Six Year Old Violation being Scofflawed now?

[mnowax]

New York State

Six years ago, I was stopped for speeding in my local town. At the time, The officer gave me a ticket for different violation ( Disobeying a traffic Device) and i was told to go to court.

I had delayed the court case once, but then I was unable to make the second date. When i had called the court clerk the next day, the clerk stated that the ticket had been dismissed due to the officer not showing up for court.

Fast forward six years, I get a scofflaw notice in the mail stating I failed to appear for a court on this ticket. I went to the court office to get a new date and such but they refused to give me a copy of the ticket or anything related to the case.

What are my options here? Do i still have a chance to fight this? Even if the court clerk was wrong, after six years, doesn't this have a statute of limitations of some sort? I'm worried that if i pry for information (due to this being a small town) that if i lose this case for whatever reason I'll be slammed with the maximum fine.

 

[HighwayMan]

When i had called the court clerk the next day, the clerk stated that the ticket had been dismissed due to the officer not showing up for court.

What did you do with your receipt from the court showing that the charge was dismissed?

...doesn't this have a statute of limitations of some sort?

Statute of limitations has nothing to do with this.

I'm worried that if i pry for information (due to this being a small town) that if i lose this case for whatever reason I'll be slammed with the maximum fine.

Pry for what information exactly?

You got stopped for speeding and given a huge break on the side of the road. What's the big deal? The points expire after 18 months so that's long past.

What options did the court give you?

I am also assuming that your license is currently suspended. How long do you want THAT situation to persist?

 

[mnowax]

My license was never suspended. I got a new court date, so either way I am going back into court. I was only told over the phone that my case was dismissed.


Why wouldn't the statute of limitations have anything to do with this? they have decided to prosecute me for a crime six years later and there is no statue of limitations for that?

Pry for any information about the ticket. They already once haven't given me any paperwork in regards to the case. The court gave me no options at all.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Apparently they started the prosecution years ago. They simply decided to pursue you actively now.

 

[HighwayMan]

Why wouldn't the statute of limitations have anything to do with this? they have decided to prosecute me for a crime six years later...

No, "they" decided to prosecute you the moment you were handed the Uniform Traffic Ticket. That's why SOL does not apply. The UTT is a charging instrument and marks the beginning of the prosecution against you.

 

[HighwayMan]

I don't know what you hope to get out of this. It's such a minor issue and you're fighting an uphill battle.

Of course you can fight it. If you lose you probably will get "slammed" for the maximum fine.

 

[BigMouthWino]

But in all likelihood if you fight it vigorously you will beat it. Do you think this cop has any memory of what happened six years worth of doughnuts ago?

 

[HighwayMan]

Do you think this cop has any memory...

That's why there are things called "notes".

 

[BigMouthWino]

That's why there are things called "notes".

For which a proper foundation must first be laid. If you see the officer reading from notes object on the basis that the officer is not testifying of his or her own knowledge and has failed to lay the proper foundation to use notes. On cross ask that the notes be taken away and question the officer in detail about the violation. The officer will likely not even remember what color or make of car you were driving. Argue in your closing that the officers lack of a personal recollection together with your sound recollection of the events is enough reasonable doubt to find you not guilty.

 

[You Are Guilty]

For which a proper foundation must first be laid. If you see the officer reading from notes object on the basis that the officer is not testifying of his or her own knowledge and has failed to lay the proper foundation to use notes. On cross ask that the notes be taken away and question the officer in detail about the violation. The officer will likely not even remember what color or make of car you were driving. Argue in your closing that the officers lack of a personal recollection together with your sound recollection of the events is enough reasonable doubt to find you not guilty.

Or offer him a ham sandwich. (Law students will understand why).

 

[HighwayMan]

For which a proper foundation must first be laid. If you see the officer reading from notes object on the basis that the officer is not testifying of his or her own knowledge and has failed to lay the proper foundation to use notes. On cross ask that the notes be taken away and question the officer in detail about the violation. The officer will likely not even remember what color or make of car you were driving. Argue in your closing that the officers lack of a personal recollection together with your sound recollection of the events is enough reasonable doubt to find you not guilty.

Obviously you know nothing about law here in New York. You're wrong - and that's all I'll say.