MOTORIST MUST CHANGE LANES WHEN APPROACHING EMERGENCY VEHICLE IN NJ

As of January 27, 2009 motorist must be very cautious when approaching a emergency vehicle (which includes stationary tow trucks). According to the new law a motorist approaching a emergency vehicle displaying blinking or flashing lights motorist must attempt to make a lane change to the adjacent lane. If the motorist is unable to change lanes then the motorist MUST slow down to a safe speed, which is defined by the statute as a speed that is less then the posted speed limit for the roadway. Failure to do the above will result in a fine and motor vehicle points being assessed against the motorist. SO BEWARE!!! The new Law NJSA 39:4-92.2, reads as follows:
"Authorized emergency vehicles displaying flashing, blinking or alternating lights; driver duty when approaching stationary emergency vehicles; penaltiesa. The operator of a motor vehicle approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle as defined in R.S.39:1-1 that is displaying a flashing, blinking or alternating red or blue light or, any configuration of lights containing one of these colors, shall approach the authorized emergency vehicle with due caution and shall, absent any other direction by a law enforcement officer, proceed as follows:(1) Make a lane change into a lane not adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle if possible in the existing safety and traffic conditions; or(2) If a lane change pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection a. of this section would be impossible, prohibited by law or unsafe, reduce the speed of the motor vehicle to a reasonable and proper speed for the existing road and traffic conditions, which speed shall be less than the posted speed limit, and be prepared to stop.b. The operator of a motor vehicle approaching a stationary tow truck as defined in section 1 of P.L.1999, c. 396 (C.39:3-84.6) that is displaying a flashing amber light or a stationary highway maintenance or emergency service vehicle that is operated by the State, an authority or a county or municipality and displaying flashing yellow, amber, or red lights shall approach the vehicle with due caution and shall, absent any other direction by a law enforcement officer, proceed as follows:(1) Make a lane change into a lane not adjacent to the tow truck or highway maintenance or emergency service vehicle if possible in the existing safety and traffic conditions; or(2) If a lane change under paragraph (1) of subsection b. of this section would be impossible, prohibited by law or unsafe, reduce the speed of the motor vehicle to a reasonable and proper speed for the existing road and traffic conditions, which speed shall be less than the posted speed limit, and be prepared to stop.c. A violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500."

Is proof of knowledge of lack of liability insurance an element to driving without Insurance

Driving without automobile liability insurance in the State of New Jersey carries significant penalties. For example, a first offense of driving a car without liability insurance in the State of New Jersey carries a minimum loss of your New Jersey driver's license or the right to operate a motor vehicle in the State of New Jersey for at least 1 year (that penalty is harsher then pleading guilty to a first offense of driving under the influence of alcohol with a BAC level beween .08 but less then .10). A client came into my office today and had asked me an interesting questions, namely, "the prosecution of the operator of a motor vehicle who is also the owner is proof of knowledge of not having autombile liability insurance an element of an offense?" The answer to that question is "no." A cursey reading of the N.J.S.A. 39:6b-2 does not provide a definitive answer to that question, instead that question was answered by the Law Divison in the matter of State v. Kopp, 176 N.J. Super. 528 (Law Div. 1980), the Court opinion is as follows:
"MENZA, J. D. C. (temporarily assigned).

Defendant appeals from a conviction in the municipal court which adjudged him guilty of failure to maintain motor vehicle liability insurance on April 26, 1980, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2.

Defendant, the owner and operator of the vehicle, contends that although he was not covered by a liability insurance policy at the time of the incident in question, he nevertheless had sufficient reason to believe that he was in fact covered. He therefore contends that he is not guilty of violating the Statute.

The question presented to the court is whether knowledge of lack of insurance is an essential element which must be proved in order to sustain a conviction of an owner-operator.

N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2, provides:

Any owner, or registrant of a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State who operates or causes to be operated a motor vehicle upon any public road or highway in this State without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by this act, and any operator who operates or causes a motor *530 vehicle to be operated and who knows or should know from the attendant circumstances that the motor vehicle is without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by this act (penalties set out but omitted).

There are no cases interpreting this statute. It is therefore necessary fo the court to construe its terms by determining the legislative intent. Asbury Park Bd. of Ed. v. Holk, 38 N.J. 213, 183 A.2d 633 (1962). A review of the legislative history of the law is an essential aid in doing so. State v. Madden, 61 N.J. 377, 294 A.2d 609 (1972).

The present law is a result of Assembly Bill 802, introduced on March 6, 1972. The bill, as originally introduced, read, in part, as follows:

Any owner, operator or registrant of a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State who operates or causes to be operated a motor vehicle upon any public road or highway in this State knowingly without motor vehicle insurance coverage....

(Emphasis supplied)

The Official Copy Reprint deleted the word “knowingly” from the bill. The reprint provided:

Any owner, operator or registrant of a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State who operates or causes to be operated a motor vehicle upon any public road or highway in this State without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage....

On November 16, 1972 the Governor returned the bill, with his objections, to the General Assembly for reconsideration a conditional veto.

