People v. Neville

Victoria Neville, defendant pro se. Howard G. O'Rourke, Village Prosecutor of Incorporated Village of Valley Stream (Steven G. Reddan of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT G. BOGLE, J. In a case that appears to be of first impression, the defendant, Victoria Neville, is charged with the use of a mobile telephone (cell phone) while operating a motor vehicle on a public street or highway. This is a violation under a New York State law that, for purposes of enforcement, took effect December 1, 2001 under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-c (L 2001, ch 69). The defendant was served with a simplified traffic information on the date of the incident, returnable before this court. According to the simplified traffic information, on December 11, 2001, Victoria Neville was driving southbound on Rockaway Avenue in the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream, Nassau County, New York, at about 11:00 A.M. She was observed using a hand-held cell phone by Nassau County Police Officer Bruce Kasin, who immediately thereafter pulled the motor vehicle over and issued the violation to the defendant. from violating the law if the call is to an emergency response operator, a hospital, ambulance, fire department, health clinic, medical doctor's office, or police department. Also exempted are individuals who operate "authorized emergency vehicle[s]" which include ambulances, plus police and fire departments. (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-c [3] [b].) The argument is made that by excluding vehicles, employees and emergency situations, the result is a constitutional violation under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. As a general rule, a legislative body may exempt certain situations and professions so long as the exclusions bear a reasonable relation to the desired legislative purpose. (Weber, supra at 997; Mayflower Farms v Baldwin, 267 NY 9, 15 [1935], revd on other grounds 297 US 266 [1936].) The new Cell Phone Law and its exclusions are not based on race, sex, age or national origins. Therefore, no strict scrutiny test requiring or compelling governmental interest is necessary. (Wells, supra at 121.) It is logical that a legislature would exempt those vehicles and professionals who are needed to make emergency phone calls as part of their employment, and to extend this exemption to the ordinary citizen who needs to make a cell phone call for those very reasons as well. The Legislature of the State of New York recognized the need for all drivers to assist at times of emergency, and also the fact that those types of phone calls are short in duration and would not result in the long, distracting phone calls that are likely to result in a motor vehicle accident. Accordingly, it is the finding of the court that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-c, referred to as the Cell Phone Law, is valid under both the New York and Federal Constitutions and finds its provisions pass constitutional muster.