People v. Klepper, 25 N.Y.2d 46 (1969)

Contemporaneously made police memoranda, containing detailed identifying information, are admissible as prima facie evidence to establish the identity of a traffic offender, even when the officer cannot independently recall the individual’s face.

Summary

This case addresses the challenge of proving the identity of a traffic offender when the trial occurs long after the offense. The Court of Appeals held that detailed official memoranda made by the police officer at the time of the offense, including the defendant’s name, address, age, date of birth, driver’s license number, and vehicle registration information, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of identity, even if the officer cannot specifically recall the defendant’s face in court. The court reasoned that it would be unrealistic to expect officers to remember every individual they ticket, especially after a significant time lapse.

Facts

On December 15, 1966, a police officer observed a 1966 Oldsmobile failing to observe a traffic sign. The officer stopped the car, obtained the driver’s license and registration, and issued a summons. At trial almost a year later, the officer could not identify the defendant in the courtroom as the driver he had ticketed.

Procedural History

The defendant was issued a summons on December 15, 1966, with a return date of December 23, 1966. A warrant was issued on April 13, presumably due to the defendant’s failure to appear. The defendant eventually appeared with counsel at trial on November 3, 1967. The lower court found the defendant guilty. The case reached the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a police officer’s inability to identify the defendant in court precludes a finding of guilt in a traffic violation case when the officer possesses detailed, contemporaneous memoranda identifying the defendant.

Holding

1. Yes, because the detailed information contained in the officer’s contemporaneous memoranda, when coupled with the defendant’s presence in court with counsel and possession of the driver’s license, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of identity, even if the officer cannot independently recall the defendant’s face.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that requiring a traffic officer to remember the face of every person they ticketed months after the event is unrealistic. The court emphasized the reliability of official entries and memoranda made contemporaneously with the traffic stop. The court noted the detailed information contained in the memoranda: “This detailed information, coinciding with the name of defendant who had appeared in court with counsel, who had told the court he had the operator’s license in his possession, is enough to make out a case prima facie.” The Court highlighted the importance of the officer’s records, which included the defendant’s full name, address, age, date of birth, driver’s license number, and vehicle registration details. Given the delay in the trial and the reliance on official records, the court found that the memoranda, combined with the defendant’s presence in court with counsel and the driver’s license, sufficiently established the defendant’s identity as the traffic offender. The court noted that traffic violations, though infractions, must be proved according to misdemeanor standards, often relying on refreshed recollection or contemporaneous memoranda. The court cited People v. Miller, emphasizing the similarity of the case. “It is obvious that a traffic policeman who issues a large number of summonses for routine violations, the vast majority of which are uncontested, will be hard put to remember the person of an individual operator, especially if there is a contest raised a considerable time after the. summons is issued.”