People v. Rivera, 16 N.Y.3d 654, 949 N.E.2d 964, 926 N.Y.S.2d 16 (2011)
A driver with a revoked license who is issued a conditional license and subsequently violates the conditions of that license can only be charged with the traffic infraction of unauthorized use, not the crime of driving with a revoked license.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a driver with a revoked license, who then receives a conditional license and violates its restrictions, can be charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (AUO). The defendant, previously convicted of DWI, received a conditional license allowing limited driving privileges. He was later arrested for DWI while driving outside these restrictions. The Court held that he could only be charged with a traffic infraction for violating the conditional license terms, not with AUO, because he possessed a valid, albeit conditional, license at the time. The Court relied on legislative history, which demonstrated a deliberate choice not to amend the AUO statute to cover such violations, opting instead for a specific traffic infraction with a defined penalty.
Facts
Defendant Rivera was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI), resulting in license revocation.
As a first-time offender, he entered a rehabilitation program and received a conditional license.
The conditional license permitted driving only for specific purposes: work, rehabilitation program activities, school, and limited hours on Saturdays.
Defendant was arrested for DWI at 1:04 A.M., driving outside the permitted hours and stating he was coming from “the bars.”
Procedural History
Defendant was indicted for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (AUO 1st).
Supreme Court dismissed the AUO 1st count before trial.
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
- Whether a driver who holds a conditional license but violates its terms can be charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (AUO) under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511, given the existence of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1196 (7)(f), which specifically addresses violations of conditional license terms.
Holding
- No, because the legislative history and the plain reading of the statute indicate that violating the terms of a conditional license is a traffic infraction under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1196 (7)(f), not a crime under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511. The Legislature specifically chose not to amend § 511 to include such violations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the statutory language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 requires driving “while knowing or having reason to know that such person’s license or privilege of operating such motor vehicle… is … revoked.”
Defendant possessed a conditional license, which is a valid, unrevoked license, albeit with restrictions.
The Court emphasized the legislative history of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1196 (7) (f).
An earlier version of the bill would have amended Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 to include violations of conditional licenses, but this was rejected.
Instead, the Legislature created Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1196 (7) (f), establishing a traffic infraction for violating conditional license terms.
The Court quoted a letter from the Assembly sponsor stating that offenders in this situation were subject “only” to a traffic infraction.
The Court acknowledged the State’s policy to combat drunken driving, but stated that the Legislature had already addressed the issue by creating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1196 (7) (f), and any change in that policy should be addressed by the Legislature.
Judge Graffeo dissented, arguing that when conduct falls under two penal provisions, the prosecutor has discretion to choose which to charge. She believed that driving drunk outside the terms of a conditional license warrants the more serious charge of AUO. She stated, “When an individual who already has a history of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and who is supposed to be learning responsible driving behaviors nonetheless decides to disregard the terms of a conditional license and endanger himself and others by once again driving drunk, it is reasonable for the District Attorney to conclude that the behavior invites a more serious response.”