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
-
Please see the article below for the improper political intervention of the Velella family with Family Court Judge David Klein: case of T...
-
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...
-
re-posted from Parentadvocates.org LINK The subtitle of the article on the July 29, 2012 New York Post: "Judges' pals cashing in...
-
Party Must Prevail on All Issues to Be Awarded Counsel Fee Pursuant to Agreement Provision In Matter of Bederman v Bederman, --- N.Y.S.2d --...
-
Be sure to read our # Funny # New # Blog "Law And Humor" filled with entertainment from the legal world! http:// lawandhumorny....
-
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 ...
-
In 2007, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the longstanding Appellate Division case law "that a carrier's failure to seek verificatio...
-
Matter of Koeppel 2011 NY Slip Op 51709(U) Judge Keistin Booth Glen Decided on January 19, 2011 Sur Ct, New York County Glen, J. Published b...
-
Юридический ликбез: в каких случаях имеет смысл создавать Отзывные Трасты Будучи адвокатом , специализирующимся на вопросах создания Трастов...
-
The story about Scott Bloch and his disdain for the public he was supposed to serve is not just judicial corruption, but public service gone...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét