There are types of tickets where an officer’s judgment cannot be called into question. These tickets generally have to do with tickets that are clear cut, like running through a stop sign or making an illegal U-turn.  Here, challenging a ticket involves challenging whether or not the officer saw you perform the ticketed action.  Enter the hidden dash camera!

On June 6, 2017 at 5:45, Northeastern Queens 111th Precinct, Officer ID: 944538 issued a traffic ticket citing violation 4-03 (a) (1):  Failure To Yield To Pedestrian

Outside of New York City, traffic cases are heard in either city or justice courts with elected judges. However, within NYC’s 5 boroughs the court is not a justice court but an administrative court run by the NYS DMV. This means that the speeding tickets are heard not by elected officials but by judges who are employees of the DMV. They are known as “Administrative Law Judges.”

After cross-reference NYS Department of Motor Vehicles, open data I’ve learned the violation is the most commonly cited section of law pertaining to motorist-pedestrian interaction.  What drove me to learn these facts was my certainty that two police officers had overreached; a lack of integrity of a few officers that unfortunately might cast an untrue negative perception of most officers.

Right-of-way rules are based on common sense, and safety and yes, courtesy.  I felt certain of what constitutes a “failure to yield” and I also felt uneasy with the entire interaction between officers’ who pull over me over.

For months I’ve been looking at this situation as an opportunity to start fresh and really study circumstances and elements pertaining to this common-sense rule.  I read judicial determinations discovered on NYS Vehicle & Traffic Law Excerpts, Pedestrian Safety.

As I understand it, Pedestrian Safety provides pedestrians’ right of way in crosswalks. (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yielding to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk on the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, except that any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overpass has been provided shall yield the right of way to all vehicles.

With reviewed information in mind and reviewing my 06/06/2017 Not Guilty plea accompanied with an affidavit stating there was no person there for me to violate rights  I retrieved and reviewed. MOV hidden dash camera files on 06/15/2017.

Understand that the results of these types of traffic cases generally boiled down to who the judge believes; with me as the driver having a high burden to overcome.

However, types of evidence presented to an Administrative Law conducted Traffic Violations Bureau would outweigh the officer’s (hopefully unintended) wrong judgment.

Below is irrefutable video proof (with raw .MOV files holding actual geolocation and satellite-derived metadata within) that should have been noted within N.Y.S. Department of Motor Vehicles, Queens North TVB, Administrative Law Judge 097 judgment, issued on 1/29/2018.

Hidden Dash Cam Capture: 6/5/017 5:40PM – 5:40-5:43PM

On 5:34 PM and 10-second mark, notice there no guy at the intersection.  There’s a lady present but her feet are not on crosswalk.  The person is 2-7 feet from the curb as I turn onto the 5th lane.

At 5:44 PM and 52-second mark, officers turn on headlights.  I start to pull over 3 seconds after, at 5:44 PM and 55-second mark.  Officers pulled me over two blocks from where the “so-called” violation was witnessed.  And, with Right-hand turn being at 5:42 PM and 11-second mark, a full 2 minutes 11 seconds later.

Screenshots of Precise Moments

Start of Right-hand turn

Notice there no guy at the intersection.  There’s a lady present but her feet are not on the crosswalk, she’s 2-7′ from the curb while I’m turning and on 5th road lane.

Completed Right-hand turn

The absolutely aggravating part is that Administrative Law Judge 097 issued a verdict that cited consideration of “Statement in Place of Personal Appearance” while not specifying indisputable evidence (backed by metadata) of hidden dash camera data files that would have any other Judge issue a Not Guilty verdict.

I mailed a completed Traffic Violations Bureau Appeal Form (AA-33) and the required non-refundable $10 appeal fee for the Appeals Board to correct past administrative shortcomings.

And so, I’m reminded that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” ~Martin Luther King Jr.

To Be Continued…