Printable View
I received a speeding ticket in Ulster County, New York in May, 2005. I asked for a hearing and after waiting 4 months was given a hearing date in December, 2005. Isn't there a law which states your trial must be held within six months from the date of your plea?
New York courts generally hold that there is no "speedy trial" right for traffic offenses, and further that if you don't object to your trial date that you have waived any right to a speedy trial. (There is some authority that speedy trial rights to apply to traffic violations, so it may well be worth objecting.)
The right to a speedy trial comes from the Constitution, not NY law, so NY unspeedy trial law is pre-empted by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Dave, we've been through this before; let's not rehash a closed book every time a "speedy trial" is mentioned.
Thank you, thank you...............
Dave, does that mean that Constitutional Law comes first? I was told (by Town Clerk's office) that speedy trial law does not apply in Traffic Court????
Aaron, what do you mean by a closed book?
Thanks again.
It means that I don't think it is beneficial to repeat past discussions of "speedy trial" as the way it might be in a perfect world, when the law has already been correctly described as it pertains to a specific question.
There is nothing wrong with expanding upon a prior discussion of legal theories or principles, or even starting a new discussion, to debate what the law should be or what the nation's courts are getting wrong - but it is often more confusing than helpful to present that type of argument in response to a specific question.
I get you.............which actually precedes and how the law is interpreted is what is real and in that respect it doesn't pre-emp (although it should).
Thanks.
Here's my $.02. Many states (for example, Washington, where I live) decriminalized most traffic infractions, making them "civil" matters. As such, many rights, which might apply in "criminal" matters, simply have no meaning in a "civil" case.
However, you need to check your local rules. For example, in WA, a contested hearing must be scheduled within a specific time-frame relative to the infraction. Thus, even if "speedy trial" provisions of the Constitution do not apply in such a civil matter, courts are still bound by procedural "due process" laws created by the legislature.
In Washington, hearings for traffic infractions are governed by "Infraction Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction" (actually written by our State Supreme Court). These rules define "due process" for infracton cases. I don't know if NY has something equivalent, but it might be worth your time to find out.
Good luck,
Barry
Because the speeding ticket I received was issued in early May, 2005 and the trial date is not until December, I asked the court for dismissal based on my right to a speedy trial was denied. The court sent me back a form letter saying my request for dismissal is denied and MY RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IS DENIED. Is this legal????????
That sounds like a clerical error.
Aaron, why is it that everytime someone complains they are being denied their Constitutional right to a speedy trial and ask for help, you don't like my pro-Constitution response, but you are perfectly fine with anyone who says you don't have any rights, a repetition of their past claims?
If I decided the Constitution doesn't exist like these criminals running the taxation courts, and claimed the Constitution is superceded and the Supremacy Clause is just something written by a bunch of dead old white men, pay your moving citation fine, you would be silent. But God forbid I should raise Constitutional issues not to your liking when trying to help others.....
Would you be the same guy who would have told Rosa Parks to go sit in the back of the bus where negroes belong, and "we've been through this before Ms Parks"?!
Dave, as I have previously indicated, my problem with the incorrect advice you give is that it is incorrect. I also have a problem with you restarting the same discussion over and over again, which confuses people who come to this forum looking for actual law.
We can agree that "it would be nice if" the law were as you believe it should be. But it is not.
You can start all the discussions you want about how the law should be - go right ahead. But I would like you to refrain from interrupting discussion of the actual law with misleading statements.