New Jersey Traffic and Criminal Law

Supreme Court to decide crucial case regarding 'no point' violations

     The New Jersey Supreme Court will be hearing arguments today involving the infamous "unsafe driving" statute, often used in municipal court as a plea bargain to original charges like speeding, stop sign violations and red-light rolling.

    The unsafe driving statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.2, provides that an operator of a motor vehicle can plead or be found guilty of the offense and not be assessed motor vehicle commission (MVC) points in the State of New Jersey.  However, this ONLY applies to the first or second conviction or plea.

    In State v. Patel, decided by the Appellate Division last year, the Court ruled that a third conviction, regardless of the amount of time between the second and third offense dates, resulted in the assessment of 4 MVC points. 

    Despite last October's ruling in Patel, the language of the law strongly suggests that a driver should be allowed to take advantage of the no point provision if five years have transpired since the second guilty plea.

    The defendant in Patel argues that the New Jersey Legislature intended to provide relief from motor vehicle penalty points on third offenses following a five year period from the second unsafe driving offense.

    The decision will be published on this blog as soon as it becomes available.

    

Court interprets 'weaving' for DWI stop

       An arrest for drunk driving almost always is preceeded by a motor vehicle violation such as speeding, weaving in a lane or running a red light.  And, of course, the police officer must have a good reason to execute a motor vehicle stop.

       In a decision last week, the Law Division interpreted the statute that accounts for numerous DWI arrests: N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), or failure to maintain a lane.  The statute reads, "[a] vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety."

      In State v. Woodruff, the court kind-a, sort-a defined the circumstances under which one could be stopped or pulled over for weaving in a lane.  The court found that a vehicle need not perfectly maintain a lane and that there are times where an operator can legally weave or swerve in a roadway.

       For instance, an operator may legally deviate from the lane where there is an obstruction in the roadway, the road is narrow and the vehicle large or where it is extremely windy.  The court said: "one or two deviations from a lane may or may not constitute a violation, depending on the circumstances."

       So, it is conceivable that the defendant can challenge a motor vehicle stop and the resulting DWI arrest, if the weaving was minor and explained by fact-sensitive circumstances.  However, the defendant's attorney must contend with the low standard of "reasonable and articulable suspicion" for the stop.

       That is, can it be disproved that the officer had a good reason for the stop?  For the most part, that is difficult to prove, but not impossible.

      

 

What to say, or what not to say, when a cop pulls you over

       I am sure everyone is familiar with the standard question, "do you know why I pulled you over?".  That, of course, comes from the police officer that may or may not know exactly what motor vehicle law you might have violated.

       You see, as a parent of an eleven-year old kid, I am pretty darn certain of what household rule he broke or of what misdeed he may have perpetrated before I confront him, but I am not always 100 percent certain.  So, I let him help in my inquiry for justice and the truth by seeing if he will admit to the suspected wrongdoing.

     Likewise, police officers like to seal their case against you by an admission.  In other words, he or she wants to hear you say:  I ran the red light or I am sorry I made an illegal U-turn or I should not have been driving carelessly.  Whatever, as long as there is an admission to bolster the case against you. 

       So, anyone pulled over and hoping to avoid a traffic ticket or trouble, just like my kid, is faced with the "cruel dilemma":  lie and perhaps face greater wrath from the authority or just "tell the truth".  Unlike my child, though, the Constitution says that you don't have to say anything at all.

      

Howell, Brick, Newark and East Brunswick to implement camera enforcement

       On October 9, I outlined New Jersey's pilot program where certain roadway intersections would be monitored by camera for traffic violations.  Specifically, motorists would be issued tickets for failure to observe a traffic signal or N.J.S.A. 39:4-81.

       New Jersey recently released the municipalities where the pilot would be implemented.  They include Howell Township, Brick Township, East Brunswick and Newark.

       Some observers argue that the State and municipalities are pushing for the implementation in order to raise even more money by issuing a greater number tickets for moving violations.

       Of interest to me, I know that these cameras will one day be evidentiary in far more serious breaches of public safety and peace, like perhaps identifying a "get-away" car in an armed robbery or piecing together the puzzle of child abduction case.

Statements to police at accident scene may be suppressed

       Let's say you are involved in a crash and it is your fault.  The police officer arrives, interviews witnesses and those involved in the accident, and you happen to say, "I didn't notice the stop sign, sorry, my fault."  Can you be found guilty by that statement alone?

       The answer is generally "yes," because statements or admissions of defendants are admissible in court, unlike other out-of-court statements.  The police officer would normally testify that you, the operator, admitted to disregarding the stop sign.  There could, however, be a valid objection from an attorney defending the charge and a possible finding of "not guilty."

       Before explaining the exception and how a "not guilty" finding could result, two things are presumed--  first, that the police officer didn't actually see the violation with his own eyes and second, that no other witnesses appear in court.  Witnesses ignore notices to testify all the time (because who wants to sit around all day and miss a day of work?).

       In a fairly obscure part of New Jersey's motor vehicle violation statute, the following language is found: "but no report or any part thereof or statement contained therein shall be admissible in evidence for any other purpose in any proceeding or action arising out of the accident" (emphasis added).

     This language is found in the section of the code that addresses a person's obligation to report accidents.  And some judges have held that statements made to a police officer who is preparing an accident report are protected.  The public policy rationale is that the truth will be revealed if statements are not later used in court to convict or punish a driver.

       It is the lawyer's job to argue that such statements were made for the purpose of preparing the accident report and for no other reason, because any other reason would preclude the use of this  evidentiary exception.

            

Plea to third Unsafe Driving Offense results in Four Points

       The use of a popular "no-point" amendment has been curtailed this past week by the New Jersey Courts.  Unsafe Driving, or N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.2, closely resembles the careless driving statute, but explicitly prohibits the assessment of motor vehicle penalty points by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC).

       An amendment is a change of a charge made by the prosecutor and accepted by the court.  Typically, the original complaint is amended to a lesser violation as part of a plea bargain.  Many motorists were using Unsafe Driving as part of a plea bargain when ticketed for speeding, careless driving and other minor offenses.

       In Patel v. MVC, the Appellate Division ruled that pleas to a third offense of N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.2 would result in 4 motor vehicle points being assessed, regardless of the amount of time that had transpired between the second and third offense.

       Under the statute, violators can plead without assessment of points for the first and second offense, although the courts have been required to impose a one-time, in-court surcharge of $250.00 since 2004.

     Ironically, a defendant will not be assessed points for a fourth or subsequent offense if 5 years has elapsed since the prior offense.  However, swallowing the bitter pill of the third offense (with 4 points) must come before the benefit of the fourth without points. 

Download copy_of_patel_v. MVC.pdf

For rear-end crashes, N.J.S.A. 39:4-89 the wrong statute

       As a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I happen to see a significant number of "rear-end" accidents where the operator or defendant is charged with following too closely. 

       N.J.S.A. 39:4-89, the tailgating statute, reads:  "[t]he driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to the speed of the preceding vehicle and the traffic upon, and condition of, the highway".

       The word "follow" is emphasized because-- as is often the case --the vehicle that is impacted during a "rear-end" crash is stationary, perhaps waiting to make a left turn or waiting for a intersection signal to turn green.  Naturally, it is impossible to "follow" a stationary object, so the charge is improper and, therefore, impossible to prove at trial.

       Police officers typically issue summons based on "cheat sheets" that summarize violations.  If the violation is not routine (i.e. speeding), then there is a chance that the "elements" of the traffic offense cannot be met, since the officer may not be carefully reading the entire statute itself.

N.J. to issue traffic tickets based on cameras

        At the beginning of this year, the New Jersey Legislature cleared the way for digital photography enforcement of intersection violations.  In layman's terms, cameras will be enforcing "red-light" violations in the future.

       The program will only be starting as a "pilot" with several municipalities throughout the state participating.  The cameras will be posted in stationary positions at intersections that qualify, probably those with the highest incidence of violations and accidents.

       Interestingly, the new law will hold both the owner and operator jointly and severally  liable for an alleged offense.  That is, if someone is operating your vehicle, then you, the owner, will be getting the ticket.  Presumably, the ticket could be amended in court to name the operator as the proper defendant.

             Essentially, the summons will be similar to those issued for parking offenses.  In these cases, the state need not prove who actually violated the law-- just that the vehicle was in the intersection when the light was red.

       Now the good news for those charged:  no motor vehicle or insurance eligibility points will be issued for a violation of this offense, because the standards of proof are relaxed.