2015 – Office of Administrative Law Hearing: Client had exceeded the twelve (12) point limit on his driver’s license by a number of infractions. Client was facing a 690 day suspension of his driving privileges. At an initial Motor Vehicle Commission hearing Client was offered a 310 day suspension of driving privileges.
Result: At the Office of Administrative Law hearing where an agreement was reached where Client’s driving privileges would be suspended for 120 days. This is due to the need of the Client for his driving privileges in order to work and provide for his family.
2015 – Motor Vehicle Commission: Client was facing a proposed suspension of 180 days due to Driving While Suspended. Client was suspended for failing to pay a parking offense. Client did not receive proper notice of this suspension and was ticketed for a moving violation. At the time of that violation Client was not told that his driving privileges were suspended.
Result: At the Motor Vehicle Commission initial hearing, based on the Client’s hardships we were able to get a 15 day loss of driving privileges. Client had a job where he was required to drive around and public transportation was not readily available. Further, he had plans to start school shortly and would have needed a driver’s license in order to attend college. Client also had family obligations which required him to drive such as picking up children at school. For these reasons we were able to minimize his suspension time.
2015 – Municipal Court: Client had been ticketed for 39:3-37.1b Allowing an Unlicensed Driver. Client was facing a penalty of a $200.00 to $500.00 fine and/or no more than 15 (fifteen) days in jail.
Result: The summons for 39:3-37.1b Allowing, was dismissed because Client had no way of knowing that the driver’s privileges had been suspended.
2015 – Municipal Court: Client was pulled over for 39:4-97 Careless Driving. At the time of the traffic stop Client was also given a ticket for 39:3-40 Driving While Suspended. A first offense driving while suspended has a fine or penalty up to $500.00 and an additional license suspension of up to six (6) months.
Result: Since client was able to restore his driving privileges before the Court date we were able to work out a plea where the client pled guilty to 39:4-97 Careless Driving ,and the prosecutor amended 39:3-40 to 39:3-29 Failure to Produce Documents. Since client was an out of state driver, the Court allowed him to appear via Affidavit so he did not have to appear in Court. Client paid a fine of $156.00 on the failure to produce and a fine of $106.00 on the careless driving, as well as $33.00 in court costs for each ticket for a total fine of $328.00.
2015 – Municipal Court: Client was charged with 39:4-97.3, Use of a Cell phone While Operating a Motor Vehicle, a fourth offense. A fourth offense cell phone tickets becomes a three point ticket, has a fine of $600.00 to $800.00, and a suspension of driving privileges for up to ninety (90) days.
Result: The attorney argued that the client was not actually on the phone, but was simply activating her blue tooth in the vehicle when she was pulled over. The plea amended 39:4-97.3 to 39:4-97 Careless Driving. The Court assessed fines of $181.00 and $33.00 in court costs for a total penalty of $214.00.
2015 – Municipal Court: Client was charged with 39:4-97.3, Use of a Cell phone While Operating a Motor Vehicle, a fourth offense. A fourth offense cell phone tickets becomes a four point ticket, has a fine of $600.00 to $800.00, and there a potential suspension of driving privileges for up to ninety (90) days.
Result: A plea was reached where the Cellphone offense was amended to 39:4-97 Careless Driving because we were able to show the prosecutor the phone logs for the vehicle, and there were no outgoing or incoming calls at that time. However, the prosecutor was able to argue that it is possible he was using the phone for another purpose. Client was assessed a fine of $206.00 plus $33.00 court costs for the guilty plea to Careless Driving, therefore avoiding potential suspension of driving privileges and three points on his driver’s license.
2015 – Municipal Court: Client was pulled over because his driving privileges had been suspended. Client was charge with two counts of 39:3-29 Failure to Produce Documents, one for failing to produce a valid driver’s license and one for failing to produce a valid insurance card. Client was also charged with 39:3-40 Driving While Suspended and 39:3-6b(2) Driving without Valid Insurance. The potential penalties for Driving While Suspended has a fine or penalty up to $500.00 and an additional license suspension of up to six (6) months. On Driving without Insurance the potential penalty is a fine or penalty up to $1,000.00 and a mandatory license suspension of at least one (1) year.
Result: At the Court appearance client was able to provide proof a insurance coverage from before the date of the stop. We were able to show that there was no proper Notice of Suspension to the Client. The prosecutor dismissed both 39:3-40 and 39:3-6b(2), therefore preventing any suspension of driving privileges. Client pled guilty to two counts of 39:3-29 Failure to Produce documents with a $156.00 fine and $33.00 court costs on each count for a total fine of $378.00.
2015 – Municipal Court: Client was ticketed for 39:3-4 Expired Registration, 39:3-10a Expired License, 39:6b(2) Driving without Valid Insurance, and 39:8-1 Failure to Inspect Vehicle after a motor vehicle stop. The potential penalty for Driving without Insurance is a fine or penalty up to $1,000.00 and a mandatory license suspension of at least one (1) year. All other offenses include potential monetary fines in excess of $500.00 per offense.
