Opinion
13781/06.
Decided December 10, 2007.
The Defendant was arrested on May 22, 2006 and charged with: one count of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192.2, Driving While Intoxicated, Per Se, as an unclassified misdemeanor; one count of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192.3, Driving While Intoxicated, as an unclassified misdemeanor; and one count of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1131, Driving on the Shoulder, as a traffic infraction. The Defendant was issued computer generated uniform traffic tickets (also known as electronic tickets or "e-tickets") by the New York State Police. In accordance with the electronic tickets, Defendant appeared in Court on June 6, 2006, and was arraigned.
Defendant moves this Court to dismiss the Simplified Traffic Informations against him pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 100.10, upon the grounds that:
a. the computer generated Simplified Traffic Informations are not "Simplified Traffic Informations" as prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles;
b. the computer generated Simplified Traffic Informations violate the mandates of 15 NYCRR Part 91, et seq;
c. the computer generated Simplified Traffic Informations are unconstitutional as they violate New York State Constitution Article IV § 8; and
d. the computer generated Simplified Traffic Informations are facially defective and do not constitute Simplified Traffic Informations.
Defendant also moves this Court to dismiss the Simplified Traffic Informations against him pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30, upon the grounds that the time within which to prosecute the instant matter has expired. The People oppose Defendant's motion.
I. ELECTRONIC TICKETING IS AUTHORIZED
BY THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES
The Defendant claims that the electronic tickets issued to him are not Simplified Traffic Informations and are therefore defective because they are not in the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and they violate the mandates of 15 NYCRR Part 91 et seq. Defendant's primary argument is that the format of the electronic tickets do not comply with 15 NYCRR § 91.5, which specifies that the ticket packet must be a multi-copy packet with interleaved carbons, each part being between 4 and 4-1/4 inches wide and between 7-3/4 and 8 inches long; be 12 or 13 pound sulfite bond paper and that the colors of the ticket packet conform to the colors and content prescribed in 15 NYCRR § 91.7. The Defendant further asserts that 15 NYCRR § 91.7 prohibits the use of any variation of the specifications unless prior written approval has been obtained from the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. Defendant contends that no such authority has been given by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 207 provides the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles with the power to prescribe the form of a summons and complaint with respect to certain violations relating to traffic. Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Commissioner promulgated 15 NYCRR Part 91. These rules and regulations specifically prescribe the form of a uniform traffic ticket, which is a ticket packet that includes several parts, one of which is the Simplified Traffic Information (See 15 NYCRR § 91.5, § 91.7, and § 91.16). The Simplified Traffic Information part of the ticket packet is the accusatory instrument which is filed with the Court.
Recently, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles authorized the electronic ticketing of the information contained in the ticket packet (See 15 NYCRR § 91.21), in lieu of the uniform traffic ticket authorized by 15 NYCRR § 91.7 and § 91.16. As such, the electronically transferred simplified information becomes the "form" prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.
15 NYCRR § 91.21 (entitled "Electronic Ticketing") provides as follows:
"(a) In lieu of issuing uniform traffic tickets to enforcement agencies, as provided in section 91.16 of this Part, the commissioner may authorize law enforcement agencies to print any or all parts of the ticket packet and/or to transfer the information contained thereon electronically. Such printing and/or transfer of information shall be authorized in all areas of the State of New York (Emphasis added).
(b) Authorization to print any or all parts of the ticket packet and/or transfer information electronically shall not preclude any police agency from using paper ticket packets issued as provided in section 91.16 of this Part. Upon the issuance of any such ticket, the procedures set forth in section 91.17 of this Part shall be applicable.
(c) The format of ticket issued in an electronic form must conform substantially to a paper ticket approved for use in the same geographic area of the State, as prescribed by this Part. In addition, each ticket must have a unique and sequential identifying number assigned or approved by the commissioner."
A comparison of the electronic Simplified Traffic Informations utilized by the New York State Police in this case with the uniform traffic ticket packet specified in 15 NYCRR § 91.7, reveals that the two contain the exact same information, albeit in a different format. This Court holds that the format difference in this case is inconsequential and that the Simplified Traffic Informations substantially conform to the paper tickets as required by the Statute.
II. ELECTRONIC TICKETING IS CONSTITUTIONAL
Defendant's claim that "the aforestated documents [electronic tickets] are unconstitutional and constitute a violation of the New York State Constitution Art IV § 8," is erroneous and without legal merit. The electronic tickets fully comply with Article IV § 8.
Article IV § 8 provides as follows:
"No rule or regulation made by any state department, board, bureau, officer, authority or commission, except such as relates to the organization or internal management of a state department, board, bureau, authority or commission shall be effective until it is filed in the office of the department of state. The legislature shall provide for the speedy publication of such rules and regulations by appropriate laws."
The amendment of the New York State Administrative Code to permit electronic ticketing was filed with the office of the Department of State. In addition, the New York State Legislature provided for the publication of same at 15 NYCRR § 91.21, effective December 24, 2002. Hence, there has been full compliance with the New York State Constitution.
III. ELECTRONIC TICKETS CONTAIN SUFFICIENT SIMPLIFIED
TRAFFIC INFORMATIONS
Defendant argues that should this Court find that the electronic tickets in this case are in fact informations, that same are defective on their face as they contain no factual allegations and must be dismissed. It is clear from the Defendant's argument that he confuses the sufficiency requirements of a Simplified Traffic Information with those of an Information.
The electronic tickets filed in this case constitute Simplified Traffic Informations. As such, C.P.L. § 100.10 2(a) governs the sufficiency of same. C.P.L. § 100.10 2(a) specifically permits Simplified Traffic Informations to serve as the basis for the commencement of a criminal action for traffic offenses even though they contain no factual allegations of an evidentiary nature supporting such charge or charges.
Furthermore, C.P.L. § 100.25(1) provides that a Simplified Traffic Information need only be substantially in the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. Consequently, Defendant's argument that the Simplified Traffic Informations are defective because they contain no factual allegations is misguided. In addition, notwithstanding the fact that Simplified Traffic Informations need not contain factual allegations of an evidentiary nature, C.P.L. § 100.25(2) provides that a supporting deposition, which contains the factual allegations of the complainant police officer or public servant, will be delivered to the Defendant upon a timely request. This ultimately provides the Defendant with the pertinent factual allegations not contained in the Simplified Traffic Informations.
In this case, although the Defendant never requested a supporting deposition, a copy of the arresting Trooper's supporting deposition was delivered to him at his arraignment on June 6, 2006. A review of the supporting deposition discloses that it contains factual allegations, based upon the personal knowledge and observations of the arresting Trooper, that sufficiently establish reasonable cause to believe that Defendant did violate V.T.L. Sections 1192.2, 1192.3 and 1131.
Therefore, this Court rules that the electronic tickets given to Defendant comply with 15 NYCRR § 91.21. Further, the electronic tickets are facially valid and constitute Simplified Traffic Informations within the meaning of C.P.L. § 100.10.Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss the within docket pursuant to C.P.L. § 100.10 is denied.
IV. SPEEDY TRIAL
A review of the Court file reflects that with the exception of the adjournment from August 6, 2007 to August 14, 2007 (8 days), all of the adjournments from the date of the Defendant's arraignment until December 10, 2007, were either at the Defendant's request or with the consent of the Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss this docket pursuant to C.P.L. 30.30 is denied.
This constitutes the opinion, decision, and Order of this Court.