People v. Beeney

Janice A. Lahman for appellant. Howard R. Relin, District Attorney of Monroe County (Alan Cruikshank of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WILLIAM H. BRISTOL, J. Defendant, William G. Beeney, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered against him in Irondequoit Town Court, Honorable P. Keely Costello presiding. Following a nonjury trial on June 22, 1998, the defendant was found guilty of impeding traffic, a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1181 (a). On August 10, 1998, the local court imposed a fine of $40 and a surcharge of $30. For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the local court is reversed and defendant's conviction is vacated.

FACTS

According to the trial record, on April 3, 1998, at approximately 10:50 A.M., the defendant, William Beeney, was driving northbound on Route I-590 in his green Toyota. He was traveling in the far right-hand lane at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour as he passed the exit for Browncroft Boulevard. At this point, Mr. Beeney observed in his rear-view mirror a vehicle come up behind him and proceed to follow him extremely closely. Already in the right-hand lane, Mr. Beeney slowed his vehicle in an effort to prompt this perceived "tailgater" to move into the next lane and pass him. This effort failed. Indeed, when Mr. Beeney gave this driver an opportunity to pass, not only did he refuse to do so, but he pulled even closer behind Mr. Beeney. Aware of a phenomenon called "road rage", Mr. Beeney became concerned that the driver of this vehicle might cause him harm. As he passed by the Tryon Park area in the Town of Irondequoit, Mr. Beeney saw a New York State Trooper's vehicle parked on the right shoulder of I-590. In an effort to attract the Trooper's attention, Mr. Beeney tapped his brake pedal to cause his break lights to flash, honked his horn and, as he passed by, he waved his hand and looked directly at the Trooper. Trooper John Rowe observed these actions, saw three vehicles behind the green Toyota driven by the defendant and visually estimated that defendant was traveling at 30 miles per hour. He completed the stop in which he had been engaged, reentered his police vehicle and went after Mr. Beeney. While doing so, further north near the Norton Street exit, Trooper Rowe observed two different cars traveling behind the defendant and estimated their speed to be 45 miles per hour. Trooper Rowe effectuated a traffic stop of the defendant, spoke with Mr. Beeney and, ultimately, charged him, by a simplified traffic information, with impeding traffic in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1181 (a). Upon examination by the trial court, Trooper Rowe explained why the vehicles traveling behind Mr. Beeney could not pass him: "There was other traffic moving at a rate of speed that was approximately sixty miles per hour that day in those center and left lanes, and to not let the other vehicles out there that were traveling and he was traveling at such a slow rate of speed, one that braked in the center lane and the other vehicles were able to get out in that center lane and get around Mr. Beeney [sic]." (T.M., at 19.) Upon further inquiry by the court, Trooper Rowe testified as follows: "THE COURT: What was the difference in distance from the first occasion when you saw the cars behind Mr. Beeney and the second? Are we talking in terms of a mile or three tenths of a mile, or half a mile? What was the distance? "TROOPER ROWE: Between the Tryon Park area and the Norton Street area, probably about a mile and a quarter. Maybe a mile and a half. "THE COURT: So between that particular distance the vehicles that were following behind him initially, at some point in time, passed him and a second group of vehicles were following. Is that your testimony? "TROOPER ROWE: Yes, sir, that is correct." (T.M., at 20-21.) Judge Costello issued a written decision and verdict dated July 20, 1998 which stated, in relevant part: "The statute provides that a motorist's speed cannot be so slow so as to impede traffic. The Defendant was traveling at a speed of 30 to 45 mph (10 to 25 miles per hour less than the posted speed limit) on a highway where the posted speed limit is 55 mph, and resulted in impeding two to three cars without a mechanical reason (equipment failure) or a safety reason (ie: snow or rain). This action constitutes a violation of the law. With traffic passing at 55 mph in the left lane, it would, in fact, be dangerous for the cars behind the Defendant traveling at 30-45 mph, to pass the Defendant's car safely. "The Defendant William G. Beeney, is guilty of a violation of section 1181(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law." It is from this decision that defendant appeals. He asserts, inter alia, that the People failed to prove that he was traveling at an unreasonably slow speed or that he was impeding traffic.

LAW

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1181 (a) reads as follows: "No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law." of traffic" in a way that creates a clear, present and real danger. The same cannot be said to have occurred here where the record shows, at best, that the defendant's slower speed briefly delayed faster drivers but did not endanger them. While such a delay may be annoying, it does not result in abnormal and unreasonable movement of traffic. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction herein must be, and hereby is, reversed and vacated. [1] For example, the following States have statutes similar to New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1181 (a) (this list is by no means exhaustive): Alabama—Alabama Code § 32-5A-174; Arizona—Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated § 28-704; Arkansas—Arkansas Code Annotated § 27-51-208; California—California Vehicle Code § 22400; Colorado—Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated § 42-4-1103; Connecticut—Connecticut General Statutes Annotated § 14-220; Delaware—Delaware Code Annotated, title 21, § 4171; Florida—Florida Statutes Annotated § 316.183; Georgia—Georgia Code Annotated § 40-6-184; Hawaii—Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated § 291C-102; Illinois—625 Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated 5/11-606; Indiana—Indiana Code Annotated § 9-21-5-8; Kansas—Kansas Statutes Annotated § 8-1561; Louisiana—Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated § 32:63; Maine— Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, title 29-A, § 2075; Massachusetts—Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, chapter 90, § 19J; Michigan—Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated § 257.628; Montana—Montana Code Annotated § 61-8-311; Nebraska—Nebraska Revised Statutes § 60-6, 193; Nevada— Nevada Revised Statutes § 484.371; New Hampshire—New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated § 265:64; New Mexico—New Mexico Statutes Annotated § 66-7-305; North Dakota—North Dakota Century Code § 39-09-09; Ohio—Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 4511.22; Oklahoma—Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, title 47, § 11-804; Pennsylvania—75 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated § 3364; Puerto Rico—Puerto Rico Laws Annotated, title 9, § 842; South Carolina—South Carolina Code Annotated § 56-5-1560; South Dakota—South Dakota Codified Laws § 32-25-5.2; Tennessee—Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-8-154; Texas—Texas Transportation Code Annotated § 545.363; Utah—Utah Code Annotated § 41-6-49; Virginia—Virginia Code Annotated § 46.2-877; Washington—Washington Revised Code Annotated § 46.61.425; West Virginia—West Virginia Code § 17C-6-3a; Wisconsin—Wisconsin Statutes Annotated § 349.11; Wyoming—Wyoming Statutes Annotated § 31-5-304. [2] Salter was traveling 30 to 35 miles per hour in a 50-mile-per-hour zone. [3] On cross-examination, Trooper Rowe made the following statement: "enforcing the speed limit to a strict fifty-five miles per hour is virtually impossible at this point because people have been allowed to get away with speeding at five or ten miles above for so long. That trying to slow traffic down to fifty-five miles per hour would be virtually impossible at this point in time. Traffic flow there, that section of roadway and interstate around and in the City of Rochester, is approximately sixty-two to sixty-three miles per hour. That is your average speed of traffic."