden change in weather conditions. The temperature had been dropping dramatically for the past hour, and there was a sudden onslaught of hail and snow. My windows had fogged up, visibility was extremely poor and it was dark. It was immediately necessary for me to adjust the windshield wipers and defroster controls to regain visibility. After showing my turn signal and making the right turn, I was pulled over by the officer �. I feel that the officer would have had difficulty seeing my turn signal in such weather conditions.

At the hearing, the officer failed to state the weather conditions. When I asked him, much to my surprise he mumbled that the weather condition was clear and visibility was good. That is a lie! I can prove the weather conditions during that exact date and time from various sources. He basically perjured himself and the judge failed to recognize that. The credibility of the officer should be questioned.

I plan to appeal, but need some help with wording my appeal argument. Would appreciate any help. Thanks!

 

[TigerD]

My main argument was that there was a sudden change in weather conditions. The temperature had been dropping dramatically for the past hour, and there was a sudden onslaught of hail and snow. My windows had fogged up, visibility was extremely poor and it was dark. It was immediately necessary for me to adjust the windshield wipers and defroster controls to regain visibility. After showing my turn signal and making the right turn, I was pulled over by the officer �. I feel that the officer would have had difficulty seeing my turn signal in such weather conditions.

Great. You should have proved it.

At the hearing, the officer failed to state the weather conditions. When I asked him, much to my surprise he mumbled that the weather condition was clear and visibility was good. That is a lie! I can prove the weather conditions during that exact date and time from various sources. He basically perjured himself and the judge failed to recognize that. The credibility of the officer should be questioned.

It was your job to prove it. You choose not to do so.

I plan to appeal, but need some help with wording my appeal argument.

Forget about it. If you are going to play lawyer, it is your responsibility learn how to do so correctly. You failed to conduct a proper cross exam and you failed to introduce the evidence you needed to in order to prove your point. By not introducing the evidence, you deprived the judge of that information. Therefore the judge could not consider it when she ruled.

There is a reason lawyers spend three years learning how to do this stuff. It isn't easy, uncomplicated, or really something that a pro se defendant should attempt. That officer probably has more time in the court room than half of the lawyers you will meet. You never stood a chance.

DC

 

[HighwayMan]

You cannot introduce new evidence during your appeal to the Appeals Board (this was a TVB case, yes?)

Did you even raise the issue during your initial hearing? If not then it's too late now - basically you have no basis for the appeal.

What were you actually charged with? VTL 1163(a)? 1163(d)? Or was it insufficient notice? You are saying that you DID signal the turn or lane change?

Lights, especially flashing lights, should be fairly easy to see during inclement weather.

 

[HighwayMan]

Also, more than likely the officer didn't note the weather conditions in his notes. He should have said that he didn't recall if that was the case. I doubt that he was deliberately lying in order to get a conviction.

 

[copper00]

You cannot introduce new evidence during your appeal to the Appeals Board (this was a TVB case, yes?)

Did you even raise the issue during your initial hearing? If not then it's too late now - basically you have no basis for the appeal.

What were you actually charged with? VTL 1163(a)? 1163(d)? Or was it insufficient notice? You are saying that you DID signal the turn or lane change?

Lights, especially flashing lights, should be fairly easy to see during inclement weather.

Yes, this was TVB, and I actually did raise the issue. I took a photo of the weather conditions right after the officer released me. I handed the judge a printout at the hearing, and he didn't think it was sufficient evidence to prove the officer wrong. He said something like: "I see a dark photo with some rain, but no evidence the photo was taken at that exact moment." What's funny is that I even remember the officer was shivering and wet when he was standing outside my window.

I have NEVER received a traffic violation in my 25 years of driving and I always use my turn signal. I honestly thought I used my turn signal at that turn, but I was also trying to clear my windshield from the hail, and actually even thought of pulling over to wait it out. I just think that a $138 fine and 2 points is a bit too drastic due to the circumstances.

 

[HighwayMan]

I took a photo of the weather conditions right after the officer released me. I handed the judge a printout at the hearing, and he didn't think it was sufficient evidence to prove the officer wrong. He said something like: "I see a dark photo with some rain, but no evidence the photo was taken at that exact moment." What's funny is that I even remember the officer was shivering and wet when he was standing outside my window.

Well, the judge felt (as I think most would under the circumstances) that what you showed him didn't cast any doubt on the officer's ability to see your directional signal lamps. In this case it doesn't matter what the officer said the weather conditions were - the judge didn't buy your excuse. It's quite a stretch to say that the officer should not have been able to see your turn signals because of the weather.

I honestly thought I used my turn signal at that turn, but I was also trying to clear my windshield from the hail, and actually even thought of pulling over to wait it out.

It sounds like you were very distracted and are not sure about what you did and did not do.