The conditional veto recited the following:

I also agree that the requirement of knowledge is an unnecessary burden upon law enforcement agencies with respect to **233 owners and registrants, because they have it within their control to determine whether insurance coverage is in effect for their vehicle. However, the non-owner operator in many circumstances cannot readily make such a determination. Thus, Assembly Bill No. 802 (OCR) should be amended to require knowledge as element of the offense of operating without insurance in the case of a non-owner operator.

The conditional veto specifically set forth the amendments recommended by the Governor, including an insertion that read:

... and any operator who operates or causes a motor vehicle to be operated and who knows or should know from the attendant circumstances that the motor vehicle is without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by this act ....

*531 The suggested amendment became a part of the bill on November 16, 1972. Assembly Bill 802, with the recommended amendments recited in the conditional veto, became law on December 26, 1972.

The intent of the Legislature is clear. Knowledge of an owner is not an essential element of the offense of violating N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2.

It is therefore not necessary for the court to consider the credibility of the defendant's testimony.

I find the defendant guilty of violation of N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2 and impose a fine of $50 and $15 court costs.

Is proof of knowledge of lack of liability insurance an element to driving without Insurance

PENALTIES FOR DRIVING WITHOUT VALID AUTO INSURANCE

The State of New Jersey does not tolerate drivers that operate autombiles within its boundries without valid automobile insurance. In fact, a conviction for driving without valid liabiliy insurance in the State of New Jersey carries fines and penalties that are, for the most part, more severe then if u pled guilty to a DWI. In otherwords, prior to going for a joyride verify if the autombile insurance policy maintained on the car in question is current. If not, leave that car behind no matter how short the trip is!!

Driving an autombile with vaild liability insurance is govererned by N.J. S. 39:6b-2, which reads as follows:

"Any owner or registrant of a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State who operates or causes to be operated a motor vehicle upon any public road or highway in this State without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by this act, and any operator who operates or causes a motor vehicle to be operated and who knows or should know from the attendant circumstances that the motor vehicle is without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by this act shall be subject, for the first offense, to a fine of not less than $300 nor more than $1,000 and a period of community service to be determined by the court, and shall forthwith forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of one year from the date of conviction. Upon subsequent conviction, he shall be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and shall be subject to imprisonment for a term of 14 days and shall be ordered by the court to perform community service for a period of 30 days, which shall be of such form and on such terms as the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances, and shall forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years from the date of his conviction, and, after the expiration of said period, he may make application to the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles for a license to operate a motor vehicle, which application may be granted at the discretion of the director. The director's discretion shall be based upon an assessment of the likelihood that the individual will operate or cause a motor vehicle to be operated in the future without the insurance coverage required by this act. A complaint for violation of this act may be made to a municipal court at any time within six months after the date of the alleged offense.Failure to produce at the time of trial an insurance identification card or an insurance policy which was in force for the time of operation for which the offense is charged creates a rebuttable presumption that the person was uninsured when charged with a violation of this section."

As setforth in said Statute, a person convicted for a first offense of operating a motor vehicle within the State of New Jersey without valid autombile insurance will forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year. A second time offender of that statue will forfeit his right to operate a car for 2 years, AND will be incarcerated. As one can plainly see driving a car without autombile insurance is an exteremely dangerous proposition because the consequences of same are grave.
Notwithstanding the above, there are approximetly 3-4 substantive defenses to operating a car without current autombile liability insurance. For example, the insurance company may have failed to properly cancel your auto policy. If that is the case, then your auto policy will be treated as valid. Another defense can be that the car is registered or garaged in another state, therefore, this Statute is inapplicable. That defense does prevail quite often. In summary, being charged with the traffic offense of driving without valid autombile insurance in violation of NJSA 39:6b-2 is a serious offense that carries significant penalities. However, to be convicted of said charge is not an easy task.

Is a 20 minute observational period required in DUI cases

In the State of New Jersey, there is a lot of controversy regarding the twenty minute observational period in DWI prosecutions or defense. Is the twenty minute observation period required in the State of New Jersey to prosecute a DWI defendant? The twenty minute observational period is basically a state police safeguard that requires the police officer to observe the DWI charged subject for twenty minutes immediately prior to administrating the breath test. In my opinion, as a defense attorney, the twenty minute observational period is required b/c it provides a necessary safeguard from overestimated breath samples. An overestimated breath sample can result by a person, prior to providing a breath sample, burping thereby artificially inflating the actual breathalyzer result. Presently, in the State of New Jersey there is a dichotomy among the various municipal courts on whether or not the twenty minute observational period is legally required. I can tell u based on my personal experience that Judges and prosecutors tend to favor the twenty minute observation period. In other words, they do give it deference. As such, if u can establish, by independent proof, that the twenty-minute observational period was omitted then that BAC reading should be thrown out. Furthermore, the dichotomy on the applicability of the 20 minute observational period arises, in somepart, from the recent opinion in State v. Chun. In Chun the Court suggested in dicta that the 20 minute observational period is required. Some argue, such as an overzealous prosecutor, that the Court's decision in State v. Chun just indirectly touched upon that issue, therefore, it does not mandate or require a 20 minute observational period! However, subsequent law division cases, deciding DWI cases on appeal have ruled that the the twenty minute observation period is required. See, State v. Nucifora a Camden County Law Division Decision. ( a copy of said decision can be obtained by simply searching its title on a search engine)