New York texting law. (out of state)

[legionman6]

I am a Pennsylvanian who, while recently traveling through New York, was pulled over and ticked for sending a text message on my cell phone. Being from Pennsylvania (which has no state-wide laws on cellular usage) and not being aware of New York state legislation on the topic is not a defense against the ticket, however some reading on New York state law reveals that I believe I was ticked in error. While New York's hands free cell phone usage legislation is aggressive, it only covers calls, so that statute does not apply to my situation. The ban on texting appears, from everything I can find, to be relatively new and (this is the important bit) only defines texting while driving as a secondary violation. My ticket lists no primary violation, and the only indication the officer that stopped me could give me for pulling me over was that I strayed across the white line (not even onto the rumble strip). As I am fairly sure that crossing a white line is not a primary violation (and I was not speeding or driving recklessly) do I have grounds to get my ticket dismissed? I have never been convicted of (or ticked for) any violation previously. As a full time college student it would be a pain (but not impossible) to visit the location described on my ticket to plea before a court (either on the listed date or if possible on a more convenient one), and since money seems to be a little hard in these times, I'd prefer not to pay a ticket that is in error (or pay for legal council). This ticket was received last night, and states that any not guilty plea must be mailed within 48 hours. Any advice here would be greatly appreciated.

[Banned_Princess]

Texting while driving is so stupid I think people should have their phones confisgated at the scene for such stupidity.

And as a New Yorker, I believe your ticket was not in error, I think they passed the "No Texting Ban" last year.

Cops do not ticket on accident. They know what they can ticket for, its their JOB.

[Banned_Princess]

Go ahead and plead "not guilty" No harm in it, but you must appear on the date assigned, and follow the judges request for any further appearances and council instructions to the letter.

[legionman6]

Thanks. I realize that texting while driving is not particularly smart, and I would feel much worse had it not been 1:20 A.M. with nobody else on the road. I do believe, however, that I made myself perfectly clear. There IS a no texting ban which, as long as [url=http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/747723.html]Texting ban backseated as secondary law : City & Region : The Buffalo News[/url] < that article is still current (its from July 09, so assuming it is), only authorizes secondary enforcement. If I come to the conclusion that I was in fact both in violation of NY state law, and was ticketed properly then I will plead guilty and pay my ticket. I believe however that it IS my responsibility to determine whether I actually feel that I am guilty before pleading. What would be most helpful is if somebody could help me find the actual relevant section of law. I'm sifting through NY's VAT code now...

edit:
Found what I was looking for.
[url]http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A08568&sh=t[/url]
Local law still seems to take precedent until Nov 1, however
[url]http://handsfreeinfo.com/ny-regional-text-message-legislation[/url]
does not seems to indicate that any such laws are present in Orange county, where my ticket is listed as being issued.

edit:
question:
Should I request a supporting deposition?

[Maestro64]

First you were being profiled, at that time of night and the fact you might not have been driving as well as you should have the office made a call that he thought it was going to be a DUI stop. I am guessing during the course of the stop he determined you were not DUI and you must have revealed you were on your phone so instead of giving a failure to stay in your lane of travel of reckless driving he gave you a driving while using a cell phone ticket.

It was sort of a gift, but even if he had given you any of the other possible tickets none of them will affect your PA license, you will not get any points on your license for that ticket. For all you know the officer might have thought if he gave you one of those other tickets it would mean points on your license since most states do assign points for out of state tickets.

The simple way to fight this ticket is take your cell phone bill in and show you did not make or receive any calls during the time and questions. However, That means driving to NY and fighting the ticket. The problem is, the court may not be in a large town or city and NY has what is known as "Village Court" as the name may infer it not a good experience, many time the guy behind the bench has not real legal back ground and sometime it could be the mayor, town mechanic or garbage collector.

[legionman6]

Firstly, thank you. I suspect that the cop must indeed have pegged me for DUI, but I certainly was not intoxicated. In fact he pulled up beside me (snuck up is probably more what he did...) and, being in an SUV (and with a partner), was able to see exactly what I was doing through my windows. If that officer appears in court to testify he will know exactly what I was doing (and I can indeed get my phone bill as well for extra evidence). Here comes the fuzzy territory though.
"6. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE A TRAFFIC INFRACTION AND SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT A SUMMONS FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL ONLY BE ISSUED WHEN THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON OPERATING SUCH MOTOR VEHICLE HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OTHER THAN A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION."
If the cop suspected that I could have been a DUI (even just based on profiling) does that give him reasonable cause to believe that I was committing another violation?
Lastly, you are correct in saying that the case might go to a 'village court,' in this case that of Wawayanda, however I would hope that the legal wording here is designed precisely to this sort of thing. I guess I will indeed mail in a plea for not guilty, and see what happens.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by legionman6

Firstly, thank you. I suspect that the cop must indeed have pegged me for DUI, but I certainly was not intoxicated. In fact he pulled up beside me (snuck up is probably more what he did...)

