Is standing required in traffic court cases when the accused raises the interest?
<p>I have a speeding ticket court date coming up soon in NY and I don't know if there will be a prosecutor or a plaintiff or just the police officer against me.</p>

<p>One of my main arguments will be that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the accuser lacks standing under grounds of a not asserting a concrete injury-in-fact.</p>

<p>I could only find challenge to standing in civil cases. According to my research state courts must follow federal court decisions in federal matters. Being standing and injury-in-fact assertion a federal mandate I wish to know if there is any criminal case where the prosecutor had to establish standing?</p>

<p>From <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/spokeo-inc-v-robins/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins</a>: “A bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm,” are insufficient to demonstrate standing.</p>

<p>No. The true accuser is the state and the state always has standing to enforce its laws. This is an injury in fact. The judge would laugh at you and probably then double the fine for your insolence. This defense would be considered frivolous.</p>

<p>Ohwilleke's answer covers why the state would have standing. However, your question is also wrong to assume that standing and injury-in-fact is a federal mandate; federal rules about standing are irrelevant in state court. Federal standing doctrine is conceptually fairly simple: the federal courts only have judicial power because Article III of the federal constitution gives them judicial power, and Article III only says the judicial power extends to various kinds of case or controversy. If something isn't a case or controversy, the federal constitution doesn't give the federal courts any power to decide it. The standing doctrine is how the federal courts have defined "case" and "controversy" as those terms appear in the federal constitution. Standing is a part of the <em>structure</em> of the federal government (if you don't have standing, it means you have to take up your concern with one of the other two branches).</p>

<p>While state courts are bound by US Supreme Court precedent (not just any federal court, only the Supreme Court) on matters of federal law, that's irrelevant here. New York state courts do not get their authority to decide cases from Article III. They get it from New York state law. On issues of state law, state courts don't have to defer to federal courts (it's actually the other way around). States don't have to structure their governments exactly like the federal government. </p>

<hr>

<p>Since you're still not getting it, I'm going to run through the start of Article III. Before I start, you need to understand what the Constitution <em>is</em>. It's not just "the supreme Law of the Land." It is primarily a document to establish how the 13 original states would join together in a federation. Particularly before amendments were added, most of the document establishes the structure of the new central government. Article III wasn't written to say "here's how courts work;" New York and Maryland and all the other states already had perfectly good court systems laid out in their state constitutions that satisfied their own citizens. Article III was written to set up a <em>federal</em> court system under the authority of the central government, and it talks about how that <em>federal</em> court system works. Also, know that when the Constitution says "United States" it's generally talking about the federal government (e.g. in Article VI when it says the laws of the United States are supreme over anything in the laws of any state).</p>

<p>Article III begins:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are two kinds of court that exercise the judicial power of the United States: a Supreme Court and inferior courts that are established by Congress. New York state courts certainly aren't the Supreme Court it's talking about, nor are they ordained and established by Congress. <strong>New York state courts do not exercise the judicial power of the United States.</strong> (That doesn't mean they can't hear a case if it falls within the federal judicial power, but they can only hear it if they have some other source of authority to do so). Since state courts aren't the supreme or inferior courts this section is talking about, the rest of the section doesn't apply. That's why only one state has judges serve during good behavior; the remaining 49 have either fixed terms or a maximum age.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is the part of Article III giving rise to the federal standing requirements. But when it says "judicial power," it's referring to the power from section 1: the judicial power <em>of the United States</em>. This is not only the most natural reading, it's the only one that doesn't lead to an absurd result: if it defined the state judicial power as well, then no court would have jurisdiction over a lawsuit between two residents of the same state under state law. Want a divorce? Too bad: that doesn't arise under the laws of the United States, you and your spouse are residents of the same state, so Article III's judicial power does not extend to your divorce case. If you instead read "laws of the United States" as including state law, you've just dramatically expanded the power of the federal courts. The list was tailored to cover situations where a state court should not have the final say.</p>

<p>So this section refers to the judicial power of the United States. Who exercises that? The federal courts. Who does not exercise that? State courts. Where do state courts get their power? State law. Who gets to decide what state law means? State courts.</p>

<p>When SCOTUS lays out standing requirements, it's deciding what is and isn't on this list of cases. If something isn't on the list, nothing gives federal courts the power to decide it. But that doesn't mean it isn't on the list of things <em>state</em> courts get to decide. Just because something isn't within the judicial power of the United States, doesn't mean it's not within the judicial power of New York, which is what New York state courts exercise. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Article III only describes the <em>federal</em> judiciary. It begins, "The judicial Power of the United States...". Any standing analysis dependent on the text of Article III is restricted in scope to the federal judiciary.</p></li>
<li><p>Criminal prosecution <em>is</em> within the jurisdiction of federal courts:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Although <em>pro se</em> defendant has latched on to the notion that to have standing in an
  Article III civil controversy, the party bring the action must have a concrete stake in the litigation
  and have suffered an injury-in-fact, he fails to appreciate the distinctions to be drawn between a
  criminal case and a civil controversy. And while the broad language appearing in some of the
  more recent Supreme Court opinions expounding on the limitations of Article III standing would
  appear at first brush to be irreconcilable with the traditional mechanics employed in conducting
  criminal prosecutions, dogmatically drawing a corollary conclusion that federal criminal
  prosecution is outside the jurisdictional reach of Article III is tantamount to the "absurd." U.S. v. Patrick David Ellis, No. 2:06cr390, (W.D. Pa, 2007)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, gave federal district courts jurisdiction over federal crimes. If this was counter to the intentions of the founders, somebody would have said something. The Constitution had become effective just six months prior. That concurrent legislative action, and uninterrupted subsequent history of allowing prosecutions in the federal courts clearly establishes federal jurisdiction over federal prosecutions.</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.dos.ny.gov/info/constitution.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">New York's Constitution</a> establishes a "city-wide court of criminal jurisdiction" for the city of New York, and county courts with jurisdiction over "all crimes and other violations of law", among others (family courts, appeals courts, state supreme court).</p></li>
</ol>

<p>In summary, <strong>Article III doesn't apply to state courts</strong> so is irrelevant in this case. Even if it applied, prosecutions are within the jurisdiction of Article III courts. New York's Constitution establishes several courts with jurisdiction over "all crimes and other violations of law."</p>

criminal-law jurisdiction standing