Skip to content

Posts from the "Street Justice" Category

3 Comments

NYPD Denies Access to Confiscated Bikes, Including Those of Crash Victims

street_justice2

As seasoned observers of the department’s dealings with bicyclists know, NYPD has long enjoyed taking our bikes. Following the 2004 Republican National Convention, NYPD clipped locks and took bikes of persons suspected of associating with Critical Mass, resulting in a successful federal lawsuit that enjoined the practice as a constitutional violation. During a 2010 visit to New York by President Obama, NYPD without notice confiscated bikes wholesale along the president’s route, failing to tag the bikes and making it extremely difficult for their owners to reclaim them. Now, NYPD has taken things to the next level by shuttering its bike pound for a year and a half, and refusing to allow owners to claim their bicycles indefinitely.

The problem came to light during efforts by the Lefevre family to retrieve the bicycle of fatal crash victim Mathieu Lefevre. [Disclosure: Steve Vaccaro of Vaccaro & White is counsel to the Lefevre family.] NYPD has moved to quash a court-ordered subpoena to produce the bicycle Lefevre rode the night he was killed. This comes on the heels of well-documented foot-dragging by the NYPD in failing to respond to the Lefevres’ requests for information in the immediate aftermath of their son’s death, drawing extensive press attention, from Streetsblog to the New York Times. The Lefevres ultimately sued the NYPD to get the investigative documents to which they were entitled, resulting in judicial criticism that NYPD “needlessly delayed handing over documents and other materials” in a manner “agonizing” to the family.

In this latest example of NYPD stonewalling, the Lefevres issued a subpoena to the NYPD to produce the bike for use as evidence against the driver. The Lefevres’ papers state that the bike is needed to reconstruct the manner in which the crash occurred, and to test the driver’s claim that he was unaware that he had struck Lefevre when he left the scene of the crash. A picture of the bicycle taken by police the night of the crash shows extensive damage:

HWY_1483

Read more…

25 Comments

NYPD’s Jaywalking Enforcement Boondoggle

street_justice2

Although the de Blasio administration’s Vision Zero plan to eliminate traffic fatalities does not specifically call for pedestrian traffic enforcement, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton has made clear that individual precinct commanders have the discretion to do so if they determine it to be warranted.

Leaving aside the many good reasons that pedestrian ticketing should be considered NYPD’s lowest traffic enforcement priority, it now appears that many NYPD officers (and some precinct commanders) do not even understand the traffic laws that apply to New York City pedestrians. The NYPD’s jaywalking enforcement boondoggle points to the need for comprehensive in-service training for NYPD officers on pedestrian, cyclist, and motor vehicle traffic laws.

After three Upper West Side pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles within a short period of time and within two blocks of Broadway and 96th Street, the commander of the 24th Precinct apparently decided that pedestrian traffic enforcement was needed. (Only one of the three pedestrians killed, Samantha Lee, was alleged to have violated traffic laws).

Building on this disconnect between the problem and the proposed solution, officers of the 24th Precinct proceeded to cite pedestrians for violation of New York State Vehicle & Traffic Law Section 1152, “Crossing at other than crosswalks.” This law does not apply in New York City — NYC DOT has superseded it (see page 16 of this pdf, 34 RCNY Section 4-02(e)) under New York City’s delegated authority to legislate with respect to the right of way of vehicles and pedestrians.

Making matters worse, the officers issued summonses returnable to New York City Criminal Court — even though a violation of traffic law was alleged. What did the Criminal Court do with the summonses it was asked to adjudicate for violation of a non-applicable, non-criminal traffic violation?  It dismissed them — of course:

Read more…

66 Comments

How the City Council Can Impose Tougher Penalties on Reckless Drivers

street_justice2

The election of numerous safe streets candidates earlier this month, followed by the exoneration of road-raging cabbie Faysal Himon and the gut-wrenching parade of daily traffic deaths since, create the best opportunity in years to impose meaningful consequences for sober reckless driving.

I have been told by numerous lawyers with state legislative experience that only Albany can tinker with criminal penalties for reckless driving. But I’m not sure that’s true. Outlined below is the case for legislative reform, the authority of the City Council to enact reform, and a proposed bill reflecting what reform should look like.

Why New Laws Instead of Better Enforcement of Existing Laws? Before putting new laws on the books, better to first ask whether existing laws are adequate to punish and deter sober reckless driving. New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) Section 1212 — entitled “Reckless Driving” — would seem to fit the bill. It reads:

Reckless driving shall mean driving or using any motor vehicle, motorcycle or any other vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangers users of the public highway. Reckless driving is prohibited. Every person violating this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Pretty good, huh? The statutory text requires only that a driver “unreasonably interfere with” or “endanger” another person to be guilty. The offense is classified as a misdemeanor, creating criminal penalties for reckless driving.

