Producing a phone bill can beat New York's cell phone presumption — but only if it's the right phone bill, properly connected to the case. A 2019 Appellate Term decision, People v. Sweeney, shows what happens when it isn't.
"That Was My Wallet, Not a Phone"
An officer monitoring traffic on Middle Country Road testified that she observed Mr. Sweeney, from only 20 feet away, driving with a cell phone held less than six inches from his face. He was convicted after a nonjury trial of violating VTL § 1225-c(2)(a).
At trial, Mr. Sweeney testified that he had been holding his wallet, not a phone, and tried to introduce cell phone records to show he hadn't been on a call at the time. The District Court sustained the prosecution's objection to those records and did not credit his wallet testimony. He appealed both rulings.
Case on Point
The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction, holding that the officer's testimony triggered the statutory presumption, that the trial court's credibility finding against the defendant's wallet explanation would not be disturbed, and that the proffered phone records were properly excluded because the defendant never connected them to the phone he possessed at the time of the stop.
People v. Sweeney, 66 Misc. 3d 12 (App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2019)
Two Ways the Defense Fell Short
Sweeney failed on the two fronts that matter most once the VTL § 1225-c(2)(b) presumption arises: credibility and proof.
First, his testimony that he was holding a wallet rather than a phone was simply not believed. The Appellate Term gave the trial court's credibility determination the deference such findings normally get on appeal, and there was nothing in the record to disturb it.
Second, and more importantly for future cases, the phone records themselves were excluded. Mr. Sweeney acknowledged the account belonged to his father, but claimed he was the actual user of that phone and line. Without evidence tying those specific records to the specific device he had in his hand during the stop, the court found no basis to say the records should have come in.
Key Takeaway: Phone records only rebut the presumption if they're connected to the phone and account the defendant actually had at the time of the stop. Records from an account in someone else's name need supporting proof — not just testimony — that the defendant was the one using that line.
Warning: A bare denial, or an alternative explanation the court doesn't believe, does not rebut the presumption on its own. The burden shifts to the defense once the officer's testimony establishes the phone was at the driver's ear or face, and it takes real evidence to shift it back.
Sweeney and Wells Together
Sweeney is best read alongside People v. Wells, 57 Misc.3d 21 (2017) — the Appellate Term itself distinguished the two. In Wells, the defendant's phone bill matched his own account and the date and time in question, and it was enough to overturn a conviction. In Sweeney, the records belonged to someone else's account with no proof linking them to the defendant's phone that day, and the conviction stood. The lesson is the same evidence type can win or lose a case depending entirely on whether it's properly authenticated and tied to the defendant.
Trying to Beat a Cell Phone Presumption With Phone Records?
Not every phone record gets admitted, and not every rebuttal works. Find out what it actually takes to connect your evidence to your case.
Get Your Free Case Evaluation