In NY state, can a cop ticket you for a traffic violation he/she did not witness?

[JoeCarQuestion]

After a recent conversation with a friend, I’m just curious to learn something regarding an old case that is now over for me:

In New York State, does a cop have the right to ticket you for a traffic violation which he/she did not witness, no other cop witnessed, and no camera captured?

In my example: I was standing outside my car, opening the door to get in, and another driver came from around a curve in the road, hit the edge of my door (missing hitting me by a matter of inches). After the mini-accident, the other driver called the police, and an officer arrived about five to ten minutes later. After the officer listened to the story from me and the other driver, he ticketed me for “opening the door unsafely.”

Now, regardless of who you think is at fault here, should the cop have had the right to ticket me for something he never saw?

(I’m not stating the cop did or do not have the right. I’m just curious to learn). Thank you.

 

[justalayman]

Yes he should.

Most crimes are not witnessed by the police yet people are charged with committing crimes every single day. If the evidence at hand allows the cop to make a determination there was a violation of the law, he can issue a ticket. In some cases, the lack of his personal observation may make it difficult to prosecute said ticket but that is an issue for the courts to deal with.

 

[HighwayMan]

Well, this isn't a crime, it's a petty offense.

There are two type of petty offenses - traffic infractions and violations. People often get these confused by using the term "traffic violation".

Legally speaking, a violation must be committed in the presence of the police officer in order for a summons/appearance ticket to be issued by that officer.

However, a ticket for a traffic infraction may be issued based upon "information and belief".

So to answer your question, YES, an officer may issue a traffic ticket for an infraction he did not witness. It's not a "right" as you call it, but it is legally permitted. It does not happen often but it is very legal.

 

[justalayman]

Well, this isn't a crime, it's a petty offense.

There are two type of petty offenses - traffic infractions and violations. People often get these confused by using the term "traffic violation".

Legally speaking, a violation must be committed in the presence of the police officer in order for a summons/appearance ticket to be issued by that officer.

However, a ticket for a traffic infraction may be issued based upon "information and belief".

So to answer your question, YES, an officer may issue a traffic ticket for an infraction he did not witness. It's not a "right" as you call it, but it is legally permitted. It does not happen often but it is very legal.

It's a crime in the sense it is against the law therefor it is a criminal act. The level of crime is what it is. If there is enough evidence to charge a party with the crime/offense/infraction/whatever, the cop can issue the cite.

 

[HighwayMan]

It's a crime in the sense it is against the law therefor it is a criminal act. The level of crime is what it is. If there is enough evidence to charge a party with the crime/offense/infraction/whatever, the cop can issue the cite.

Not trying to argue, but New York State law does not designate traffic infractions as crimes. They are not criminal acts. The are violations of law but not criminal in nature.

There are different classifications of offenses - crimes (felonies and misdemeanors) and petty offenses (violations and traffic infractions). If the offense in question is not a felony or a misdemeanor then it is not a crime.

 

[Zigner]

If the offense in question is not a felony or a misdemeanor then it is not a crime.

...but we CAN agree that it's a violation of the law, right?

 

[HighwayMan]

If there is enough evidence to charge a party with the crime/offense/infraction/whatever, the cop can issue the cite.

Not if it is a violation. Violations must occur in the officer's presence. I often get called to occurrences of harassment, disorderly conduct, etc and most times cannot take enforcement action no matter how many witnesses there are because I cannot legally issue a summons/appearance ticket if I did not witness the behavior.

Complainants usually don't understand this even after it is explained to them, but that's the law.

 

[HighwayMan]

...but we CAN agree that it's a violation of the law, right?

Indeed, but not every such violation is a crime.

 

[justalayman]

Not trying to argue, but New York State law does not designate traffic infractions as crimes. They are not criminal acts. The are violations of law but not criminal in nature.

There are different classifications of offenses - crimes (felonies and misdemeanors) and petty offenses (violations and traffic infractions). If the offense in question is not a felony or a misdemeanor then it is not a crime.

crime
krīm/
noun

an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law

synonyms: offense, unlawful act, illegal act, felony, misdemeanor, misdeed, wrong; informalno-no
"kidnapping is a very serious crime"
illegal activities.
"the victims of crime"
synonyms: lawbreaking, delinquency, wrongdoing, criminality, misconduct, illegality, villainy; More


Sure sounds like it's a crime to me.

Unlawful or illegal acts are crimes.

 

[Zigner]

crime
krīm/
noun

an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law

synonyms: offense, unlawful act, illegal act, felony, misdemeanor, misdeed, wrong; informalno-no
"kidnapping is a very serious crime"
illegal activities.
"the victims of crime"
synonyms: lawbreaking, delinquency, wrongdoing, criminality, misconduct, illegality, villainy; More


Sure sounds like it's a crime to me.

Unlawful or illegal acts are crimes.

Just - we're talking legal semantics here. California is the same way. Most traffic violations are infractions, not crimes (legally speaking.) I get where you're coming from, but the fact is that the state gets to define what a crime is with regard to enforcing its own laws.

 

[HighwayMan]

Sure sounds like it's a crime to me.

Unlawful or illegal acts are crimes.

Not according to the New York State Criminal Procedure Law.

Sorry.

 

[justalayman]

Just - we're talking legal semantics here. California is the same way. Most traffic violations are infractions, not crimes (legally speaking.) I get where you're coming from, but the fact is that the state gets to define what a crime is with regard to enforcing its own laws.

I know and i meant what I said. We are speaking of crimes which are simply unlawful acts. I'm not arguing that NY has levels of violations where those of minimal levels are not called crimes but they are in fact crimes under the basic definition of "crimes" which is how I used the term.

 

[Zigner]

Alrighty then

 

[HighwayMan]

I'm not arguing that NY has levels of violations ...

Levels of offenses. A violation has no levels - it is simply a violation.

 

[justalayman]

Levels of offenses. A violation has no levels - it is simply a violation.

Highway, I realize those in New York have always felt superior but Mirriam Webster has a really good book the rest of the country has read and enjoyed. All y'all might want to take a gander (not referring to a male goose. Figured I had better clarify that before we start in on that term (not used in the sense of time but the in reference to a word or phrase) at that book. It's kind of dry but I've met nobody that didn't end up improving their life due to the message contained therein.