Comments on: You Can Get Away With Anything in Traffic Court, With a Little Patience http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matthew Weiss http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-92651 Matthew Weiss Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:33:40 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-92651 Sorry, about this re-post but I inadvertently provided the wrong web address in the above post. Sorry, about this re-post but I inadvertently provided the wrong web address in the above post.

]]> By: Matthew Weiss http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-92641 Matthew Weiss Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:31:09 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-92641 I hate to disagree but this loophole does not exist in New York. The author is right that points for DMV purposes last only for 18 months from the date of offense and are not assessed until the motorist is actually found guilty of a New York moving violation. However, whenever a motorist is found guilty of a New York traffic ticket (even more than 18 months from the date of offense), DMV will examine how many points that motorist had within 18 months of that ticket. If the motorist had more points than allowed, he or she will be suspended. Regardless of what the Executive Order cited above may say, points do not expire regardless of how long it takes to actually go on your license. I have been a New York traffic ticket attorney for over 17 years and have seen many motorists receive "retroactive" suspensions. Conversely, I have never seen a motorist avoid a suspension when he or she was found guilty of a traffic ticket that was greater than 18 months old. For a good article on how to calculate New York points, check out "A Guide To Calculating DMV Points" at http://digg.com/d3zS3O I hate to disagree but this loophole does not exist in New York.

The author is right that points for DMV purposes last only for 18 months from the date of offense and are not assessed until the motorist is actually found guilty of a New York moving violation. However, whenever a motorist is found guilty of a New York traffic ticket (even more than 18 months from the date of offense), DMV will examine how many points that motorist had within 18 months of that ticket. If the motorist had more points than allowed, he or she will be suspended.

Regardless of what the Executive Order cited above may say, points do not expire regardless of how long it takes to actually go on your license. I have been a New York traffic ticket attorney for over 17 years and have seen many motorists receive “retroactive” suspensions. Conversely, I have never seen a motorist avoid a suspension when he or she was found guilty of a traffic ticket that was greater than 18 months old.

For a good article on how to calculate New York points, check out “A Guide To Calculating DMV Points” at http://digg.com/d3zS3O

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-86161 Jonathan Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:06:16 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-86161 Cap, OK, your right to keep dangerous things, like fireworks or noxious gases, ought to be regulated by the government. Autos are dangerous a priori. Unfortunately, autos are also large capital goods. If you take away a large capital good (with certain dangerous uses), you impose a big cost on the citizen. I think Americans, even convicted felons, are allowed to keep small (dangerous) capital goods, like machetes and chainsaws, at home. So how can you justify the government taking something more valuable? There's also the problem of the separation of driver and owner. If you lend me your VW Jetta, and I run down Aaron Naparstek on Prospect Park West in cold blood, and the cops impound the VW, you're inconvenienced by the impounding, not me (I have other issues). What if it's a common-carrier bus? Should the government take that if the driver runs someone down? "Sorry, commuters: your bus has been impounded." I think there are lots of questions inherent in this issue. Cap, OK, your right to keep dangerous things, like fireworks or noxious gases, ought to be regulated by the government. Autos are dangerous a priori. Unfortunately, autos are also large capital goods. If you take away a large capital good (with certain dangerous uses), you impose a big cost on the citizen. I think Americans, even convicted felons, are allowed to keep small (dangerous) capital goods, like machetes and chainsaws, at home. So how can you justify the government taking something more valuable?

There’s also the problem of the separation of driver and owner. If you lend me your VW Jetta, and I run down Aaron Naparstek on Prospect Park West in cold blood, and the cops impound the VW, you’re inconvenienced by the impounding, not me (I have other issues).

What if it’s a common-carrier bus? Should the government take that if the driver runs someone down? “Sorry, commuters: your bus has been impounded.”

I think there are lots of questions inherent in this issue.

]]> By: Cap'n Transit http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-86101 Cap'n Transit Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:33:46 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-86101 It's not foolproof, Jonathan, but it would help. We can debate that, but my main point is that your right to keep your things at all times is not absolute, and the Fourth Amendment does not protect drivers from reasonable restrictions. Do you agree with that at least? It’s not foolproof, Jonathan, but it would help. We can debate that, but my main point is that your right to keep your things at all times is not absolute, and the Fourth Amendment does not protect drivers from reasonable restrictions. Do you agree with that at least?

