Opinion
2008-296.
Decided October 6, 2009.
Appearances of Counsel: John M. Muehl, Esq., Otsego County District Attorney, appellant.
Eric H. Sills, Esq., Gerstenzang, O'Hern, Hickey, Sills Gerstenzang, for defendant-respondent.
This is a lower court appeal from a judgment of the Oneonta City Court (Bernier, J.), which dismissed the charges against defendant on the ground that the simplified traffic informations ("STIs"), were facially insufficient. The People appealed, and have filed an appellant brief. The defendant has filed a reply brief.
The undisputed facts are that defendant was arrested by the Oneonta City Police on April 13, 2008, and charged with Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated and Driving the Wrong Way on a One-Way Street in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192.2(a) and 1127(a), respectively. Defendant was served with STIs, which had been generated electronically by the TraCS System. The system had been installed in the Oneonta Police Department patrol cars a few months prior to defendant's arrest.
Defendant moved the lower court for, among other things, dismissal of the charges against him on the ground that the electronic tickets issued to him were defective. He argued that the system was installed such that the officers did not actually verify or affirm the tickets under penalty of perjury. Instead, the officers' signatures were stored in the system electronically, and appeared on the ticket when the ticket was generated. In a decision after a hearing, the lower court agreed, finding that the "officers didn't sign the Simplified Traffic Informations or e-tickets manually before giving them to the defendant in this case. Neither did the officers sign or swear any oath to get into the computer system to begin with, or to accept or validate or print out the e-ticket . . . The Court finds that the officers . . . engaged in no act or process contemporaneously with, or after, their preparation of the accusatory instruments . . . which would constitute an oath, verification, or affirmation under penalty of perjury."
The sole issue to be decided on this appeal is whether the lower court correctly dismissed the charges against the defendant because the STIs were signed electronically and therefore, not facially sufficient.
Although there are no cases reported at the appellate level, this is not the first court in New York State to address this issue. Indeed, there are three decisions which address the issue fairly squarely. (See People v. Patanian , 20 Misc 3d 298 , 857 N.Y.S.2d 482 [Town of Sand Lake Justice Court, 2008, Fryer, J.]; People v. Corletta , 12 Misc 3d 666 , 814 N.Y.S.2d 514 [Town of Webster Justice Court, 2006, DiSalvo, J.]; People v. Rose , 11 Misc 3d 200 , 805 N.Y.S.2d 506 [Rochester City Court, 2005, Morse, J.]). Although these cases are useful as background to the discussion, as highlighted by both the People and defendant in their respective papers, they are not binding on this court. It is more useful to examine the clear language of the statutes governing STIs.
"A `simplified traffic information' is a written accusation by a police officer, or other public servant authorized by law to issue same, filed with a local criminal court, which charges a person with the commission of one or more traffic infractions and/or misdemeanors relating to traffic, and which, being in a brief or simplified form prescribed by the commissioner of motor vehicles, designates the offense or offenses charged but contains no factual allegations of an evidentiary nature supporting such charge or charges." (CPL § 100.10(2)(a)). "A simplified information must be substantially in the form prescribed by the commissioner of motor vehicles." (CPL § 100.25(1)).
The commissioner of motor vehicles requires that "[w]hen an alleged traffic violator is issued a uniform traffic ticket, the police officer shall sign and print his name on part I of the packet. Such signature constitutes the affirmation of the information under penalty of perjury." ( 15 NYCRR § 91.18). Further, the commissioner permits electronic ticketing. (See 15 NYCRR § 91.21). Also relevant, State Technology Law provides that "an electronic signature may be used by a person in lieu of a signature affixed by hand. The use of an electronic signature shall have the same validity and effect as the use of a signature affixed by hand." (STL § 304(2)).
"A simplified information is sufficient on its face when, as provided by subdivision one of section 100.25, it substantially conforms to the requirement therefor prescribed by or pursuant to law; provided that when the filing of a supporting deposition is ordered by the court pursuant to subdivision two of said section 100.25, a failure of the complainant police officer or public servant to comply with such order within the time provided by subdivision two of said section 100.25 renders the simplified information insufficient on its face." (CPL § 100.40(2)).
The lower court acknowledged that the STIs and e-tickets issued to defendant in this case bear the electronic signatures of the issuing officers, which signatures appear below the wording, "Affirmed under penalty of perjury," and on its face nothing appeared improper about the signatures. However, the court found that the officers "engaged in no act or process, contemporaneously with, or after, their preparation of the accusatory instruments in this case, which would constitute an oath, verification, or affirmation under penalty of perjury." The court reasoned that the entry of data into a computer is a common occurrence for many people, and the tasks required of the officers in validating, accepting, and printing are similar to any common computer program.
The Oneonta City Police Department issued STIs in this case in full conformity with the clear mandates of the statutes governing the instruments. The tickets were issued electronically as prescribed by the commissioner of motor vehicles. The electronic signature was used in compliance with State Technology Law. The lower court has imposed upon the police officers a separate requirement or act in affirming the STIs, despite the appearance of the electronic signature under the affirming language, and despite the clear language of the statutes authorizing the method used in this case.
"It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation, and when the words have a definite and precise meaning, to go elsewhere in search of conjecture in order to restrict or extend the meaning. Courts cannot correct supposed errors, omissions or defects in legislation." ( Meltzer v. Koenigsberg, 302 NY 523, 99 N.E.2d 679).
The court agrees with defendant that the lower court's factual findings are entitled to great deference on appeal (see People v. Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759,761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635), however, this court has no quarrel with the court's factual findings. The court does find that the lower court erred in imposing a requirement upon the officers beyond what was clearly prescribed by statute.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the appeal is granted and the Decision and Order of the Oneonta City Court is reversed; and it is further
ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the Oneonta City Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.