Result: 39:3-4 Expired Registration and 39:8-1 Failure to Inspect were dismissed because proof of registration and inspection were provided. Client pled guilty to 39:3-10a Expired License with a $206.00 fine and $33.00 in court costs. The plea worked out with the prosecutor also included amending 39:3-6b(2) to 39:3-29 Failure to Produce Documents, with a fine of $156.00 plus $33.00. This was a total fine and court costs of $428.00.
2015: Municipal Court – Client was charged with 39:3-40 Driving While Suspended, 39:3-66 Maintenance of Lamps, 39:3-10(a), Expired License on the initial motor vehicle stop. Later that same week client was again stopped and charged with 39:3-40, 39:3-10(a), as well as 39:3-74 Obstructed Windshield, and 39:5-35 Failure to Turnover Expired License. The first offense Driving while Suspended has a fine or penalty up to $500.00 and an additional license suspension of up to six (6) months for the first offense. On the second offense it is a fine or penalty of up to $750.00,an additional license suspension of up to six months, up to five (5) days in county jail, and if within 5 years of the first offense, the revocation of registration on the vehicle for the period of suspension. All other charges would result in fines only, no suspension.
Result: The client was attempting to get his license back and had tickets dating back to 2004. Due to the age of the tickets the State was unable to prove their case on any of the tickets. Therefore, all tickets were dismissed. However, since the Client failed to show up to Court for approximately eleven (11) years, the Court imposed a fine of $750.00 for contempt of Court.
2015: Municipal Court – Client was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and left the scene. Client was charged with 39:4-129 Leaving the Scene of an Accident, 39:4-130 Failure to Report, and 39:4-97 Careless Driving. Client was driving a school bus at the time of the accident and did not realize that he had struck a parked vehicle on the side of the road. The fines and penalties for 39:4-129 include a fine between $200.00 and $400.00, and/or 30 days in the county jail, and a six month suspension of driving privileges.
Result: Client was unaware that he had struck a parked vehicle. and fully cooperated with the officer upon realizing what happened. The prosecutor agreed to dismiss 39:4-129 Leaving the Scene. Client pled guilty to 39:4-130 Failure to Report the accident, which had a $156.00 fine and $33.00 in Court costs. The plea agreement included amending 39:4-97 Careless Driving, a two point ticket, to 39:4-67 Obstructing the Passage of Other Vehicles, a fine of $56.00 and $33.00 in Court costs. Clients total fines were $278.00. The client received no motor vehicle points.
2015 – Municipal Court: Client was pulling into a parking spot and tapped the neighboring vehicle as he pulled into the spot. Noting the damage looked minimal, he wrote his telephone number down on a piece of paper and placed it under the windshield wiper of the vehicle. The victim was given the note by a witness who saw the incident and got the client’s license plate number. It turned out that the note was ripped and did not have the last 4 digits of the clients telephone number on it which the police officer believed was intentional. The client was given citations for 39:4-129 Leaving the Scene, 39:4-130 Failure to Report, and 39:4-97 Careless Driving. The fines and penalties for 39:4-129 include a fine between $200.00 and $400.00, and/or 30 days in the county jail, and a six month suspension of driving privileges.
Result: Through multiple discussions with the Prosecutor, we were able to arrange a plea that was agreeable to both the Client and the victim. The charge of 39:4-129 was dismissed. Client pled guilty to 39:4-130 and 39:4-97, along with fines totaling $378.00, Client received a suspension of his driving privileges for fifteen (15) days instead of the six months he was facing.
2015 – Municipal Court: Client had previously pled guilty to a cell phone violation 39:4-97.3 and a careless driving ticket in two different towns. She was a pharmaceutical sales person and after being hired for a new job was told she could not start work because of these tickets. The company was providing a vehicle and insurance and would not be permitted by its insurance carrier to hire her. We filed motions for post-conviction relief to re-open both of these tickets.
Result: On the first ticket we were able to re-open the matter with the Court due to client not being represented by counsel, and because she was not in fact guilty of violating the statute as she was activating blue tooth on her phone to connect it to her car. The Judge in the first court dismissed the violation of 39:4-97.3 as she had not been represented and was not actually guilty of the violation.
In the second Court, the Judge initially denied the motion to re-open stating that the client had been represented by counsel and entered a voluntary and knowing plea. We asked the court to permit us to order a transcript of the plea and re-consider the application. When the transcript was obtained, it was clear that neither the prosecutor, the Judge, or the previous defense attorney had taken a proper factual basis from the client for the plea. In another words, she had never told the court what she had done that would make her guilty of careless driving. Based upon this, the Judge dismissed the violation of 39:4-97. Due to the age of the cases once they were re-opened, the prosecutor not meet its burden of proof and the tickets were dismissed.
See More Traffic Results;
- 2015 Traffic Results
- 2014 Traffic Results
- 2013 Traffic Results
- 2012 Traffic Results
- 2011 Traffic Results
- 2010 Traffic Results
- 2009 Traffic Results
- 2008 Traffic Results
- 2007 and Earlier Traffic Results
*While all of these results were actually obtained by Wolf Law 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.