Isn’t the answer simply to vigorously enforce this law? No, for three reasons:

  • Despite the clear “causing unreasonable danger/interference” standard spelled out in the statutory text, courts applying it have seized on the word “reckless” in the title of the statute and used it as a reason to smuggle in the entirely foreign penal law concept of recklessness, which requires a finding that the driver “grossly deviated” from “reasonable” conduct. This is a much harder thing to prove, as the Court of Appeals held in People v. Cabrera.
  • Even if a “gross deviation” demonstrating recklessness is found, VTL 1212 does not specify a penalty, and so the default penalty for unclassified misdemeanors applies — a maximum of 30 days in prison and $300 fine.
  • In practice, it is commonplace for judges hearing reckless driving charges to offer the driver an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal” (ACD) which allows the driver to avoid prison time and a criminal record.

If you have the pleasure of receiving a summons to criminal court for cycling on a bike path or talking back to a cop, you will watch a handful of drivers who received reckless driving charges get off with an ACD and a fine of $100 to $200 (sidewalk cyclists are usually offered, and often take, the same ACD deal with a $50 fine). For a driver who injures or kills a vulnerable street user, an ACD plus a $200 fine is not meaningful punishment or deterrence.

Accepting as true that it is extremely difficult to win legislative reform of traffic laws in Albany, what can city government do?

Read more…

15 Comments

Reforming NYPD Crash Investigations: What’s Next?

New Yorkers were outraged to hear yesterday that there may be no criminal charges against cab driver Mohammed Himon, who plowed into a bicyclist and several pedestrians, horribly injuring a woman on the sidewalk. Although yesterday’s NYPD statement was not official, anonymous leaks to the effect that sober drivers who stay at the scene of a crash will face no criminal charges are almost always borne out  — unless the District Attorney conducts its own investigation.

Today brought welcome news that office of Manhattan DA Cy Vance is investigating the crash and has not ruled out charges. Based on the facts as reported to the public to date, a charge of first degree assault is supportable and should be vigorously pursued.

But even if the DA’s office secures a conviction of the driver, the fact remains that many hundreds of crashes involving sober, stay-at-scene drivers who recklessly cause serious injury or death to pedestrians and cyclists typically end with no serious consequences for the driver. These crashes go uninvestigated, under-investigated, and/or unprosecuted, due to the apparent presumption that harm done by a motorist is mere “accidental” negligence — even when there is clear evidence of multiple traffic violations, or road rage, at the root of the harm.

Despite the public outcry over the last two years for meaningful NYPD investigation and charging of non-drunk, stay-at-scene reckless drivers, it appears nothing has changed.  What has brought us to this point?

Read more…

20 Comments

Personal Security and Livable Streets

Yesterday’s watershed decision in Floyd v. New York, in which federal Judge Shira Scheindlin found NYPD’s stop and frisk program unconstitutional, has thrown a spotlight on the issue of personal security. Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly at his side, utterly rejected the decision, suggested it would directly result in increased violent street crime, and vowed an appeal.

Judge Scheindlen made clear that her decision was based on the constitutionality of the program, not on the possible desirability and effectiveness as a deterrent to crime. Surely the vast majority of New Yorkers want and expect a public realm reasonably free from street crime. Does that mean livable streets advocates should consider taking the administration’s view of the personal security debate? Here are some reasons why not.

Racial profiling destroys the public realm:Planners strive to create urban places in order to draw people into the public realm for the enrichment of shared experience. In a city as diverse as New York, a program of harassment that discourages racial minorities from being out in public or in certain neighborhoods is directly at odds with this goal. Judge Scheindlen found that the NYPD’s stop and frisk program was exactly that: a program of racially profiling black and Latino males for humiliating stops and frisks. She rejected the city’s rationale for the racial disparity in the program — that the majority of persons suspected and arrested for crime are black and Latino males. The circularity of this approach is self-evident. It impoverishes everyone’s experience of the city.

Without suggesting that NYPD enforcement of traffic laws against cyclists is equivalent in any legal or political sense to the racial profiling and discrimination proven in Floyd, I’m not surprised that there are clear parallels between the two — since it is the same officers doing the policing. These parallels nicely illustrate the “community suspicion” principle underlying Judge Scheindlin’s finding of constitutional violations.

