Motor vehicle moving violations can, and do, have severe consequences to your driving privileges and ultimate driving costs in the State of New Jersey. Each municipal court in the State is independent and have different practices and customs in the way these types of cases are handled. Because of the motor vehicle laws in New Jersey, and the progressive point system, DMV motor vehicle points,(New Jersey DMV Point System) state surcharges, and insurance surcharges can have serious consequences to your driving privileges, including additional costs which can range from a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars per year. In the event that you have a number of points New Jersey Law allows you to remove two points from your N.J. driving abstract if you attend a certified state driving course. (Official List of approved courses)
If your drivers license is important to you, consult someone you has over 20 years experience with the New Jersey municipal court system and the Title 39 of the Motor Vehicle laws.
Municipal Court’s Power to Suspend Your New Jersey Drivers License.
If you are caught driving on the suspended list for the third time pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:3-40, you are subject to the mandatory 10-day term in the county jail. Most municipal court judges permit the defendant to serve it in the SLAP program (Sheriff's Labor Assistant Program) but some municipal court judges have ruled that SLAP is not available for third-time offenders. See the municipal court case,see State v. Ayton.
In State v. Moran the New Jersey Supreme Court the standards that the Municipal Court Judge must consider in whether to suspend, and how long, a motorist’s drivers license privileges pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:5-31.
Under this statute the municipal court is authorized to suspend a drivers license for any "willful" violation of Subtitle 1 of Title 39, the state's motor vehicle code. In addition to ruling that N.J.S.A. 39:5-31 applies to situations involving enhanced recklessness, the justices mandated that sentencing judges weigh, evaluate and spread on the record a number of factors before imposing a license suspension, including:
1) the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s conduct, including whether the conduct posed a high risk of danger to the public or caused physical harm or property damage;
2) the defendant’s driving record, including the defendant’s age and length of time as a licensed driver, and the number, seriousness, and frequency of prior infractions;
3) whether the defendant was infraction-free for a substantial period before the most recent violation or whether the nature and extent of the defendant’s driving record indicates that there is a substantial risk that he or she will commit another violation;
4) whether the character and attitude of the defendant indicates that he or she is likely or unlikely to commit another violation;
5) whether the defendant’s conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur;
6) whether a license suspension would cause excessive hardship to the defendant and/or dependents; and
7) the need for personal deterrence.
Any other relevant factors clearly identified by the court also may be considered.
In additon to the foregoing, the Court reasoned that comparisons to motor vehicle statutes that impose mandatory license suspensions also may be a useful guide in some cases. It is not necessarily the number of factors that apply but the weight to be attributed to a factor or factors. Of particular interest is the recently decided case State v. Green, in which the Appellate Division held that the Stalker Lidar radar device is not admissible at trial in this state until its accuracy has been established.
Attorney Sanzone has 20 years of experience in successfully handling thousands of these types of cases and has handled cases in hundreds of municipal courts throughout the entire state. These cases include, but not limited to, operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, driving with suspended or revoked license, CDS in a motor vehicle, driving while impaired or intoxicated, speeding, reckless and careless driving, failure to maintain lane, and others.
How to beat your traffic ticket is further explained in one of my blogs at:
Recently, the Appellate Division on November 9, 2010 held that that the Stalker Lidar radar device is not admissible at trial without expert testimony since the device as not been held reliable in New Jersey courts.
Some of the most recent court appearances include the following successful dispositions.
2010: State Police Trooper Summons for various summons on N.J. Turnpike, for failure to maintain lane, careless driving and speeding. Result: All tickets being dismissed, without any fines penalties or points.
2009: State Police Trooper Summons for speeding on the N.J. Turnpike, 29 miles per hour over the limit, with the motorist facing 4 motor vehicle points if convicted. Result: Ticket being dismissed completely without the defendant having to pay any fine or ticket being amended to another charge.
2009: State Police Trooper Summons for speeding on the N.J. Turnpike, 30 miles per hour over the speed limit, motorist facing 5 motor vehicle points. Results: Ticket completely dismissed without the defendant having to pay any fine or amended to a lower charge.
2011: Defendant charged with reckless driving and driving while intoxicated and issued summons for driving on revoked list for a prior DWI conviction. Mandatory jail and two years loss of license. Motion to Suppress and discovery motion filed. Results: Motion for Discovery granted, case dismissed when state failed to provide discovery. All charged dismissed.