At the suppression hearing, the police officer who stopped defendant's vehicle testified that, as he was traveling behind defendant's vehicle on a divided highway, he observed defendant flash his high beams while there was a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. The officer then stopped defendant's vehicle based on his belief that defendant had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (3). The officer testified that he understood that statute to mean that a driver is not allowed to flash his or her high beams "for particularly no reason at an oncoming vehicle." Section 375 (3) actually provides in relevant part that, "whenever a vehicle approaching from ahead is within [500] feet . . ., the headlamps, if of the multiple beam type . . . shall be operated so that dazzling light does not interfere with the driver of the approaching vehicle . . . ." The mere flashing of lights, alone, does not constitute a violation of the statute (citations omitted). The People presented no testimony at the hearing concerning the distance between defendant's vehicle and the oncoming vehicle, and there was no evidence that defendant's flashing of the high beams interfered in any way with the driver of the approaching vehicle. Indeed, because the officer mistakenly believed that flashing of the high beams for no particular reason was unlawful irrespective of the distance between vehicles, the officer did not concern himself with the distance of the approaching vehicle. Thus, the stop of defendant's vehicle was based on a mistake of law. "Where the officer's belief is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, the stop is illegal at the outset and any further actions by the police as a direct result of the stop are illegal" (citations omitted).
Referrals to New York State attorneys. The Lawyer Referral and Information Service is a public service of the New York State Bar Association that provides ...
Thứ Bảy, 14 tháng 11, 2009
Flashing High Beams Did Not Provide Probable Cause For Stopping Vehicle
A conviction for driving while intoxicated was reversed in People v Rose (__AD3d __, 2009 NY Slip Op 08412 [4th Dept 11/13/09]) where the stop was baed on what the officer's bleief that he had witnesses a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law,based on mistaken interpretation of the law.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Provisions in Settlement Agreement Which Govern Award of Attorney's Fees, Rather than Statutory Provisions, Control. In Berns v Halberst...
-
The Cultural Property Advisory Committee will be holding public sessions on October 12 and October 14, 2010 to consider renewing the cultura...
-
For what its worth, the BG&S website has some articles I've authored, each of which should have been published by now in "The S...
-
The need to renew previously made requests has been in the news recently with lots of reminders that if you don't a request to be on the...
-
I have just turned the magic age of 48. Getting a bit more grey, having a few more excuse me "sirs" thrown my way pauses me to th...
-
In People v Helmer ( 2009 NY Slip Op 04830 4th Dept 6/12/09) the sole issue was whether the victim was a stranger to defendant for purpose...
-
I'm living my dream. When I told my friends five years ago where I was moving they recommended I see a therapist. I escaped the big city...
-
Judge Nelson Roman, Deputy Mayor Carol Robles-Roman, Is Approved For Seat in Southern District CourtSenate Committee Approves Roman for Southern District By Mike Paquette New York Law Journal March 4, 2013 LINK Cover Story: Hispanic Power ...
-
Let us thank the American Bar Association for giving the green light late last year to allow the corporations and corrupt TARP receiving ban...
-
re-posted from Parentadvocates.org LINK The subtitle of the article on the July 29, 2012 New York Post: "Judges' pals cashing in...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét