A trooper saw driver holding a cell phone conspicuously while driving but couldn't say what she was doing with it. Under VTL § 1225-d, that didn't matter — merely holding a device conspicuously triggers the presumption of guilt, with no proof of actual use required. Her denial conflicted with the trooper's testimony, and the court found him more credible. Conviction affirmed.
An officer testified she saw a driver holding a cell phone near his face while driving, triggering the same statutory presumption as in Wells. But unlike Wells, his rebuttal failed on two fronts: the court didn't believe his "it was my wallet" testimony, and his proffered phone records — from an account in his father's name — were excluded because he never proved they were tied to the phone he actually had. Conviction affirmed.
A trooper stopped a driver for holding a cell phone while driving. She testified she was only checking the time — her dashboard clock was broken — and her phone bill confirmed no calls or texts. The court found using a phone as a clock no different from glancing at a pocket watch and acquitted her.
An officer saw a driver speaking into an electronic device while driving. She admitted it was an Olympus digital voice recorder, not a phone, and was convicted anyway under VTL § 1225-d's "catchall" device category. The Appellate Term reversed — the recorder only stored audio for playback, never handled text, so it didn't meet the statute's definition of a "portable electronic device" at all. Charge dismissed.
The Appellate Term affirmed a speeding conviction noting three independent grounds: a properly-tested radar reading alone sufficed, an untested reading plus a visual estimate would've worked as a fallback, and a visual estimate alone — 30 mph over the limit — was independently sufficient. Attacking just the radar wouldn't have changed the outcome.
When a radar reading was the only evidence, a Westchester County Court reversed a speeding conviction in People ex rel. McCann v. Martirano. A single, unverified tuning-fork test wasn't clear and convincing proof of accuracy — the fork itself could have been off, potentially masking an inaccurate radar unit reading the same wrong number.
The Court of Appeals held that even though an officer couldn't identify the defendant in court nearly a year after a traffic stop, his contemporaneous notes — name, exact birth date, license number, vehicle details — sufficiently established identity. Later cases follow the rule held for decades: officers don't need to remember drivers, just document the stops reliably.
The Appellate Term affirmed 17-year-old driver's speeding conviction even though no radar records were introduced at trial at all. The officer's visual estimate (60 mph) closely matched the radar reading (57 mph), which the court held was sufficient regardless of whether the device was ever shown to be tested — and his age gave him no right to assigned counsel on a traffic-only charge.
The Appellate Term rejected Douglas Gonzalez's argument that a driver's sincere belief a lane change is unsafe should excuse a Move Over Act violation, explicitly adopting Krahforst's objective-standard reasoning as controlling. With the trooper testifying Gonzalez had "ample" opportunity and no obstructing traffic, the court affirmed — cementing the objective standard as binding appellate authority, not just persuasive precedent.
People v. Lampman (2017) finally spelled out radar's foundation requirement: officer training on that device, certification, timely testing, and testimony linking a positive test result to actual accuracy. A trooper's testimony that he "pressed a button and got a positive indicator" fell short — and since he never formed a visual estimate either, the court found Briana Lampman not guilty.
Can an untested radar lead to a speeding conviction? In People v. Dusing, the New York Court of Appeals established that while an untested radar or speedometer reading is admissible, it cannot support a conviction on its own. However, prosecutors can bridge this evidentiary gap by combining the untested device reading with sworn visual speed estimates from qualified police officers.
Charged under VTL § 1225-d - often called "texting while driving" — New York's separate, broader portable electronic device law, not the § 1225-c calling statute. Driver testified credibly he made no call or text and had a clean phone bill to prove it. Didn't matter: § 1225-d covers far more than calls — viewing, typing, browsing — and a phone bill can't rule that out. Conviction upheld.
The Appellate Term reversed a speeding conviction, finding the trial court had improperly shifted the burden of proof onto defendant — the record even stated he "has no proof" the radar was inaccurate. Applying a moving-radar standard, the court found no testimony verifying the patrol car's own speed or ruling out signal distortion, so the bare 51 mph reading wasn't legally sufficient.
The Appellate Term found the trooper's radar and visual-estimate evidence legally sufficient to convict — but reversed anyway. The Justice Court had improperly excluded his corroborating witness simply for being present during earlier testimony, with no prior order to sequester and no bad faith shown. Since that witness went to the core of his defense, the exclusion warranted a new trial.
Can you be convicted of speeding without radar or LIDAR? Under New York law, a qualified officer's visual speed estimate alone can be legally sufficient to sustain a speeding conviction—especially when the alleged speed is significantly higher than the posted limit, as established in People v. Olsen.
An officer testified he saw a driver using a cell phone while driving through a school zone; she testified her only call attempt was while stopped at a light and never connected. With nothing to contradict her, the court acquitted her on the cell phone charge — proof of "appearing to use" a phone isn't proof of engaging in a call. Her separate speeding conviction, based on a lidar reading, held up.
The Court of Appeals held that because moving and stationary radar rely on the same underlying scientific principle, evidence from either is admissible without expert testimony explaining the science behind it. But because moving radar carries a greater risk of error than stationary radar, the Court held that the prosecution bears a heavier burden of proving the accuracy of the specific unit used.
Moving radar is admissible without expert testimony, just like stationary radar, since both rely on the same science. But because moving radar has more ways to err, *People v. Knight* requires...
Can radar evidence alone secure a speeding conviction? In People v. Magri, the New York Court of Appeals established judicial notice of radar's scientific reliability, ruling expert testimony unnecessary to explain the technology. However, the court held that an untested radar reading cannot sustain a conviction on its own—it requires corroboration by a qualified officer's visual speed estimates to satisfy the legal burden of proof.
A New York court dismissed a cell phone ticket after finding the driver had been attaching a hands-free earpiece, not making a call. The statute specifically excludes that kind of brief hand contact from what counts as "using" a phone — even though a hand was momentarily involved.
The Appellate Term affirmed Move Over Act conviction, rejecting arguments that fatigue, darkness, and wet roads excused failing to change lanes for a stopped trooper. The court held those conditions didn't reasonably prevent a safe lane change, and that slowing down — his actual response — is not an acceptable substitute for the statute's specific requirement to move over.