In one seemingly race-neutral example of this “community suspicion” approach, an NYPD lieutenant was heard “instructing officers to stop anyone on a bike who is carrying a bag near an area where there have been car break-ins. ‘Those are good stops,’” the lieutenant asserted. “Community suspicion” is not only unconstitutional, but has a chilling effect on community members’ willingness to venture out in public — a vital ingredient to the streets we all want.

Read more…

4 Comments

Rally for Our Right of Way

The right of way. You won’t find it in the Declaration of Independence, the UN Charter on Human Rights, or any other foundational declaration of rights. But that’s not because it’s any less important. At least for those living in dense urban environments — a growing proportion of Americans — respect for the right of way is critical to efficiently navigating the routine of daily life. For millions of us, respect for the right of way is a matter of life and death.

It is a staple of urban stereotypes that New Yorkers jealously guard their right of way and are constantly pushing against the envelope of others. Cars inch into the crosswalk in anticipation of a green light or to force a way through pedestrians’ right of way. Cyclists with open road before them take the lane, then when vehicular traffic slows, cut a labyrinthine path in and out of traffic lanes and around pedestrians. Pedestrians walk imperiously out into traffic and seem determined to make the absolute minimum changes in course and speed necessary to avoid collisions. If each group engages in a roughly equivalent level of traffic misbehavior, then haven’t we achieved a rough justice in respecting each others’ right of way?

Of course not. It is abundantly clear to those who travel our streets without motors, armor, and padding that the terms of engagement with those who do involve a distinct, and dire, risk assessment. Pedestrians and cyclists fail to anticipate what a motorist is about to do at peril of life and limb. But as every Streetsblog Weekly Carnage reader knows, motorists are likely to drive away from a fatal crash without a scratch, criminal charge, or even a traffic ticket. The apparent equivalence of “every-person-for-themselves” traffic chaos masks how much the deck is stacked against pedestrians and cyclists, who make up half of the victims in the hundreds of fatal New York City crashes each year, but cause no more than a few traffic deaths per decade.

As long as the design of our streets and automobiles optimize motorists’ speed and power vis-a-vis other street users, the laws and customs regarding right of way are the only things that keep the numbers of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and serious injuries in check. Great strides have been made in recent years to redesign New York City streets to prioritize safety, and as Nicole Gelinas recently reported, hundreds of lives have been saved as a result.

Many more lives could be saved if NYPD stepped up enforcement of traffic laws against dangerous driving in neighborhoods, instead of wasting time on fish-in-a-barrel summonsing of technical violations. Seven NYPD officers are assigned daily to check every tour bus and truck for explosives, right outside my office. Why aren’t officers assigned to checking giant semi trucks for approrpiate mirrors, other safety equipment and permits before they cross a bridge or tunnel into the pedestrian rich streets of our city? The parents of Renee Thompson and every other victim or survivor of traffic violence has a right to an answer.

But the possibility of meaningful intervention by NYPD into the city’s survival-of-the-biggest traffic culture — and maybe even the street redesign gains of the last six years — is in jeopardy. None of the leading contenders for mayor have made street safety a top priority in their platform, even though traffic violence is the greatest cause of injury-related death in NYC. The tabloid media, which potently shapes popular opinion, continues for the most part to emphasize the personalities of perpetrators and victims over the common thread of preventability running through the endless, numbing procession of lives tragically cut short or wrecked.

That’s why is so important for eveyone who gives a damn about fairness in right of way to come to City Hall tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. To give a public voice to the searing pain crash victims and their survivors suffer in private due to official neglect. To punch through the nauseating business-as-usual approach to traffic violence. To show the candidates running for office that traffic violence is not just another token issue to play politics with, to check or uncheck the box. Please come to City Hall tomorrow to demonstrate that right of way is a fundamental urban right that government has a duty to protect.

Steve Vaccaro is an attorney with the Law Office of Vaccaro & White.

20 Comments

NYPD Looking for Criminality in All the Wrong Places

I was gratified to learn in March that NYPD had re-christened its “Accident Investigation Squad” the “Collision Investigation Squad” (CIS), and reportedly beefed up its 19-person force of crash investigators by 50 percent. But as a lawyer representing pedestrian and cyclist crash victims, I have yet to see the impact of these changes on the ground. Instead, NYPD continues to waste a significant portion of the resources it devotes to traffic law enforcement on “garbage” summonsing of cyclists. Looking at NYPD’s overall traffic law enforcement program — including both crash investigations and traffic law enforcement — it seems like little has changed.

Ten days ago I was asked to help a pedestrian crash victim. This 30-year-old woman sustained serious multiple fractures and other injuries that may prevent her from walking normally again.  She remains in the hospital two weeks after her crash, half that time spent in an intensive care unit. But because she remained conscious at the crash scene, her case apparently was not deemed “critical” and therefore the CIS was never called.

Only because her family acted quickly was videotape and other evidence concerning the crash recovered — without NYPD assistance. This evidence revealed that the motorist responsible was speeding at approximately 45 mph on a zebra-striped “no drive” lane, attempting to illegally pass other vehicles, and then swerved back into another lane striking his victim.

That driver will never receive a summons, or a suspension or revocation of his license, because NYPD did not investigate the crash as it is required to do in all cases of serious injury. “No criminality was suspected,” because no NYPD officer looked or even considered the possibility that the driver’s conduct was reckless enough to justify a criminal charge — even though witnesses told the police responding to the scene that the driver was speeding and swerving recklessly. NYPD was not looking for criminality at the crash site, so it never found any.

While NYPD likes to claim that the agency lacks the resources to properly investigate all serious crashes, at the same time it assigns police to give out garbage summonses. And when it comes to summonsing cyclists, NYPD clearly is looking for criminality in the wrong places. The recent case of Hilda Cohen provides a clear example of how NYPD officers, either by design or ignorance, fundamentally misunderstand how the traffic laws apply to cyclists (disclosure: I am Hilda’s friend and fellow StreetsPAC board member).

Cohen received two summonses for bicycling in a manner which, if you accept her account, was completely lawful. But the most remarkable thing about these summonses is that they purport to be for criminal offenses.  In the case of the “reckless bicycling” charge Cohen received (violation of New York City Administrative Code 19-176(b)), this is a violation which according to the regulation can result in a “civil penalty” only and must be adjudicated before the New York City Environmental Control Board. This provision is written in language almost identical to another Administrative Code provision for enforcement of solid waste separation for recycling, and should be enforced in the same manner. But NYPD officers routinely charge sidewalk cyclists using a criminal summons returnable in criminal court.

Simply by using the wrong form of summons, NYPD forces cyclists like Cohen to appear in person at criminal court to enter a plea, and often a second time if the plea is not guilty. Despite the wording of the regulation, there is a substantial risk that a cyclist mistakenly “convicted” in criminal court for a violation of Section 19-176(b) would be deemed to have a criminal record, something that must be disclosed on many job and other applications. Instead of simply paying a fine by mail — like a motorist who commits a traffic violation or a resident who doesn’t separate her trash — cyclists issued criminal summons for reckless bicycling face days of work missed, the possibility of a criminal “conviction,” or significant legal fees if they wish to plead not guilty.

Read more…

15 Comments

Why Motorists Should Pay for Crash Investigations

As any good policy wonk knows, certain activities effectively force people who only bear the costs of that activity to subsidize the beneficiaries. To use the classic contemporary example, fossil fuel polluters receive billions in tax breaks, but pay nothing for the climate change-inducing carbon that they emit.

The same problem applies to private motoring, the costs of which are, in many cases, spread across non-drivers or society at large. The curb lane in front of my home provides free storage for my car-owning neighbors’ vehicles. A portion of my taxes go to maintaining highways I rarely use, caring for uninsured crash victims and asthma patients in city hospitals, bailing out the auto industry because it’s too big to fail, and fighting wars to keep oil cheap.

One aspect of private motoring that benefits motorists while imposing costs on others is crash investigations. Anyone involved in a motor vehicle crash (and remaining conscious afterwards) knows that two NYPD officers are sent to the scene and spend usually about half an hour or more recording information including weather conditions and the contours of the road. (The officers may also spend some time trying to convince you not to make a report.) Many of these crashes involve property damage only.

While the barely relevant details of fender-benders are meticulously documented, members of the NYPD Collision Investigation Squad are supposedly doing in-depth investigations of all crashes involving “critical” injuries.

Why is the public at large paying teams of police officers to gather loss adjustment information for insurance companies in property damage disputes, while acts of serious traffic violence go uninvestigated?

The answer lies with the insurance industry. From an industry-wide perspective, insurers’ interest is not focused on determining fault for a crash. Since any given insurer can just as easily find itself on the defending end as the prosecuting end of a crash-related claim, the captains of the insurance industry don’t really care how fault is allocated in any given crash (however much the individual insurance adjusters assigned to particular crashes may care).

Read more…

17 Comments

Why Doesn’t NYPD Apply “Broken Windows” to Traffic Violence?

Reading Heather Mac Donald’s impassioned defense of the race-neutral character of NYPD’s stop and frisk program in City Journal this weekend, I was struck by the following statement of an NYPD precinct commander, Inspector Christopher McCormack, exhorting an officer to be more “proactive” in making stops:

“The point here is that 99 percent of the people in this community are great, hardworking people who deserve to walk to the train stop, walk to their car, walk to the store [without fear of getting shot].”

