New York Criminal Lawyer Blawg

There have been several questions about I-684 in Westchester County, New York and what appears to be an increase in DWI arrests and an increase in Traffic Tickets issued most notably for speeding even at fairly low speeds. At Riebling, Proto & Sachs as criminal defense attorneys in Westchester County we are very familiar with I-684 and the local courts.

I-684

I-684 is a limited access major north/south highway in Westchester County, New York and Greenwich, Connecticut (1.5 miles). The total length of I-684 is 28 miles and at the southern end connects with the Hutchinson River Parkway and the northern end connects with New York Route 22. I-684 for the most part runs alongside New York Route 22. At Exit 6 there is a major junction with the Saw Mill River Parkway that also runs North/South in Westchester County. Located at Exit 9 is the major junction for I-84 west (Newburgh) and east (Danbury, CT). Lastly, I-287 connects at the southern end of I-684, west towards the Tappen Zee Bridge and east to Rye. The design of the road is commuter based it consists of three lanes in each direction and is relatively flat and straight.

Police Activity on I-684

The entire length of I-684 is patrolled by the New York State Police including the 1.5 miles in Connecticut. They are responsible for everything from assisting with broken down vehicles, traffic accidents, issuing traffic tickets, such as speeding, and DWI enforcement.

The New York State Police will usually position themselves at the center of the highway in the U-turn cut outs for DWI and traffic ticket enforcement. They will also regularly patrol the two rest stops on I-684, southbound the Town of Bedford rest stop and the northbound rest stop (Brewster).

Rarely will I-684 be patrolled by the Westchester County police as they patrol the Saw Mill River Parkway and the Hutchinson River Parkway. The local police departments patrol the secondary Town and Village Roads.

All New York State Police traffic tickets are issued on two pages of paper the first page is the Uniform Traffic Ticket (UTT) and the second is the supporting deposition. The last letters of the UTT number should be "SP" the State Police designation.

The I-684 Courts

Depending where you are on I-684 this will dictate what local court you may need to appear in to answer a DWI or Traffic Ticket. From the South at the Hutchinson River Parkway moving north the local courts include North Castle (Armonk, NY), Mount Kisco, Bedford, Somers, North Salem/South Salem, Brewster and Southeast. The busiest Courts include North Castle, Bedford, Somers and Southeast. The Town of Bedford and Southeast alone have hundreds of traffic tickets per month and are among the highest revenue generating courts in New York State.

In Westchester County any State Trooper Traffic Ticket is prosecuted by the local Town or Village prosecutor while the Westchester County District Attorneys Office will prosecute DWI and other misdemeanor cases (The District Attorney's local office is in Mount Kisco, New York next to Northern Westchester Hospital). The Town of Southeast has the same procedure but is located in Putnam County, New York.

DWI and Traffic Ticket Defense in Westchester County, New York

The best defense to any traffic ticket or DWI charge is to start early. It is also important for the criminal defense attorney to gather as much information as possible to aid in the defense.

The firm of Riebling, Proto & Sachs regularly appears in all the Courts along I-684. We are also former prosecutors in those Courts. DWI and Traffic Tickets need to be aggressively defended. Call our office for a free consultation.

The Automobile Stop

The automobile stop is one of the most common type of police encounters. In Westchester, Orange, Rockland and Putnam Counties the local justice courts a very busy because of the several police departments on the roads including county police, the state police and local law enforcement. A proper review of the stop, traffic ticket and subsequent arrest is important to any criminal defense. In White Plains, New York the city police routinely have day time check points to inspect, seat belts, cell phone use, insurance and registration.

Any time a basic stop is conducted or an arrest it is important to contact a criminal defense attorney.

The Stop of a Vehicle by Police Officers

The police sometimes will use a traffic infraction as a purported justification to stop a vehicle in order to search the vehicle or question the occupants about an unrelated serious crime. Because the police have no reason to stop the vehicle for a serious crime the police will use a traffic infraction as a "Pretext" to stop the vehicle, search the vehicle and question the occupants.

The Pretext Stop

The best way to describe a "Pretext" stop of a vehicle is a legal stop carried out for an illegal purpose. Pretext stops have been criticized as an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of discretionary police power.

Usually if the police a observe a suspicious vehicle they will follow that vehicle for a lengthy period of time and once a traffic infraction is committed the vehicle will be stopped to investigate the more serious crime. Often no traffic ticket is written for the stop but an arrest is made for the more serious crime.

Under both the federal and state constitutions the police may use a a traffic stop as a pretext to search a vehicle for evidence of another offense. Whren v U.S., 517 US 806; People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341.

The Criminal Defense of a Pretext Stop

The top criminal defense lawyers know that although the police can use a pretext stop the facts surrounding the stop are very important to the defense. Usually the stop will be deemed legal but the attack is with the other police actions or behavior. Since this is complex it can often be overlooked. Always speak to a criminal defense attorney in New York about the facts surrounding the stop, the police's actions and your actions for the criminal defense attorney to properly review the case.

The Best criminal defense and the best criminal lawyers will tell you to NEVER speak to the police regarding any criminal investigation. Resist the urge to talk to the police as the prosecution will want to use statements regardless of Miranda warnings during a police interview. Always call a criminal defense lawyer immediately.

A good illustration of this principle is the recent Supreme Court case of Maryland v Shatzer, 559 US ___, 130 SCt 1213 (2010). This directly addresses the complex issue of Miranda and police interviews.

In the case the respondent was suspected of sexual abuse. In 2003, the police interviewed him while he was in prison on an unrelated offense. After being Mirandized, he signed a waiver but after the respondent learned the purpose of the interview he refused to speak without an attorney. In 2006, the investigation was reopened and he was interviewed again at the prison. He acknowledged his Miranda rights and signed a waiver. He was questioned for 30 minutes and after making admissions about the crime agreed to a polygraph test. Five days later, fresh Miranda warnings were given and a waiver was obtained the respondent the respondent failed the polygraph test and made inculpatory statements and asked for a lawyer.

His motion to supress the statements was denied and he was convicted.

The Supreme Count found that the case of Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477 (1981) provided a second layer of protection over Miranda warnings by requiring the interrogation to stop when a request for counsel has been made and involuntariness in response to further questions is presumed. However, Edwards was found to be a judicially created rule and therefore shouldn't extend more than 14 days past the initial interrogation. A two week break from custody means the suspect is no longer isolated and is able to seek advice from an attorney, family member and friends.

The Edwards presumption of involuntariness ensures that police will not take advantage of the mounting coercive pressures of prolonged police custody by repeatedly attempting to question a suspect who previously requested counsel until the suspect is badgered into submission.

Where the suspect has been released from pretrial custody and returned to his normal prison life for 2 1/2 years before the next interrogation his change of mind in answering questions without counsel could not be presumed to have been coerced. Lawful imprisonment upon conviction of a crime does not create the coercive pressure identified in Miranda.

In this case since the respondent experienced a break lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at questioning Edwards did not mandate suppression of the 2006 statements.

Always consult with a criminal lawyer before speaking to any police officer. This will provide the best criminal defense in any criminal action, felony or misdemeanor in New York, Westchester county or otherwise.