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.