People v. Lippert, 25 N.Y.2d 336 (1969)
To constitute “drag racing” under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1182, there must be evidence of a pre-arranged race or contest for speed, not merely two cars accelerating rapidly from a stop light and jockeying for position.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed Lippert’s conviction for “drag racing” under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1182. The evidence showed that Lippert and another driver accelerated rapidly from a stop light and drove abreast at approximately 55 miles per hour, jockeying for position. The Court held that this conduct, while potentially constituting speeding or reckless driving, was insufficient to establish “drag racing” because the prosecution failed to prove an implied race course or pre-arranged contest. The Court emphasized that drag racing requires more than simply two drivers accelerating competitively from an intersection.
Facts
The legally significant facts are as follows:
1. Lippert and a codefendant were driving separate vehicles.
2. The vehicles were stopped at an intersection.
3. When the traffic light turned green, both vehicles accelerated rapidly.
4. The vehicles drove abreast at approximately 55 miles per hour.
5. The drivers were observed “jockeying for position.”
Procedural History
1. Lippert was charged with “drag racing” in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1182.
2. The lower court convicted Lippert.
3. Lippert appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented, specifically the rapid acceleration and jockeying for position by two vehicles after a traffic light turned green, was sufficient to convict the defendant of “drag racing” in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1182.
Holding
No, because the evidence did not demonstrate that the drivers engaged in a pre-arranged race or contest for speed along an implied race course. Simply accelerating quickly and jockeying for position is insufficient to establish “drag racing” under the statute.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the term “drag racing,” as used in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1182, implies a pre-arranged race or contest for speed, requiring more than merely two cars accelerating rapidly from a stop light. The Court acknowledged that while the defendant’s conduct could constitute other traffic violations, such as speeding or reckless driving, it did not satisfy the elements of “drag racing”.
The court referred to the dictionary definition of a “drag race” as “an acceleration contest between automobiles”. It also cited a book on hot-rodding, which emphasizes that “drag racing…is done on a runway, a special course, or a roadway under careful supervision to insure safety and fair treatment to all competitors.”
The court stated, “Violation of this statute means that, at least by implication, some race course must have been planned by the competitors along a street. It is not enough that an automobile operated by defendant and one by his codefendant left an intersection abreast when the traffic light changed to green and, thereafter, travelled abreast at about 55 miles an hour, each car jockeying for position.”
The court emphasized the importance of proving a planned race course. The prosecution failed to establish this critical element. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to convict Lippert beyond a reasonable doubt of “drag racing.”