Had you been paying attention to the ROAD, then that big-ole SUV couldn't have "snuck up on you"

...Here comes the fuzzy territory though.
"6. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE A TRAFFIC INFRACTION AND SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT A SUMMONS FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL ONLY BE ISSUED WHEN THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON OPERATING SUCH MOTOR VEHICLE HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OTHER THAN A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION."
If the cop suspected that I could have been a DUI (even just based on profiling) does that give him reasonable cause to believe that I was committing another violation?

Yes, but even if he didn't think you were DUI, maybe he saw you cross in to the next line...or or or - I'm sure there were plenty of violations going on while you weren't paying attention.

[racer72]

First you were being profiled, at that time of night and the fact you might not have been driving as well as you should have the office made a call that he thought it was going to be a DUI stop. I am guessing during the course of the stop he determined you were not DUI and you must have revealed you were on your phone so instead of giving a failure to stay in your lane of travel of reckless driving he gave you a driving while using a cell phone ticket.

This has to be the biggest load of horse crap I have ever read in these forums. You don't have a clue as to why the cop stopped the OP, just a bunch of wild guesses. The phrase "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS" certainly applies in this case.

[legionman6]

Possibly (should have seen him behind me). :/
Fact is though that he didn't find any other primary violations to cite me for. I did not cross into another lane of travel, I was not speeding, swerving recklessly, etc. Nothing. He gave his reason for pulling me over as crossing the white line on the right edge of the road, and then ticked me for texting.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by legionman6

Possibly (should have seen him behind me). :/
Fact is though that he didn't find any other primary violations to cite me for. I did not cross into another lane of travel, I was not speeding, swerving recklessly, etc. Nothing. He gave his reason for pulling me over as crossing the white line on the right edge of the road, and then ticked me for texting.

He doesn't have to CITE you - he just has to have a "...REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON OPERATING SUCH MOTOR VEHICLE HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF THE LAWS..."

[legionman6]

Correct. Crossing the white line did not violate any law; the question is does the wording apply to a hypothetical offense, especially in this case a hypothetical DUI which would have been based mostly on circumstantial evidence.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by legionman6

Correct. Crossing the white line did not violate any law; the question is does the wording apply to a hypothetical offense, especially in this case a hypothetical DUI which would have been based mostly on circumstantial evidence.

Failure to maintain control of your vehicle isn't against NY law? That'd be a first...


Well, imagine that! A few seconds of Googling disproves your theory:

§ 1128. Driving on roadways laned for traffic. Whenever any roadway
has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the
following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall
apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within
a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has
first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.
(b) Upon a roadway which is divided into three lanes and provides for
two-way movement of traffic a vehicle shall not be driven in the center
lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the
same direction when such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe
distance, or in preparation for making a left turn or where such center
lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same
direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is
designated by official traffic-control devices.
(c) When official traffic-control devices direct slow-moving traffic,
trucks, buses or specified types of vehicles to use a designated lane or
designate those lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular
direction regardless of the center of the roadway, drivers of vehicles
shall obey the directions of every such sign, signal or marking.
(d) When official markings are in place indicating those portions of
any roadway where crossing such markings would be especially hazardous,
no driver of a vehicle proceeding along such highway shall at any time
drive across such markings.


(From http://tinyurl.com/mq28b8)

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by legionman6

Correct. Crossing the white line did not violate any law...

Really?
Try VTL 1101; 1128; 1131; 1212 for starters.

[legionman6]

Ok, yeah, so basically he might have had barely enough legal cause to pull me over aside from the text (although note he didn't pull me over right when he saw me cross the solid line, only after he pulled along side and subsequently dropped behind me again, so again circumstance messing with fact. bah.), and he issued a citation for a secondary violation. I kinda feel like an ass (maybe cause I would be?) for trying to fight it, esp. since I don't actually disagree that laws against texting and driving should, in fact, exist. I just still think that on strictly legal grounds I wasn't ticketably in the wrong. Law vs. ethics. Money vs. inconvenience. fml.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by legionman6

Ok, yeah, so basically he might have had barely enough legal cause to pull me over aside from the text (although note he didn't pull me over right when he saw me cross the solid line, only after he pulled along side and subsequently dropped behind me again, so again circumstance messing with fact. bah.), and he issued a citation for a secondary violation. I kinda feel like an ass (maybe cause I would be?) for trying to fight it, esp. since I don't actually disagree that laws against texting and driving should, in fact, exist. I just still think that on strictly legal grounds I wasn't ticketably in the wrong. Law vs. ethics. Money vs. inconvenience. fml.

Barely enough or more than enough...it's still enough.