fbpx

NJ Traffic Results

2017 – Municipal Court: Client was an out of state commercial driver who pled guilty to NJSA 39:4-97.3, a cell phone violation. He had applied for and received an offer on a job as a freight driver. However, due to this ticket he was unable to be get the job because of insurance regulations. We filed a Motion to Vacate the Guilty Plea and it was granted by the Court.

Result: When the Motion to Vacate was granted, we requested all discovery, including the Motor Vehicle Recording. However, the State was unable to provide it. Because of this, the Prosecutor agreed to amend the charge to 39:4-67 Obstructing Traffic, which would not impede the Client’s ability to get the job he had received an offer for. The Court applied the fines from the prior plea, and did not issue any further fines.


2017 – Municipal Court: Client was initially stopped for having a tail light out in violation of 39:3-66 Maintenance of Lamps. Client handed the officer an expired license and was charged with 39:3-10a Expired License. The Client is a legal immigrant who needed documentation from Immigration and Naturalization Services in order to get his New Jersey License renewed. He had done this several times and made sure to request the documentation well in advance, however, it took longer than anticipated to receive it.

Result: Based on the above information, and the fact that the Client was able to get his New Jersey Driver’s License renewed, the State dismissed the charge of 39:3-10a, and the Client pled guilty to 39:3-66 Maintenance of Lamps. There were fines and penalties of $87.00.


2017 – Municipal Court: Client was pulled over for a violation of NJSA 39:4-97.3, a cell phone violation. This office made a request for discovery, and did not receive it from the Prosecutor’s Office. Due to this, we filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Discovery. We also brought the Client’s cell phone records and demonstrated to the Prosecutor that the Client was not on the phone at the time of the stop.

Result: Due to the State not providing discovery and the cell phone records that were provided the State dismissed the ticket.


2017 – Municipal Court: Client was on a highway in the far right lane. Shortly after he got on the highway, the right hand lane gave the option either to continue straight (and eventually the lane ends) or make a right turn. The Client stayed straight, passing another vehicle that was inthe left lane, and eventually merged into the next lane over on the left. Client was charged with 39:4-85 Passing on the Right, a 4 point ticket.

Result: The attorney brought applicable case law to the Prosecutor to show that the Client’s actions were not a violation of the statute, as there were multiple lanes. This statute refers to leaving a lane of travel and using a shoulder to make a pass. Based on the case law the State had no other choice than to dismiss the summons.


2017 – Municipal Court: Client was issued a summons for 39:3-40 Driving While Suspended. Client had a Pennsylvania license that was in fact suspended. However, she did have a limited license for purposes of going to work, going grocery shopping, and picking up her children at school. She did not realize that these exceptions are only valid in the State of Pennsylvania and thought it was okay for her to drive since she was picking up her children from school. She was facing a six month loss of her driving privileges and a minimum $500.00 fine.

Result: Due to the circumstances, and the fact that her license had been restored to full privileges prior to the court, the Attorney was able to get the charge amended to to 39:3-29A Failure to Exhibit a Valid License. The fines and fees totaled $189.00.


2017 – Municipal Court: Client received summons in the mail for 39:4-85 Improper Turn, 39:4-97 Careless Driving, 39:4-129 Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and 39:4-130 Failure to Report an Accident. When she received the tickets she immediately contacted this office because she had not been in that town in recent memory, and the time of the accident was when she would still be in her house getting ready for work. The penalty for 39:4-85 is four motor vehicle points, 39:4-97 Careless Driving is 2 points, 39:4-129 Leaving the Scene is a 6 month loss of driving privileges and two points, and 39:4-130 is a fine of no more than $100.00.

Result: Our office requested discovery from the State to find out who the witness was and how they identified her vehicle as the vehicle involved in the accident. The State was unable to produce a witness or the relevant discovery that would identify the Client as the individual who struck the vehicle. The Client maintained that she was not in the town, nor was she out of the house at the time the accident allegedly occurred. Further, she indicated that no one else had access to the vehicle as she lived alone. The State, unable to prove their case, dismissed all summons.


2017 Motor Vehicle Commission: Client received a notice that his driving privileges were to be suspended for 180 days for driving during a suspension period after he was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident. Client was a commercial driver with a CDL and was only home a few times a month to check his mail. He did not recall getting any kind of notice of suspension for failing to pay child support. As soon as he found out he was suspended, several weeks after the accident in an out of state inspection stop, he immediately made all necessary payments and restored his driving privileges. Shortly after that he got this notice. As a truck driver, the loss of his driving privileges would mean losing his job.

Result: The Client was granted a hearing with a Motor Vehicle Hearing Officer who reviewed the letter that we submitted and statements made at the hearing. Based on all of this, the Hearing Officer offered the Client a 30 day suspension, a significant reduction from the 180 days initially proposed. This was accepted. He had to pay a $100.00 restoration fee at the end of the suspension period to restore his driving privileges.


2017 – Municipal Court: Client was pulled over for 39:3-40 Suspended Registration. He was also issued a summons for 39:6B-2 No Insurance. He was facing a 6 month loss of his driving privileges and a minimum fine of $500.00 on the 39:3-40 Suspended Registration. He was also facing a 1 year loss of driving privileges and up to a $1,000.00 fine for 39:6B-2 No Insurance.

Result: The State was unable to prove that there was proper notice of cancellation of the insurance policy, so that offense was dismissed. Prior the Court date, the Client had renewed his vehicle registration and the State agreed to amend the 39:3-40 to 39:3-4 Expired Registration. Court fines and fees totaled $89.00.


2017 – Municipal Court: Client’s sister was operating her motor vehicle while the Client was suspended for a Motor Vehicle offense. Her sister did not have her license on her, therefore since the Client was the owner of the motor vehicle and they looked similar enough, the officer issued summons to the client for 39:3-98 Speeding (34 mph over the speed limit) a five point ticket; 39:4-97 Careless Driving, a two point ticket; 39:3-29A Failure to Exhibit a Driver’s License, and 39:3-40 Driving While Suspended. Client was facing up to a six month loss of driving privileges as well as a $500.00 fine on the 39:3-40 Driving While Suspended.

Result: We insisted that the Prosecutor produce the Police Officer in court to see if he could properly identify the client as the driver. The Prosecutor was unable to produce the Police Officer on two occasions. After the second time we requested that the case be marked try or dismiss at the next Court appearance and that the Officer be subpoened, which the Judge granted. At the third court appearance, the Judge dismissed all the summons because the State could not present any evidence that the Client was operating the motor vehicle.


2017 – Municipal: Client was issued a summons for 39:4-97 Careless Driving when he was found doing doughnuts in his vehicle in a private parking lot. Careless Driving is a two point ticket, and at the Judge’s discretion there could be a loss of driving privileges up to 90 days.

Result: Client was a college student with good grades and doing well in school. Based on this the Prosecutor agreed to amend the charge down to a no point ticket of 39:4-67 Obstructing Traffic. The fine and fees totaled $89.00.

See More Traffic Results;

*While all of these results were actually obtained by Randolph H. Wolf in the Municipal Courts and Superior Courts of the State of New Jersey, the success in these cases does not guarantee a similar success in any future case. Clients names have been removed to protect their privacy. Due to the delay in posting these cases to this web site some cases may actually have taken place in the year before their posting date as it appears above.

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [ Sitemap ] © Copyright Randolph H. Wolf, Esq