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-85991 Jonathan Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:51:29 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-85991 Cap, assume I and my family own two cars. Sunday I get a speeding ticket, and my Mustang convertible is impounded. Monday morning, I get in my Chevy Cavalier and drive to work. So how again does impounding the vehicle keep the truly innocent safe? We agree, I believe, that traffic crashes are more serious than legislators take them to be. I just don't think that the government taking my things (before my trial) is the right penalty. Cap, assume I and my family own two cars. Sunday I get a speeding ticket, and my Mustang convertible is impounded. Monday morning, I get in my Chevy Cavalier and drive to work.

So how again does impounding the vehicle keep the truly innocent safe? We agree, I believe, that traffic crashes are more serious than legislators take them to be. I just don’t think that the government taking my things (before my trial) is the right penalty.

]]> By: Cap'n Transit http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-85951 Cap'n Transit Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:13:12 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-85951 As has been pointed out many times, driving is a right, not a privilege. The safety of the truly innocent requires that the suspect be prevented from driving until the matter is decided. If that were possible without impounding the vehicle, then the Fourth Amendment would apply. Otherwise, impounding seems like a reasonable seizure to me. As has been pointed out many times, driving is a right, not a privilege. The safety of the truly innocent requires that the suspect be prevented from driving until the matter is decided. If that were possible without impounding the vehicle, then the Fourth Amendment would apply. Otherwise, impounding seems like a reasonable seizure to me.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-85901 Jonathan Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:46:31 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-85901 Ian, Eileen's comment, "Impound the vehicle involved until the matter is decided" seems contradictory to the Fourth Amendment.<blockquote>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</blockquote> Ian, Eileen’s comment, “Impound the vehicle involved until the matter is decided” seems contradictory to the Fourth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

]]> By: Ian Turner http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-85851 Ian Turner Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:12:12 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-85851 Lee, can you explain how any of the ideas presented here infringe upon the rights of the innocent? Lee, can you explain how any of the ideas presented here infringe upon the rights of the innocent?

]]> By: Lee http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-85801 Lee Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:12:13 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-85801 While I understand that the objective of this argument is to make our streets safer for everyone - protecting pedestrians, cyclists, and even other drivers from repeat offenders - there are good reasons for the legal system to be setup as it is. Unfortunately, the easiest way to protect the genuinely innocent is to make it difficult to judge and punish the guilty. And I honestly don't think it should be any other way. I do think we should adjust the system that already exists by increasing fines significantly, modestly increasing "DMV points", and adding short/temporary but mandatory suspensions to many offenses that don't currently carry so much weight. While I understand that the objective of this argument is to make our streets safer for everyone – protecting pedestrians, cyclists, and even other drivers from repeat offenders – there are good reasons for the legal system to be setup as it is.

Unfortunately, the easiest way to protect the genuinely innocent is to make it difficult to judge and punish the guilty. And I honestly don’t think it should be any other way.

I do think we should adjust the system that already exists by increasing fines significantly, modestly increasing “DMV points”, and adding short/temporary but mandatory suspensions to many offenses that don’t currently carry so much weight.

]]> By: clever-title http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-85631 clever-title Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:57:01 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-85631 I find it odd that we now have a post complaining about drivers gaming the system so soon after a <a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/17/dear-streetsblog-readers-how-do-you-handle-a-sidewalk-riding-ticket/" rel="nofollow">post soliciting ideas for a cyclist to beat a ticket</a> for a violation he admitted he committed. I find it odd that we now have a post complaining about drivers gaming the system so soon after a post soliciting ideas for a cyclist to beat a ticket for a violation he admitted he committed.

]]> By: Eileen http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-85511 Eileen Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:36:43 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-85511 #3 Impound the vehicle involved until the matter is decided, one way or the other. #3 Impound the vehicle involved until the matter is decided, one way or the other.

]]> By: Josh http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/21/you-can-get-away-with-anything-in-traffic-court-with-a-little-patience/comment-page-1/#comment-85441 Josh Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:21:30 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=14481#comment-85441 I'm inclined to say that you should be able to get a first postponement as a matter of right (or some other similarly low standard) and further postponements only on a showing of extraordinary circumstances (bedridden in a hospital, say). I’m inclined to say that you should be able to get a first postponement as a matter of right (or some other similarly low standard) and further postponements only on a showing of extraordinary circumstances (bedridden in a hospital, say).

]]>