This statement has been put forward as evidence in the federal class action lawsuit Floyd v. City of New York. There, plaintiffs allege that NYPD’s stop and frisk program racially targets minority youth based on tenuous (or no) evidence. Defenders of the program contend that systematic “proactive” stops in high-crime neighborhoods drive crime rates down. The stops have been characterized as a form of “broken windows” policing, through which the targeting of lesser crimes creates an atmosphere of vigilance that is thought to discourage more serious crime.

Why no “broken windows” for traffic violence? Transportation Alternatives and Streetsblog first posed this question back in 2009, and persistent advocacy and pressure since then have led to some progress. NYPD recently announced that more crashes would be investigated, and that it would use the more neutral term “collision” to describe these incidents rather than “accidents.” But these changes affect only cases in which the victim is critically injured. In practical terms, NYPD’s announced 50 percent increase in investigators ostensibly would increase crash investigations from the current ~300 to ~450 per year — even though state law mandates that NYPD investigate all of the 3,000-plus NYC crashes each year that result in serious or fatal injury, and NYPD is currently facing a lawsuit brought by my firm to fulfill that mandate.

Do these modest improvements signal a more fundamental change in NYPD’s bias against “suspecting criminality” in cases of traffic violence? One reason for that bias is the traditional requirement that conduct, to be treated as criminal, must be accompanied by an “evil mind” — an intent or at least an awareness of doing harm. And yet, even in hit-and-run cases, where criminality usually by definition exists, NYPD still generally fails to investigate offenders or refer for prosecution unless the case also involves death, or more recently, “critical” injury.  Why do crimes committed with cars so often get a “pass” from NYPD?

Last week brought news of an extremely clear case of NYPD’s double-standard regarding crimes committed with cars, that of John Kelly, who is now a client of our firm. While riding in a bike lane a block from his home, John was struck twice by the driver of a van. The second hit knocked John from his bike and sent him up onto the hood, where he clung for his life as the driver accelerated, crushing John’s bicycle under the van’s wheel. The driver made eye contact with his John throughout the episode, leaving no doubt that this was an intentional assault. After John escaped from the hood, the driver fled the scene.

Miraculously, John’s injuries were minor. Police were summoned to the scene, where they received accounts of the assault from John and several witnesses. Yet the officers’ only response was to complete an “accident report” — what “accident” was that? — and to close the case without any investigation. Apparently “suspecting no criminality,” NYPD ignored strong evidence supporting at least three felony charges (second degree criminal mischief, first degree reckless endangerment, and second degree assault), as well as two misdemeanor charge (reckless driving and  hit-and-run).

Read more…

4 Comments

Driver Safety Laws: An Old Approach That’s Worth Reviving

In the aftermath of a crash, we inevitably ask: How can a dangerous driver be kept off the road? It seems that the entire automobile transportation regime is aimed at keeping the driver behind the wheel. Absent impairment or flight from the scene of the crash, police quickly conclude that “no criminality is suspected.” The name of the responsible driver may be carefully guarded by police, even when the name of the victim or selective details are not. Government compels the insurance market to continue insuring the responsible driver, even if the market would consider the driver too risky to insure. The under-resourced legal system and insurance industry neglect and obstruct crash litigation, pressuring victims to simply accept whatever insurance is available without holding the driver personally responsible.

But it wasn’t always that way.

Before the advent of compulsory auto insurance laws in the 1950s, New York and most other states had “safety responsibility” laws instead. Under these laws, drivers involved in crashes had their licenses suspended until they posted a bond or demonstrated insurance in an amount sufficient to compensate the crash victim. Based on their involvement in a crash, these drivers would also be required to maintain insurance as a condition of keeping their driving privileges.

Under New York’s safety responsibility law (codified as Section 94-b of the Vehicle and Traffic Law), the crash victim had the right to directly petition the commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles for suspension of license of any driver involved in a crash causing personal injury or $25 of property damage. Absent the requisite showing of financial responsibility, the commissioner was required to suspend the license of a driver within 45 days — even if there had not been any finding of fault. At least for those drivers without insurance and financial means, this approach resulted in prompt suspension of driving privileges for drivers involved in crashes.

Though ensuring compensation of victims was clearly the primary purpose of the safety responsibility law, it also had an undeniable deterrent effect. As one New York court explained in 1942, “the penalty which § 94–b imposes for injury due to careless driving is not for the protection of the [crash victim] merely, but to enforce a public policy that irresponsible drivers shall not, with impunity, be allowed to injure their fellows.”

Read more…