Strategy for a NYS speeding ticket

[SPH]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Herkimer County, NY

Travelling on the NYS Thruway on a dark, moonless night, I was passing a truck and a car when a vehicle, travelling at a high rate of speed, pulled up to my bumper. I sped up to complete the pass (and get the vehicle off my tail) but it continued behind me.

After moving into the right hand lane, I was feverishly trying to decide how to get the car off my bumper, when the lights went on.

The exchange with the trooper was brief.
When asked about the reason for the stop I did say "I'm going to guess for speed" because I (seriously) had just had the vehicle inspected the week before so I knew there were no mechanical defects.

He then said he "had me at 85" (which I dispute).

I have done a bit of web research but read many conflicting posts so these questions remain:

1) a) The citation indicates a violation of NYS V and T Law 1180-B. However, FindLaw does not show a Section B. Can this be right? b) It also indicates 85 in a 55, but the entire NYS Thruway has a 65 mph limit (1180-A-2).
Do either of these impact the validity of the citation? If so, is there any way to file a motion to dismiss before trial/appearance?

2) Are witnesses in NYS permitted to use notes while testifying? If not, is it strategically sound to object if the officer does?

3) The citation includes an option to be provided a "supporting deposition" which I presume would be an affidavit from the officer explaining the circumstances of the citation. Is this in lieu of formal discovery? As the citation was based upon radar, am I not entitled to receive calibration records about the radar?

4) If an expanded discovery is permitted: a) What should be requested; b) When should it be requested; c) With whom is it filed?

Thanks.

 

[cyjeff]

First, realize that the speed at which your vehicle travels should not be influenced by the actions of another driver.

If this other driver (I am assuming the police officer) was on your tail, the proper procedure was to slow down, not to speed up.

You can always state your case and ask for discovery of the speed measurement technique. In this case, however, I am going to assume it was "pacing" and, therefore, you are going to have a tough case.

 

[SPH]

Legal,but not rational

CYJeff,

Thanks for a reminder on that legal doctrine.

However, as someone with more than a passing familiarity with psychological principles, it would be a rare individual who actually slows down when perceiving a threat (and a vehicle approaching at a high rate of speed would qualify as a threat).

I did tell the trooper that I felt he "was pushing me" to which he responded "you should have signalled and moved into the right lane", which, in fact, I did.

However, because he continued to be uncomfortably close to my tail I felt I had few options to get out of his way. It was in the 30 - 40 seconds after I moved to the right lane and was trying to formulate a plan that he pulled me over.

Any thoughts on the factual errors in the citation?

 

[cyjeff]

CYJeff,

Thanks for a reminder on that legal doctrine.

However, as someone with more than a passing familiarity with psychological principles, it would be a rare individual who actually slows down when perceiving a threat (and a vehicle approaching at a high rate of speed would qualify as a threat).

I did tell the trooper that I felt he "was pushing me" to which he responded "you should have signalled and moved into the right lane", which, in fact, I did.

However, because he continued to be uncomfortably close to my tail I felt I had few options to get out of his way. It was in the 30 - 40 seconds after I moved to the right lane and was trying to formulate a plan that he pulled me over.

Any thoughts on the factual errors in the citation?

Factual errors are a tough call. Officers are allowed to make mistakes as long as they don't materially effect the ticket.

The only one that can tell you with any certainty as to whether or not these error approach that threshold is the judge.

As to your point as to threat assessment, it still does not change the law. Your driving habits can not be legally dismissed as being the result of another driver... for instance, you could neither say that you were "moving with the flow of traffic". This does not absolve you from the law.

 

[SPH]

Understand the law, but still ...

Officers are allowed to make mistakes as long as they don't materially effect the ticket.

Except as speeding fines are based upon number of miles above the speed limit, such an error would seem to "materially effect" the ticket.

Likewise, including the wrong section of the law would seem very specific. In this case, there doesn't appear to even BE a 1180-B. How can one violate a law which does not, in fact, exist?

As to your point as to threat assessment, it still does not change the law. Your driving habits can not be legally dismissed as being the result of another driver... for instance, you could neither say that you were "moving with the flow of traffic". This does not absolve you from the law.

I understand the point you are trying to make. I generally consider myself a law-abiding and logically minded citizen, but this rationale does seem to violate reason.

Another driver, for example, suddenly slams on his brakes on the Thruway and I quickly move to the left lane to avoid the collision, without signalling the lane change. That would indeed be a technical violation, but it would seem illogical to assert that signalling the lane change is more important than avoiding a collision.

 

[cyjeff]

Except as speeding fines are based upon number of miles above the speed limit, such an error would seem to "materially effect" the ticket.

I agree. However, my opinion does not matter. Only the judge's.

Likewise, including the wrong section of the law would seem very specific. In this case, there doesn't appear to even BE a 1180-B. How can one violate a law which does not, in fact, exist?

§ 1180-a. Maximum speed limits. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no city, village, town, county, public authority, division,
office or department of the state shall maintain or create (a) any speed
limit in excess of fifty-five miles per hour on any road, highway,
parkway or bridge or (b) any speed limit on any other portion of a
public highway, which is not uniformly applicable to all types of motor
vehicles using such portion of highway, if on November first, nineteen
hundred seventy-three, such portion of highway had a speed limit which
was uniformly applicable to all types of motor vehicles using it;
provided however, a lower speed limit may be established for any vehicle
operating under a special permit because of any weight or dimension of
such vehicle, including any load thereon, and (c) provided further,
paragraph (b) of this subdivision shall not apply to any portion of a
highway during such time that the condition of the highway, weather, an
accident, or other condition creates a temporary hazard to the safety of
traffic on such portion of a highway. However, the commissioner of the
department of transportation may establish a maximum speed limit of not
more than sixty-five miles per hour on any state roadway which meets
department criteria for such maximum speed.

I am guessing this is what the officer meant.

Tickets may be amended before trial.

I understand the point you are trying to make. I generally consider myself a law-abiding and logically minded citizen, but this rationale does seem to violate reason.

Another driver, for example, suddenly slams on his brakes on the Thruway and I quickly move to the left lane to avoid the collision, without signalling the lane change. That would indeed be a technical violation, but it would seem illogical to assert that signalling the lane change is more important than avoiding a collision.

You could still be ticketed for violating the lane change even if you were "forced" to do so by another driver.... because, according to law, if you are not prepared for the driver in front of you to slam on his/her brakes, you are following too closely.

Again, another driver's actions that do not directly effect your vehicle's operation are a difficult sell in court.

If you were struck by another vehicle and forced, via the impact, into another lane, that is one thing. Swinging into another lane because you were following too closely to the car ahead when that car brakes is another matter.

 

[SPH]

Huh?

According to FindLaw:

ARTICLE 30

SPEED RESTRICTIONS

Section 1180. Basic rule and maximum limits.
1180-a. Maximum speed limits.
1181. Minimum speed regulations.
1182. Speed contests and races.
1182-a. Multi-jurisdictional speed contests, races and similar
special events.
1182-b. Filming of movies, commercials and similar events.

As there is a 1180 - a, it does seems peculiar that the the notation 1180B would be citing sub-paragraph (b) in Section 1180A, paragraph 1.

In addition:
1180A-1b refers to lower speed limits for special permit vehicles.

(If you go down to 1180A-2, you will see that the Thruway has an established limit of 65 mph.)
-----
Just curious Jeff, if your professional background is in retail strategies, upon what are you basing your legal analyses? (I note that you seem to have contributed to virtually every forum on this board! )