People v. Verdino

• Decision Date: 17 June 1974
• Citation: 357 N.Y.S.2d 769,78 Misc.2d 719
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Anthony VERDINO, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 769

357 N.Y.S.2d 769

78 Misc.2d 719

PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Anthony VERDINO, Defendant.

Suffolk County District Court, First District.

June 17, 1974.

Henry Wenzel, III, Dist. Atty., by Peter Mayer, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff.

Braslow & D'Amaro by John Braslow, North Babylon, for defendant.

LAWRENCE NEWMARK, Judge.

This case was submitted to the Court on an agreed statement of facts after the defendant waived trial by jury. The defendant was charged with a violation of Section 397 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which makes it a misdemeanor where one 'equips a motor vehicle with a radio receiving set capable of receiving signals on the frequencies allocated for police use or knowingly uses a motor vehicle so equipped . . .' (V&T Law § 397). It was stipulated that the defendant had in his truck a radio receiver capable of receiving signals on the frequency allocated for police use when the receiver was plugged into the cigarette lighter socket. The sole question to be resolved is whether this vehicle was equipped with a radio receiving set capable of receiving signals so as to fall within the proscription of Section 397 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

There does not appear to be any precedent in this or other jurisdictions which the Court may refer to in making its ruling on the question under consideration. However, a careful reading of Section 397 leads the Court to conclude that the defendant may properly be charged under this section.

Section 397 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law makes it illegal to equip a motor vehicle with a radio receiver capable of receiving signals on the frequencies allocated for police use. The defendant argues that he may not be prosecuted under this section because the receiver was not plugged in and therefore, was not capable of receiving signals. The defense also encompasses the assertion that because the radio was not physically attached to the truck, that the truck was not 'equipped' with a receiver as proscribed by the statute.

The fallaciousness of these arguments is apparent if one draws them to their logical extremes. The only act required of the defendant in order to receive police signals was for him to reach down and plug the receiver into the dashboard socket. This act is essentially the same as turning the machine on and off through the use of an on/off switch. If this defendant may escape prosecution because the machine was not plugged in, no person could be prosecuted under this section unless he was caught in the act of actually intercepting police broadcasts. This the statute does not require.

The fact that the receiver was not fastened to the truck does not mean that the truck was not equipped with a receiver so as to fall within the proscriptions of the statute. Black's Law Dictionary defines equip in the following fashion at page 631:

'To furnish for service or against a need or exigency; to fit out; to supply with whatever is necessary to efficient action in any way. Synonymous with furnish. State ex rel. Davis v....