I just think that a $138 fine and 2 points is a bit too drastic due to the circumstances.

That's the minimum fine for that infraction and there is no judicial control over the points. Two is the minimum number DMV will asses for any traffic infraction.

After dealing with the TVB for 15 years I would opine that you will be wasting your time and money with your appeal. Since you don't seem to have any other convictions on your record and you don't seem to get ticketed at all (based upon YOUR word) then the points are meaningless. As far as the fine is concerned, NY fines are very low for the most part compared with neighboring states. You won't get any sympathy for having to pay a lousy $138.

 

[You Are Guilty]

If it's any consolation, I recently stumbled across a website with some hard numbers of TVB convictions vs. other counties, and unsurprisingly, the odds are heavily skewed against you at the TVB:

http://nytrafficticket.com/about/ny-court-success-rates/

(I guess the silver lining is at least you weren't speeding).

 

[HighwayMan]

If it's any consolation, I recently stumbled across a website with some hard numbers of TVB convictions vs. other counties, and unsurprisingly, the odds are heavily skewed against you at the TVB:

http://nytrafficticket.com/about/ny-court-success-rates/
.

First of all, welcome back, YAG!

That website says the following:

Further, we define “success” as obtaining a dismissal, a not guilty determination or a reduction of the original charge. Only guilty determinations are considered not a “success”.

Comparing upstate town and village courts to the TVB is really like comparing apples and oranges...

In the city/town/village courts I am in regularly a plea deal is practically a given. It's almost unheard of to be convicted of the charge as written, with or WITHOUT an attorney. It is really not a fair comparison at all.

I would say, again based upon my experience, that if a case actually goes to trial in the smaller courts the chances of the defendant winning is extremely small. For example, I had a speed case in Scarsdale a few years back that went to trial. I barely got to even open my mouth and the judge found the defendant guilty.

 

[You Are Guilty]

You're not wrong, but it certainly illustrates the effect of "no plea bargains" vs "normal courts". (I'm fairly confident that there isn't any non-TVB court that has a set conviction rate they have to reach to continue to exist.)

Point being, you're going to have a much worse time in a TVB court than elsewhere, not that our OP didn't royally screw up anyway.

 

[HighwayMan]

I'm fairly confident that there isn't any non-TVB court that has a set conviction rate they have to reach to continue to exist)

So what's the magic number?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Dammit, this is embarrassing. The only thing I can find online now is a wikicrapeda article that references the NYSBA report that uncovered it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Violations_Bureau. And since my membership has long since lapsed, I can't get into their private archives to dig it up. (But supposedly it's 65%.)

All I can offer now a well written rant about how NYC ALJs in general are mostly unchecked: http://www.nycla.org/siteFiles/Publications/Publications184_0.pdf

 

[HighwayMan]

I'll be looking at the suggested reading in a bit.

In the mean time, it always seemed to me to be the opposite, i.e. that they need to get a certain number of "not guilty" verdicts. I've had ALJs dump cases for no valid or apparent reason and I've heard the same all around the system.

I just don't see the TVB going away if their conviction rate drops below whatever. At least not in NYC.

A lot of the cops see the system as a sham in that the deck is stacked against them. Funny how the opinion differs depending what side of the fence you're on.

When I was a TVB regular my personal conviction rate was in the 90's. Sure, I blew some cases on my own, but for the most part my losses were mostly inexplicable or due to very obviously liberal ALJ's or those that injected their personal opinions into their decision making process (judge Sands in the Bronx, now Queens South I believe, was famous for that and it was extremely frustrating).

If you're going to bring up Levine I'll just say now that I've been to every TVB in the city except Manhattan North and I've never seen anyone even close to him.

 

[HighwayMan]

Read the Wikipedia article.

Can't say I understand where hearsay would come in, except maybe on the part of the defendant. Any actual evidence we would be presenting besides our testimony regarding the facts of the case (like speedometer or tape measure certifications) would have to be hardcopy documents subject to the business records exception.

In addition, the article mentions discovery not applying, however there is no discovery in ANY court for traffic infraction cases in New York State.

 

[HighwayMan]

All I can offer now a well written rant about how NYC ALJs in general are mostly unchecked: http://www.nycla.org/siteFiles/Publications/Publications184_0.pdf

The DMV ALJs have nothing to do with the city since they work for the state. That rant stated the following (although provided no reference for it):

State agencies may not establish quotas for decisions

 

[copper00]

If you're going to bring up Levine I'll just say now that I've been to every TVB in the city except Manhattan North and I've never seen anyone even close to him.

Funny that you bring up Levine, that is who I had as the judge. At the last second the the cop and I were transferred into a different courtroom with Levine. I now understand that I didn't stand a chance.

Thanks for your time Highwayman, really appreciate your thoughts.