I understand the lack of legal standing with the five points I listed, and I only used them to illustrate the complete lack of understanding, compassion and mercy from the LEO during the traffic stop. I realize that the law is the law, but I know the officer has been working for the town for over a decade and if there was even one single instance where he let a driver go without a ticket(and I actually know for a fact he has), he cannot really take the high moral ground anymore.
However,the latter point regarding the improper citation does present a possibility for a dismissal. I have heard and read quite a wide range of "legal" opinions regarding this particular error, and in the majority of cases this was considered a fatal - not a clerical - error and the violation had to be dismissed.
I am not positive about it, but it appears that legally a person cannot plead to the wrong charge, in a sense that any charge is a charge and if it is wrong then the prosecutor should not be able to legally substantiate it in court. In other words, if I respond to this charge and enter a plea of not guilty, I will be effectively putting myself in jeopardy. While I have a legal defense against the cited charge (as proven by the officer's supporting deposition describing something completely different happening than the violation code specifies), I can theoretically still be considered guilty by the court.
I don't understand how any court could decide to dismiss the original citation and issue a new one or try to amend the original violation, after the plea is entered by a defendant. While I understand it is only a traffic violation, it is still considered a criminal charge and the accused is put at risk at the moment he is handed the citation. The lack of response will always result in a guilty verdict.
-----
I plan to present the following points at the hearing, as my legal arguments for the dismissal of the violation:
1. The violation code written on the citation, representing the charge I am defending myself against, does not correspond to the description of the violation on the citation, nor on the officer's supporting deposition handed along with the "simplified information citation".
Although, I am hopeful the judge will dismiss the charge at this point, I realize it may be done so without prejudice. Therefore, my next argument will be:
2. If the officer shows up and takes the stand, he will likely describe the events as described on the "supporting deposition" that I was given along with the citation. According to N.Y. CPL. LAW § 100.20, a supporting deposition is a document "containing factual allegations of an evidentiary character", is considered a sworn statement, and is affixed with a personal signature of the LEO. If such a document contains contradictory information (the listed statute and violation code ON THE DEPOSITION does not correspond to observation described in the same document), how can it be viewed as evidence to support the charge? It seems to me, the moment the LEO confirms his own signature on the supporting deposition, his recollection of the events is immediately questionable and the citation should be dismissed. In other words, if the officer made a critical mistake at the time of the stop, how can he and the court be sure which part of his recollection is correct: the cited statute section and subsection made at the time of the stop, or his description of events several weeks later on the stand?
3. If necessary, I will cite precedent for a dismissal, because of supporting deposition insufficiency, errors and inaccuracies. PEOPLE v. BORN 166 Misc.2d 757 (1995), PEOPLE v HUSSEY 2006 NY Slip Op 51727(U)
4. I have also found NY appellate court decisions that state the officer's mistake of law (not mistake of fact, and I believe incorrectly cited statute should be the former as that represents the actual charge defended against in court)is grounds for suppression of the original charge, but may be considered to be in good faith for any underlying charges i.e. if the officer discovered DWI, drugs in the vehicle, insurance/registration sticker issues etc. In my situation there were no offenses charged after the original traffic stop so I believe it may apply.
If anyone could provide any advice and/or criticism regarding the above legal arguments I would be thankful.

