williamwchuang t1_iyiguzq wrote
NYPD: we can't arrest the guy who was caught on video murdering a roomful of children because our officers didn't see it happen.
EDIT: Sorry! Just a hypothetical! Cops arrest people based on witness testimony and video/pictures all the time.
3B854 t1_iyipbc7 wrote
What?
OHYAMTB t1_iyivslm wrote
The point is that it’s a stupid excuse. The cops don’t need to physically witness a crime to make an arrest, but they use it as an excuse
Mrmilkymilkster t1_iyj11yo wrote
No, it’s legality. Penal law misdemeanors and felonies don’t need to be personally observed by a police officer, hence testimony and video evidence. Violations are not the same thing. They are generally minor infractions, falling below the level of misdemeanor, which need to be observed by a police officer.
Jahaza t1_iyk5761 wrote
This appears to be incorrect. CPL § 140.10 requires that a petty offense be witnessed by the officer for an arrest to be made, but it doesn't say the same about the issuance of a ticket. And People v Boback (23 N.Y.2d 189 (N.Y. 1968)), a NY Appellate Division court held that a traffic ticket could be issued based on information and belief.
Mrmilkymilkster t1_iyk5gi1 wrote
Oh they can issue a ticket for anything, it will get thrown out immediately by nyc judges. I assume that has more to do with issuing a summons over the summons being upheld. I think you’d need to post the entire case for full context.
a87k t1_iyk8fl6 wrote
Summonses are in lieu of arrest. It’s tantamount to the same thing in the eyes of the law.
felonies and misdemeanors require a burden of proof known as “probable cause.” violations and infractions must be observed.
Jahaza t1_iykcgt8 wrote
Feel free to read the actual case law that contradicts you.
a87k t1_iykgsru wrote
So I like that you’re on the right track but the issue lies with the courts. An officer can not submit a summons returnable to a court based on an accumulation of evidence without the presence of expert testimony in court regarding this. At the time of this case law the criminal court handled this case thus it was proceeded by a prosecutor who could call upon an expert witness. This is not done in NYC therefor there is a statement which essentially overrides the Case law.
“I personally observed the commission of the offense charged herein. False statements made herein are punishable as a Class A Misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the Penal Law. Affirmed under penalty of law.”
In NYS moving violations are returnable to the DMV TVB which an officer must have a burden of proof of “Clear and Convincing Evidence” based exclusively on their observation.
Parking violations are essentially fines sent direct to the Dept of Finance. I’m sure they have a judge somewhere but hearings are direct with an administrative law judge. Therefor personal observation is necessary, as well as generally immediate service of complaint.
OATHs (civil court summonses) DO allow for ticketing based on non observance. One of the most common is “failure to yield to a pedestrian” when it is determined a motorist struck a pedestrian in the crosswalk when the driver had green and pedestrian had a walk signal.
State troopers upstate DO issue moving summonses based on conclusions arrived at during accidents but these are jurisdictions that have their summonses returned to a local criminal court.
In summation. Local courts created summonses which are legal complaints (exception of OATH) which state on the complaint that the issuer did personally observe. If an officer endorsed it, it violates CPL 210.45 which constitutes perjury.
avd706 t1_iykkevc wrote
Summonses are invitations to appear in court.
Croweslen t1_iyle6df wrote
Summonses that are violations, such as disorderly conduct, or any other offense outlined in the penal code as a violation Not parking summonses or any other city administrative code.
Ok_Example7725 t1_iyk2z2n wrote
And the program where you can report idling trucks by uploading a video? Is that not a minor infraction?
Mrmilkymilkster t1_iyk3cdl wrote
They manipulated their way around the NY State Constitution with those things. Like red light cameras and speed cameras, they ticket the vehicle not the person driving it.
3B854 t1_iyivxhc wrote
Oh i thought this exact situation happened. But yes it’s on brand for the nypd
stork38 t1_iyjmg2a wrote
That's....not how any of this works, and anybody upvoting you is a knucklehead
NetQuarterLatte t1_iyjkle0 wrote
I think it'd be highly unpopular to allow cops to issue summons for any violation they have not witnessed.
williamwchuang t1_iyjqwl9 wrote
We do that all the time when there's a photo, such as the red light cameras.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments