Tonight's weird (but true) legal case analaysis was inspired by a conversation that I had with my wife while we were driving in upstate NY this past week. While observing motorists flashing their brights to alert other drivers as to speed traps, I commented to Sarah that I had once come across a case in which a driver was prosecuted for flicking her brights. Upon further review, I was able to locate two such cases and I have summarized them in this post.
In People v. Lauber, 162 Misc.2d 19, 617 N.Y.S.2d 419 (App. Term 9th and 10th JDs) the Appellate Term concerned the appeal of a motorist who was convicted of failing to dim her headlights in violation of New York's VTL §375(3).
In the court below, the motorist testified that as she was driving southbound and approaching a state trooper's parked location, two cars flipped their lights at her. She passed the patrol car and "flicked" her lights three times. The trooper subsequently started his car and got onto the road, after she "would have" finished her "flicking."
The motorist also commented that the since the incident occured on a Sunday evening in February around 6:50 P.M. and traffic "was not very heavy", she was not "interfering" with any driver or anybody. Upon being asked by the trial judge why she was "flicking," she answered, "It may not have been smart, I admit, but when the cars flicked at me, I looked and saw the Officer's car, and I just flicked for other cars to know."
The motorist also testified that when she spoke to the trooper on a later date, he said he had given her the ticket "because [she] was alerting other drivers-- having nothing to do with her lights."
In discussing the VTL violation which the motorist had been convicted of in the lower court and its inapplicability to the charge, the Appellate Term noted that:
As I mentioned earlier, at least one other motorist had been tried in the New York courts for warning motorists as to the presence of the police. In People v. Wright, 53 Misc.2d 942, 280 N.Y.S.2d 213 (Cty. Ct. Orange Cty. 1967) a mototist had been tried and convicted in a Town Court of a violation of Article 9, Section 375(2)(c) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
In discussing Section 375(2)(c) of the VTL, the court noted that it "forbids the display of certain white lights which ‘shall cast a constantly moving, oscillating, revolving, rotating or flashing beam of white light visible from a point in front of the vehicle or from any other direction, except a flashing light or lights used as a directional signal or highway hazard warning’, by all but specially authorized vehicles performing specially authorized functions."
The court went on to note that the motive of the motorist who had flashed his high beams was immaterial, explaining that "it would seem that the display of an unauthorized light or the use of a light in an unauthorized manner would be a violation of this section without regard to the motive which prompted such use, and conversely, if a light displayed by a motorist is not proscribed by this section of the statute, his motive in displaying the light will not render him guilty of its violation."
In reversing the conviction, the County Court explained that since the evidence indicated that the motorist had merely turned his headlights on and off five times at thirty second intervals, he had clearly not been causing his lights to be "constantly flashing", regardless of the motive for his actions.
In People v. Lauber, 162 Misc.2d 19, 617 N.Y.S.2d 419 (App. Term 9th and 10th JDs) the Appellate Term concerned the appeal of a motorist who was convicted of failing to dim her headlights in violation of New York's VTL §375(3).
In the court below, the motorist testified that as she was driving southbound and approaching a state trooper's parked location, two cars flipped their lights at her. She passed the patrol car and "flicked" her lights three times. The trooper subsequently started his car and got onto the road, after she "would have" finished her "flicking."
The motorist also commented that the since the incident occured on a Sunday evening in February around 6:50 P.M. and traffic "was not very heavy", she was not "interfering" with any driver or anybody. Upon being asked by the trial judge why she was "flicking," she answered, "It may not have been smart, I admit, but when the cars flicked at me, I looked and saw the Officer's car, and I just flicked for other cars to know."
The motorist also testified that when she spoke to the trooper on a later date, he said he had given her the ticket "because [she] was alerting other drivers-- having nothing to do with her lights."
In discussing the VTL violation which the motorist had been convicted of in the lower court and its inapplicability to the charge, the Appellate Term noted that:
The subject provision states in pertinent part that a car's headlamps "... whenever a vehicle approaching from ahead is within five hundred feet ... shall be operated so that dazzling light does not interfere with the driver of the approaching vehicle ..." (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375[3] ). From such language, it is clear that merely showing that defendant "flipped" or "flicked" her high beams at approaching vehicles would be insufficient to establish that he caused "dazzling light" which "interfere[d]" with the drivers of said vehicles.In light of the above, the Appellate Term dismissed the conviction, explaining that "the defendant's motive for flicking her high beams, however unwise, did not render her guilty of the subject traffic offense."
As I mentioned earlier, at least one other motorist had been tried in the New York courts for warning motorists as to the presence of the police. In People v. Wright, 53 Misc.2d 942, 280 N.Y.S.2d 213 (Cty. Ct. Orange Cty. 1967) a mototist had been tried and convicted in a Town Court of a violation of Article 9, Section 375(2)(c) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
In discussing Section 375(2)(c) of the VTL, the court noted that it "forbids the display of certain white lights which ‘shall cast a constantly moving, oscillating, revolving, rotating or flashing beam of white light visible from a point in front of the vehicle or from any other direction, except a flashing light or lights used as a directional signal or highway hazard warning’, by all but specially authorized vehicles performing specially authorized functions."
The court went on to note that the motive of the motorist who had flashed his high beams was immaterial, explaining that "it would seem that the display of an unauthorized light or the use of a light in an unauthorized manner would be a violation of this section without regard to the motive which prompted such use, and conversely, if a light displayed by a motorist is not proscribed by this section of the statute, his motive in displaying the light will not render him guilty of its violation."
In reversing the conviction, the County Court explained that since the evidence indicated that the motorist had merely turned his headlights on and off five times at thirty second intervals, he had clearly not been causing his lights to be "constantly flashing", regardless of the motive for his actions.
If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!
No comments:
Post a Comment