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

[Just Blue]

semantics. ^

 

[tranquility]

To start, even though my basic theory of the law disagrees with Highwayman, I know my state has some exceptions to the basic theory and accept he is correct because of his practical knowledge. The idea of it not being a "crime" can square the circle between theory and reality. There is no way to weave a path down through all the laws and reasons why without getting into minute detail that will cover the many ways things can happen within the limitations of the forum.

But, as to why the question was not a stupid one; absent the theory of a traffic infraction is not a crime, a citation indicates an arrest. The signature on the citation is (usually) a promise to appear in court on that arrest. (Or, whatever procedure you have to follow in the state.) In every state I know of, if you don't sign on the dotted line, you can be taken into custody. As long as the officer had probable cause to believe you committed the crime, you can be arrested. (At least, federally.) The common law is a bit different on what is required. There, the law is closely the same between a citizen and a police officer. Many states still hold true on the common law when they talk of a citizen's arrest.

At common law a citizen can arrest a person when a "public offense" has been committed in his presence, when the person committed a felony outside of the citizen's presence and, a felony has been committed and the citizen has a reasonable belief the person committed it. At the common law, the general addition for the police is the *reasonable belief* a felony has been committed and not the limitation as to if it *has* been committed. Obviously, to enforce such rules might have any of a number of penalties and remedies. That would be yet another huge law journal and not our point, so decline. (Nor will I speak of specific common law exceptions like the "shopkeepers" privilege.)

Many states have added by statute to the right of a person or a police officer to arrest; one would be a misdemeanor (aka Not a felony.) can be arrested for if it causes a public disturbance. States have also limited the right for things like "summary" offenses. Others have, by statute, eliminated all citizen's arrests. (None have had their courts agree as far as I know.)

In my state, a police officer could not issue a summons in the situation the OP describes because of how the arrest statutes are described along with all the myriad other exceptions in the law. The officer would turn in a report to the DA (More likely, the city attorney.) who can issue an indictment. Or, he could cite as a citizen's arrest if the person who hit the door is willing to make such an arrest. CdwJava, an officer in my state, can better tell the process or let me know I am wrong. What he says in this thread (Like Highwayman.), I probably agree.

 

[tranquility]

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.

"Legal semantics"? Do you know what the meaning of "is" is?

 

[HighwayMan]

Highway, I realize those in New York have always felt superior...

Well, I am not of the belief that I am superior - I am just clarifying what the laws are here. Doesn't mean they're better or worse than anywhere else.

Yes, things are different here in New York - assault offenses are the big one (an assault requires a physical injury).

And yes, I understand what the dictionary says, but in my state the Penal Law and Criminal Procedure Law classify the types of offenses and the bottom line is that offenses are classified as I described. The type of offense dictates what action may be taken by police under certain circumstances.

Also, in New York offenders do no sign any type of ticket/summons/appearance ticket as a "promise to appear". There is no such thing. If the offender simply refuses service (which I have never seen happen) then they are arrested. Technically, an arrest may be made for any offense, but since that is not practical we typically don't do that for petty offenses and even some misdemeanors.

Even if a person is arrested that does not mean they committed a crime. A driver who commits a traffic infraction technically MUST be arrested if they possess no identification, for example.

I seem to be rambling now so I'd better stop.

 

[justalayman]

Even if a person is arrested that does not mean they committed a crime. .

really now. Are you attempting to argue you somehow have the right to arrest a person when they have committed no crime or more accurately when it is not believed they have committed a crime?

Do you read what you write? I think ol' Mr US Constitution has a problem with you arresting people without believing the have committed a crime. Last I was aware it is unlawful to arrest a person without probable cause to believe they have committed a crime.

 

[CdwJava]

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.

Well ... technically, traffic infractions ARE crimes in CA. They are "public offenses" and are ostensibly treated the same as misdemeanors in most respects (except as it might apply to a right to a jury trial).

 

[CdwJava]

In my state, a police officer could not issue a summons in the situation the OP describes because of how the arrest statutes are described along with all the myriad other exceptions in the law. The officer would turn in a report to the DA (More likely, the city attorney.) who can issue an indictment. Or, he could cite as a citizen's arrest if the person who hit the door is willing to make such an arrest. CdwJava, an officer in my state, can better tell the process or let me know I am wrong. What he says in this thread (Like Highwayman.), I probably agree.

Pretty much correct. Though, in the area of language, an officer here does not issue a "summons" as these are issued by the DA or the court to summon someone to court or other legal process, and not be the police who utilize a "Notice to appear" (aka a Promise to Appear, aka a citation) for infractions and misdemeanors. The kicker is that to issue these the officer has to either witness the offense (with some exceptions), or, issue the citation as a result of a private person's arrest in conjunction with probable cause to believe that an offense had, indeed, occurred. Though, the offense and suspect contact should be relatively recent to the private person's arrest.

lacking a private person's arrest or an officer witnessing the offense, no citation could be issued. But, the officer could forward a report to the DA and request charges be filed for the offense. Even traffic infractions can be filed in such a way ... though, it is exceedingly rare for a traffic offense to be "long formed" in this manner.

I am not sure whether NY's "violations" are crimes or civil matters, but, they may be similar to our infractions and handled in a different manner by statute. I suppose, if that is the case, they are "crimes" in the broadest definition, even if not handled as such pursuant to arrest or filing law in NY. One thing I have learned over the years on this board and others is that it is never a good idea to presume that what holds true as a matter of law in one state will hold true in another. Each state has different processes and some have practices that seem to defy legal logic, but, are common practice and supported in the state where they exist.

 

[CdwJava]

Here is a set of definitions:

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article10.htm

Note that "a crime" is a "misdemeanor or felony," while a "Violation" means an offense, other than a "traffic infraction," for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of fifteen days cannot be imposed.

A "Misdemeanor" means an offense, other than a "traffic infraction," and a "Felony" means an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year may be imposed.

 

[Zigner]

Well ... technically, traffic infractions ARE crimes in CA. They are "public offenses" and are ostensibly treated the same as misdemeanors in most respects (except as it might apply to a right to a jury trial).

I stand corrected

 

[HighwayMan]

really now. Are you attempting to argue you somehow have the right to arrest a person when they have committed no crime or more accurately when it is not believed they have committed a crime?

Again, you can use whatever name you want for things but the fact of the matter is that traffic infractions and violations are not crimes.

That having been said they are still offenses (violations of the law) and violators are subject to arrest or an appearance ticket. If an individual cannot be identified properly then an appearance ticket/summons cannot be issued and, yes, they are arrested and taken into custody until they can either be identified or brought before a judge for arraignment and then the judge decides what to do with them.

 

[Bali Hai]

really now. Are you attempting to argue you somehow have the right to arrest a person when they have committed no crime or more accurately when it is not believed they have committed a crime?

Do you read what you write? I think ol' Mr US Constitution has a problem with you arresting people without believing the have committed a crime. Last I was aware it is unlawful to arrest a person without probable cause to believe they have committed a crime.

Police arrest innocent people without evidence and DA's prosecute them every day if they think they are guilty. Why are there innocent people who have served long prison sentences now being exonerated through DNA evidence?

For your reading enjoyment Google "NYS Police Troop C evidence tampering scandal". US Constitution or not, nobody is safe from rogue cops.

I'm not saying Highwayman is a rogue cop, I'm certain he isn't. But make no mistake, there ARE rogue cops out there.

 

[justalayman]

Again, you can use whatever name you want for things but the fact of the matter is that traffic infractions and violations are not crimes.

.

please refer to mr websters statement on the matter. You are trying to take my statement where the term crime was used accurately and argue the point based on a definition used only in New York law. My statement is correct because of the use of the word in the context I used it is not what you keep trying to describe.

 

[HighwayMan]

Well Webster is hardly a legal reference or book of statutes. From your past statements it seems like no enforcement action can be taken against anyone for anything other than a crime.

I'm not sure what else I can say on this that hasn't already been said. Petty offenses are not crimes yet the violators may be arrested - happens all the time.

The NYPD went even further years ago (not sure when things changed back). The CPL pretty much mandates that if one is charged with a class "E" felony or less one must be released on an appearance ticket (with some minor exceptions). Someone screwed up somewhere and released someone before his prints came back and it turned out he was wanted out of state for murder, I believe.

So the NYPD eliminated DATs (Desk Appearance Tickets) and all arrestees, even for violations, "went through the system" which typically means 12-24 hours in a borough central booking facility before seeing a judge for arraignment.

How they got away with that for years is beyond me.

 

[justalayman]

You can try to limit the definition all you wish but bottom line; if you violate a law, it is a crime. Yes, even a traffic ticket is a crime. Ya see, if it wasn't, the state couldn't punish the violator since the US Constitution prohibits the State from punishing a person unless they are convicted of a crime

 

[HighwayMan]

Well if a good sized section of the New York State Penal Law (as well as a host of other laws) is unconstitutional then no one seems to be noticing.