Dwight D. Kraemer, Village Attorney, Westbury, for plaintiff.
Jaime Perez, defendant pro se.
Neil J. Roopram, defendant pro se.
Margie B. Mulligan, defendant pro se.
Dhruv Sharadchandra, defendant pro se.
Malailk Gulu Mahtaney, defendant pro se.
OPINION OF THE COURT
THOMAS F. LIOTTI, J. The court has observed on its July 11, 2002 calendar that Police Officer Donald Hayes is the signatory, and therefore a necessary witness, on at least 10 simplified traffic informations defense with exculpatory evidence even when it is not under their direct control. They must utilize due diligence in obtaining it. The People have argued that Officer Hayes' retirement is not exculpatory since he is available as a witness. It is the People's position that there is no duty to disclose his retirement since the tickets were valid when issued and he was "on the job" at that time. They further contend that they are still legally issued and are under no duty to disclose the fact of Officer Hayes' retirement since police officers retire all the time. While the court believes that the aforementioned retirement may have an impact on plea negotiations, if disclosed, it is not, per se, exculpatory. Therefore, the court is not obligated to disclose it and neither is the prosecution. However, if Officer Hayes was not available, then the court might conclude that the People could not prove their cases and, therefore, that fact would have to be disclosed. Therefore, availability of the witness defuses the duty to disclose. Unavailability of a witness, in these circumstances, imposes a duty on the court and the prosecutor to disclose that information to all defendants who have cases with that particular police officer. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the court finds that there is no obligation on the part of the village to disclose the retirement.