People v. Higley
| Decision Date | 29 November 1967 |
| Citation | 55 Misc.2d 460,285 N.Y.S.2d 467 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Curtis B. HIGLEY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Special Sessions |
The defendant was charged with operating his motor vehicle 75 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour zone in violation of Section 1180(b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Upon the trial the evidence showed that the arresting officer had 'clocked' the defendant at 75 miles per hour and that he had estimated the defendant's speed at 80 miles per hour.
The law is clear that two elements of proof necessary to sustain a speeding conviction are (1) the reading from an untested speedometer or radar device and (2) the opinion of an officer properly qualified as an expert to estimate speed.
People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d 126, 181 N.Y.S.2d 493, 155 N.E.2d 393 (1959) The first standard has been met in the instant case and is unchallenged by the defendant.
The testimony on direct examination in regard to the arresting officer's qualification was that he had spent 19 months assigned to road patrol, that he had estimated the speed of moving vehicles approximately 200 times, that he had compared these estimates against calibrated speedometers and that he was accurate within 5 miles per hour. Upon cross examination the officer candidly admitted that he knew only through hearsay that such speedometers were calibrated.
At the conclusion of the People's case the defendant moved to dismiss the information upon the novel ground that the expertise of the arresting officer in estimating speeds was based upon the comparison of his estimates against untested speedometers and was insufficient. Decision was reserved on his motion.
The defendant is correct in his contention that the arresting officer here has compared his estimates of speed against untested speedometers, for information that a speedometer has been calibrated acquired through hearsay denominates such speedometer as untested.
People v. Marsellus, 2 N.Y.2d 653, 163 N.Y.S.2d 1, 143 N.E.2d 1 (1957) Therefore, the qualification of the officer must depend upon whether or not untested speedometers can be relied upon to acquire expertise.
Typical New York pronouncements in this area are illustrated by People v. Page, 32 Misc.2d 179, 222 N.Y.S.2d 450 (Co.Ct., Orleans Co., 1961) and People v. Wimmer, 15 Misc.2d 568, 182 N.Y.S.2d 148 (Co.Ct., Jefferson Co., 1959).
People v. Page, supra, (p. 181, 222 N.Y.S.2d p. 452) found a police officer unqualified to estimate speed because in reciting his experience he 'did not say that he checked his observations as to speed against instruments for measuring speed, which had been tested for accuracy.' The Court obviously was demanding a hearsay declaration of the speedometers' accuracy, and People v. Marsellus, supra, equates hearsay in this instance with untested speedometers.
People v. Wimmer, supra, (p. 569, 182 N.Y.S.2d p. 150) accepted a police officer's qualification because to demonstrate his experience he stated that he had 'compared the speed as he had calculated it, with the reading on the speedometer of the automobiles which * * * he was driving.' The Court there waived even a hearsay declaration of accuracy in favor of reliance upon untested speedometers per se.
These decisions would seem to constitute authority in contradiction to the defendant's ingenious theory and for the proposition that expertise may be acquired by resort to untested speedometers.
This conclusion is reinforced by the following examination of one police officer in People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d 126, 127, 181 N.Y.S.2d 493, 494--495, 155 N.E.2d 393, 394, supra, which was the only evidence adduced to qualify him as an expert:
'Q. How long have you been a motorcycle policeman? A. About two years.
Q. You have made arrests for speeding? A. Many times.
Q. As a result of your experience as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Correia
...the police officer's estimate of speed). People v. Heyser, 2 N.Y.2d 390, 393, 161 N.Y.S.2d 36, 141 N.E.2d 553; People v. Higley, 55 Misc.2d 460, 461-462, 285 N.Y.S.2d 467. Here, as noted earlier, the results of the tuning fork tests after the summons was issued exceeded the tolerances permi......
-
Government of Virgin Islands v. Rodriguez, Crim. No. 14-1969.
...some experience in observing the rate of speed of moving objects or some other satisfactory basis for his opinion. People v. Higley, 1967, 55 Misc.2d 460, 285 N.Y.S.2d 467; People v. Olsen, 1968, 22 N.Y.2d 230, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420, 239 N.E.2d 354. Neither type of corroborating evidence was off......
-
People v. Jeck-Tisch, JECK-TISC
...a police officer, read People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d 126, 181 N.Y.S.2d 493, 155 N.E.2d 393 (1959). See also People v. Higley, 55 Misc.2d 460 at page 461, 285 N.Y.S.2d 467 (1967). "Q. How long have you been a motorcycle A. About two years. Q. You have made arrests for speeding? A. Many times. Q......
-
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Rodriguez, Criminal No. 14-1969
...some experience in observing the rate of speed of moving objects or some other satisfactory basis for his opinion. People v. Higley, 1967, 55 Misc.2d 460, 285 N.Y.S.2d 467; People v. Olsen, 1968, 22 N.Y.2d 230, 239 N.E.2d 354. Neither type of corroborating evidence was offered by the Govern......