The People Of The State Of N.Y. v. Walters
| Decision Date | 08 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | 45772 |
| Citation | 2010 NY Slip Op 20491 |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Jacob S. Walters, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE
JANE G. LAROCK, ESQ.
FOR THE DEFENSE
This matter is before the Court for sentencing under Leandra's Law, New York's newest anti-DWI measure. The Defendant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3).
The State enacted Leandra's Law (L 2009, ch 496) November 18, 2009, roughly one month after the DWI death of 11-year-old Leandra Rosado in New York City. It demands, inter alia, that all first-time, misdemeanor DWI offenders install ignition interlock devices in every automobile they own or operate for at least 6 months. It further requires, barring indigency, that offenders pay for installation and maintenance of the interlocks. However, like so many products rushed to market prematurely, Leandra's Law exhibits numerous defects imperiling its constitutionality.
It should be noted at the outset lower courts generally should eschew constitutional questions related to statutes unless absolutely necessary. (See People v Alexis, 14 Misc 3d 978, 981 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]) ( ) (internal citations omitted); (People v Brian L., 17 Misc 3d 724, 729 [Watertown City Ct 2007]) (a court should not strike down a statute unless it is clearly unconstitutional). Those seeking to prove statutes unconstitutional must do so "beyond a reasonable doubt." State v Farnsworth, 75 AD3d 14, 20 [4th Dept 2010]) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting People v Tichenor, 89 NY2d 769, cert denied 522 US 918 [1997]). In this case, constitutional questions are unavoidable.
The issues to be considered stem primarily from the State's failure to establish determinate ignition interlocking costs. The first is whether the indeterminate nature of the cost of installing and maintaining ignition interlocks invalidates the requirement defendants pay for the devices, given the cost is statutorily classified as a fine and therefore constitutes a criminal punishment. That issue informs a related, New York constitutional concern whether the State violated New York constitutional law by failing properly to promulgate a final interlock cost list. Next, we will examine whether the lack of a statutory metric for determining a defendant's ability to pay for the ignition interlock violates equal protection because it may lead to arbitrary enforcement. Also at issue on equal protection grounds is whether requiring defendants to interlock every auto they own or operate is justifiable.
Section 4(a) of the amended Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1198 requires those convicted finance ignition interlock installation and maintenance unless the sentencing court determines they cannot afford to do so. (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1198 (4) (a)) ("The cost of installing and maintaining the ignition interlock device shall be borne by the person subject to such condition unless the court determines such person is financially unable to afford such cost whereupon such cost may be imposed pursuant to a payment plan or waived."). See also 9 NYCRR Part 358.8 (a) (). The law classifies the installation and maintenance costs as a criminal fine. (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1198 (4) (a)). ("Such cost shall be considered a fine for the purposes of subdivision five of section 420.10 of the criminal procedure law."). Accordingly, failure to pay for the interlock may prompt imprisonment. (CPL 420.10 (3)) ("Where the court imposes a fine, restitution or reparation, the sentence mayprovide that if the defendant fails to pay the fine, restitution or reparation in accordance with the direction of the court, the defendant must be imprisoned until the fine, restitution or reparation is satisfied.").
Notwithstanding their status as criminal fines, the interlock costs are ultimately indeterminate. This indeterminacy stems from the intentionally open-ended manner by which the State chose to calculate them. The New York Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA) (now known as the Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (OPCA), a subdivision of the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS, the Department)) created a regulatory scheme whereby private companies, following an application and approval process, contracted with the State to provide and maintain interlock services. (9 NYCRR Parts 358.1 ff). The prices they charge conform to a "maximum fee/charge schedule with respect to all operator's costs associated with such devices...." (9 NYCRR Part 358.5 (c) (3)).
Because not everyone sentenced to interlocking can afford it, the Department had to contrive a means to pay for interlocking for indigent drivers (or, "operators"). Rather than having local governments finance them, the Department insisted that the "qualified manufacturers" (nominally, at least) pay for them:
The new law establishes that the court, upon determining financial "unaffordability" to pay the cost of the device, may impose a payment plan with respect to the device or waive the fee. New Vehicle and Traffic law statutory provisions require that where the cost is waived, DCJS through its regulation shall determine who bears the costs of the device or through such other agreement which may be entered into. Accordingly, DCJS' regulation requires qualified manufacturers, and not local governments or taxpayers to bear such costs.(XXXII NY Reg, Issue 44, Nov. 3, 2010).
During the application process, manufacturers supply proposed fee structures that must "take into consideration and be based upon an anticipated ten percent (10%) waiver of the fees by sentencing courts due to operator unaffordability." (9 NYCRR Part 358 (b) (2)). The ten percent figure derives from the Department's "specula[tion] based upon [the] experience of other states...." XXXII NY Reg, Issue 44, Nov. 3, 2010.
Defendants claiming indigency are obliged to seek a payment waiver from the court. (9 NYCRR Part 358.8). To obtain the waiver, they must complete and submit to the court a financial history/status form prepared by the Department designed to aid the court's indigency determination. (9 NYCRR Part 358.8 (b)). Curiously, the law supplies no indigency metric to guide the court; nor is the court obliged to use the financial history form in making its determination.(See Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1198 (4) (a); 9 NYCRR Part 358.8 (b)). Ironically, DPCA developed the form to remedy perceived shortcomings in the statute: "[a]s the statutory language does not refer to indigency' nor contain other limiting criteria based upon prescribed income levels or guidelines, including federal poverty, food stamps and participationin other government assistance programs, DPCA developed the FDR [Financial Disclosure Report] form to provide the judiciary with information to better gauge whether the operator has resources to pay for device installation and maintenance." (Mem of Dept of Probation and Correctional Alternatives #2010-07 [June 14, 2010]).
As of July 15, 2010, the Department has approved seven qualified manufacturers, and, via memorandum, has published a list of each provider's prices for services. Mem of Div of Crim Justice Services, Off of Probation and Correctional Alternatives #2010-09 [July 15, 2010] ("A matrix of pertinent information, including the name of the manufacturer, model of the ignition interlock device, features, class as characterized by state regulations, and cost schedule are provided for your information."). The listed pricesconstitute the maximum fees permitted by Part 358.5 (c) (3): "the prices represented in the matrix are maximum or ceiling prices...." Mem of Div of Crim Justice Services, Off of Probation and Correctional Alternatives #2010-09 [July 15, 2010].
These costs aren't final, however. Besides setting up the possibility of annual rate increases ("On or about February 15, 2011 and annually thereafter, the division shall review requests by qualified manufacturers for rate adjustments which shall include information submitted by qualified manufacturers involving unaffordability waivers granted by courts.") (9 NYCRR Part 358 (b) (2)), Part 358.5 permits the Department unilateral discretion to raise rates at any time. (9 NYCRR Part 358.5 (b) (2)) ("At its discretion, the division shall approve rate adjustments where appropriate."). Moreover, nothing in Part 358.5 prohibits manufacturers from increasing operator prices mid-contract. (9 NYCRR Part 358.5). DPCA/OPCA Director Robert Maccarone quite candidly explained in a recent information session for New York judges that the Department retains such pricing power to ensure the ongoing viability of the provider-subsidy scheme for indigent defendants:
But, if indeed, even a payment plan is determined unfeasible and it is determined that this person is unable to afford it, then the manufacturers will provide the ignition interlock device and they will do so free of charge because implicit in the cost schedules that they submitted as a condition of becoming a qualified manufacturer, consistent with our regulations, they assumed a 10% unaffordability rate...
To continue reading
Request your trial