Dear City of Rochester,
I am questioning the usage of my tax dollars. I am questioning your processes. And I am questioning whether or not you are running a kangaroo court.
On September 26th 2011 at 9:23PM, I was issued an alleged speeding ticket within the portion of 490 that reduces speed to 40MPH.
The DMV provides an online system (http://dmv.ny.gov/pleadandpay) by which you can access, schedule, and pay your tickets. The default date was very far out, so I rescheduled the hearing for December 27th. Their system only provided a few options, and that was my choice.
On December 7th, I received notice by mail of a new hearing date: 3/5/2012. So, just to emphasize: I received said notice by physical snail mail. An online scheduling system didn’t email me, it sent snail mail. Ok, so I visited the online system and again rescheduled for January 17th 2012–the soonest possible date.
On December 28th, I received notice by mail of a new hearing date: 3/26/2012. A date later than the prior system-deemed date. Apparently I’m being punished for requesting a more timely hearing.
Additionally, I am being denied a request for a supporting deposition. When I called the NY DMV for details, I was read a canned statement by the DMV representative. I have asked him to mail me this statement, and it’s supposedly on its way. Via email I was told, “We do not issue supporting depositions because there is no place for them in a traffic violations hearing.” Even after citing NYS Criminal Procedure (http://law.onecle.com/new-york/criminal-procedure/CPL0100.25_100.25.html), which clearly indicates that I am entitled to a supporting deposition, I was denied.
The City of Rochester may apparently reschedule a hearing at their whim, but if I desire to do so, the fee to me is now $40. If I am unable to attend the hearing, the bottom of every DMV letter clearly states: “IF YOU DO NOT COME TO THIS HEARING YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE OR PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE IN NEW YORK STATE WILL BE SUSPENDED.” It goes on to detail additional fees and necessary spankings if you miss the hearing that you’ve tried to schedule three times. I really enjoy using an online scheduling system only to be sent physical mail correspondence to the extent of, “THAT’S NICE, HERE’S A DATE UNRELATED TO THE ONE YOU SELECTED VIA OUR MANDATED ONLINE SCHEDULING SYSTEM. WE HOPE IT’S AS INCONVENIENT AS POSSIBLE.”
I was also told that the City of Rochester does not employ a representative from the district attorney’s office during traffic court hearings. It is only you, the judge, and the officer. You, without a supporting deposition, and clearly of a date and time of their choosing. I bet they’re hoping I’ll get confused and forget. Then they can suspend my license and charge me outrageous fees to get it back. All thanks to the convenient online “Plead and Pay” (http://dmv.ny.gov/pleadandpay) system, whose sole purpose appears to be to confuse citizens. Paid for by your tax dollars.
There are several things going on here with the City of Rochester that make me question the validity of the process, and where exactly my tax dollars are going. For example, my tax dollars can go towards paying the officer who issued me the ticket, and paying for him to sit there and wait for someone to drive by whom he’d like to issue a ticket to, but cannot pay for him to provide me with the supporting evidence that the very same citizen is requesting.
The entire thing, to me, seems like a kangaroo court. City of Rochester, are you running a kangaroo court? Does your online “Plead and Pay” system only exist to obtain the dates that people desire, and then inconspicuously reschedule their desired dates and times to be something different? Why am I denied a supporting deposition? Why is it necessary to maintain an online scheduling system if it seems to be trumped by your postal mailings?
I’ll post updates as I get them.
+++
UPDATE 12/31/2011
A new piece of mail postmarked on December 29th, but having a letter dated December 27th, states that I should now attend my January 17th hearing at 1pm. The envelope is postmarked after the most recent mailing, but its letter is dated before it. Well now this all makes perfect sense.
