Saratoga County Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

"[A]ll citizens will be required to change their underwear every half hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check." Woody Allen Bananas

New York doesn't want drivers to evade liability for harm they may do. For this reason, the Vehicle and Traffic Law has very specific instructions for drivers who have been involved in an accident:

[B]efore leaving the place where the damage occurred, [each driver shall] stop, exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle, . . . and give his or her name, residence, including street and number, insurance carrier and insurance identification information including but not limited to the number and effective dates of said individual's insurance policy, and license number to the party sustaining the damage, or in case the person sustaining the damage is not present at the place where the damage occurred then he or she shall report the same as soon as physically able to the nearest police station, or judicial officer.

Information gained through this mandatory disclosure can be used to make insurance claims, and in civil litigation, administrative proceedings and even criminal prosecutions (in cases where the driver may have been drunk, for example). However, even though the information can be used to prosecute the driver providing it, New York's Court of Appeals has dismissed arguments that requiring the disclosure violates constitutional protections against self-incrimination. The court concluded in People v. Samuel, that

[t]he duties imposed . . . are reasonable exercises of police power by the State to regulate activities directly relevant to public safety. On this view, the incidental and limited risk of inculpation by identification and report of motor vehicle operators whose conduct involves, or is likely to involve, criminal accusations is insufficient to inhibit the regulatory power by the interposition of the privilege against self incrimination.

To encourage compliance, the same law forbids "leaving the scene of an incident without reporting" and makes the consequences of doing so very unpleasant.

Continue reading "Hit-and-Run in New York - Part 1" »

In a prior entry, we noted that a local reporter had been charged with Obstruction of Governmental Administration, allegedly for asking police officers at a crime scene for information. At the time, the reporter's employer, the Post-Star of Glens Falls, NY, protested and declared an intention to fight the arrest.

We have since heard, via the Post-Star, that the charge has been 'resolved'. Apparently, the court has granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (lawyers often call it an 'ACD'). As the Post-Star puts it, "prosecutors have agreed in principle" to drop the charge.

Is this a thunderous vindication of the press? Not really.

An ACD works like this. The case is adjourned (literally "put off until another day") for six months. If the court hears nothing further in that time, the charge is automatically dismissed.

As soon as the adjournment is granted, the defendant is released "on his own recognizance" and if bail was posted it must be returned. Once the case is dismissed, the law requires that mug shots and fingerprints be destroyed, and the file is sealed.

These are good things. When you have a client who's behind the legal eight ball - and just about all criminal defendants are - you're very happy when an ACD is offered.

However, when you take a good look at the definition of an ACD, it by no means implies exoneration. The statute says that an ACD "shall not be deemed to be a conviction or an admission of guilt." You could guess from this alone that an ACD is actually a form of judicial diversion - a program for those guilty parties who may - after a trial period - be found worthy of absolution.

But there's more.

Continue reading "Lake George NY: Reporter's Obstruction Charge 'Resolved'" »

"If it be not now, yet it will come." Hamlet , Act 5, Scene 2

With this entry we conclude the story of Mr. X and his ill-fated car. Part 1 of our series described how the car - unregistered and uninsured - came to be wrecked by a friend (Mr. Y). Our second and third installments went into the Vehicle and Traffic charges faced by Mr. Y and Mr. X right after the accident; and now we'll see that, when it comes to the Department of Motor Vehicles, you aren't out of the woods until the woods say you are!

DMV's response to Mr. Y's accident came four months after the tickets had been dealt with, and five months after the accident itself. Keep in mind, if five months seems a long time, that this agency has been known to take more than a year to act in these matters (have a look at Hall v. State DMV, which describes a poor car owner's plight as "a situation almost worthy of Kafka").

Meanwhile, Mr. X had moved on. He'd paid his fine. He'd been paid for the car. As far as he was concerned, the incident was closed. So when, one day, he found an envelope from DMV in his mail, he was in no way prepared for the notice he found inside. He was "the registrant of an uninsured vehicle involved in an accident," the notice read; because of this, his license was being revoked - for an entire year.

Continue reading "New York Auto Sale Goes Nuclear (And The Fallout), Part 4" »

"which brought pains thousandfold..." Homer, The Iliad

In this series of entries, we've been telling the story of a car sale gone terribly wrong. (It ended not only in hard feelings, but in the total destruction of the vehicle.) Part 1 of our series laid out the scenario; Part 2 discussed some legal problems faced by the would-be buyer. This installment addresses the immediate legal consequences to the seller, and in our next entry, we'll look at the administrative repercussions for both parties. To protect everyone's identity, we've named the seller and buyer 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Y', respectively.

The story, in a nutshell, is that Mr. X's car had been taken and smashed by Mr. Y, a friend with a short fuse and a lead foot. Mr. Y had been charged with a couple of moving violations (unreasonable speed and failure to keep right), as well as driving without insurance and driving an unregistered vehicle. He also faced a single misdemeanor: driving with a suspended registration (Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 512).

The investigating officer declined, over Mr. X's objection, to charge Mr. Y with either theft or unauthorized use of the vehicle. He chose instead to cite Mr. X for permitting Mr. Y to drive his car without insurance and without license plates!

And even then, the officer wasn't done with Mr. X.

Continue reading " New York Auto Sale Goes Nuclear (And The Fallout), Part 3" »