U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-04-2008, 12:17 PM
 
7 posts, read 48,511 times
Reputation: 11

Advertisements

I am searching for a dismissal or 3rd party liability. Here is the situation:
Construction zone speed limit was 35 mph. Officer issued ticket for 49 mph in 35 mph. Black and white 50 mph speed limit sign was not covered in construction zone. I have pre-covered sign pictures taken the night of the ticket and post-covered sign pictures taken about one month after the ticket was issued. "Construction zone" box not checked on my ticket. Fine of $95 appears not doubled. Does this case have grounds for dismissal? Isn't the Regional Engineer, Contractor, Construction Supervisor or another 3rd party liable for the ticket if the sign wasn't covered?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2008, 05:50 PM
 
Location: New Jersey/Florida
5,622 posts, read 11,086,778 times
Reputation: 3890
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJWomanOver25 View Post
I am searching for a dismissal or 3rd party liability. Here is the situation:
Construction zone speed limit was 35 mph. Officer issued ticket for 49 mph in 35 mph. Black and white 50 mph speed limit sign was not covered in construction zone. I have pre-covered sign pictures taken the night of the ticket and post-covered sign pictures taken about one month after the ticket was issued. "Construction zone" box not checked on my ticket. Fine of $95 appears not doubled. Does this case have grounds for dismissal? Isn't the Regional Engineer, Contractor, Construction Supervisor or another 3rd party liable for the ticket if the sign wasn't covered?
Why should and would these officials be liable to pay for your ticket. A kid could have pulled the sign off. That being said I would fight the ticket with your evidence, from what I have seen many times a deft. that showed p in court with before and after photos has a much better chance of winning on the ticket. If your defense is good you could approach the prosecutor before the hearing or trial and asked to have it dismissed. Good luck.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 07:23 AM
 
7 posts, read 48,511 times
Reputation: 11
Default Guilty for more than ticket costs?

Thank you. Can the judge find me guilty for more than the ticket costs? Perhaps he could double the fine, if the judge finds that it was a construction zone. Right now, the ticket fine is not doubled.

If not, then I have nothing to lose by presenting the evidence. Thoughts?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 07:40 AM
 
353 posts, read 933,189 times
Reputation: 213
There's no reason not to present the evidence... you may get a sympathetic judge. I got a ticket for parking in a handicapped spot about five years ago. I took pictures of the area, including the lack of lines on the pavement, and missing handicapped sign. I presented the evidence and the case was dismissed.

I don't think they can up the fine, but they can lower it. Sometimes they come up with a settlement of a broken tail light or something like that. You pay the fine, but at least you avoid the points and increased insurance costs.

Many who appear come in ripped jeans, tee shirts, etc as if they're stopping by on the way to the beach. Appearance matters. No need for dress clothes, but dress neatly and use terms like "sir" and "your honor" when appropriate.

I am NOT an attorney, this is just a layperson's opinion. Let us know how it turns out. Good luck!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2008, 07:59 AM
 
7 posts, read 48,511 times
Reputation: 11
When I appeared in court the first time, the prosecutor offered to settle for over $400 and no points, more than 4x the original ticket fine of $95. I declined that offer, so here I am today. Worst case scenario is that I would pay the ticket then do a driver's course to erase the 2 points. No insurance penalty for these first 2 points.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 09:02 PM
 
3 posts, read 23,473 times
Reputation: 11
You have to weigh the benefit of trying this ticket. The prosecutor has offered to amend this violation to a zero point (39:4-97.2 - unsafe operation of a motor vehicle). You may only use this amendment twice in a 5 year period (the third time is an automatic 4 points). If you decide to have a trial to beat the ticket, you put yourself in a win/lose situation. However, if there are substantive or procedural grounds (ex. if the officer does not appear for court) for dismissal, you may want to move to have the case dismissed.

Jay Bhatt, Esq.
[url]www.njtraffictix.com[/url]
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 07:24 AM
 
7 posts, read 48,511 times
Reputation: 11
Default Prosecutor Requested Adjournment

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhattlaw View Post
However, if there are substantive or procedural grounds (ex. if the officer does not appear for court) for dismissal, you may want to move to have the case dismissed.

Jay Bhatt, Esq.
Law Offices of Jay Bhatt-Experienced and Affordable Traffic Lawyers
Hi,

Although yesterday was my second court appearance, it seems that the Judge arraigned me a second time because when he called my name, he read the charge, then asked for my pleading.

NJWomanOver25: "Not guilty, your honor."
Judge: "Go speak to the Prosecutor."

Again, I declined the P's offers and returned to court for a trial. The officer did not appear for court. He was at home and off duty.

NJWomanOver25: "Your Honor, I am here for a trial and I understand that if the officer does not appear the case is dismissed."

The Judge countered that some how, "the case was not marked for trial."

NJWomanOver25: "That is not my fault."
Prosecutor: "Your Honor, I request an adjournment to sanction the officer."
NJWomanOver25: "I object! I am here for a trial."
Judge: "Overruled. I am granting the Prosecutor's request for an adjournment."

Thank you for all of the feedback because I feel like I was caught in what NJ calls a "speed trap." Otherwise, my driving record is clear.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2008, 04:28 PM
 
7 posts, read 48,511 times
Reputation: 11
I found a supreme court case that discussed how the accused was not liable for acting within the bounds allowed by the conditions present at that time. Applying this principal to my situation, recall that signs prohibiting speeds over 35MPH were not covered, yet the officer was on duty "to protect the work zone." Then the officer's first duty was to cover signs allowing dangerous speeds.

My research also uncovered a "resolution" the town of Brielle has with NJDOT. NJDOT makes direct payments to the town of Brielle for officers overseeing the construction site. The more tickets issued, the more officers can claim payment from NJDOT. Brielle, NJ - Official Borough Website

Does NJDOT know that officers are issuing tickets instead of covering the 50MPH speed limit sign?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2008, 01:32 PM
 
7 posts, read 48,511 times
Reputation: 11
Default Case Dismissed!

The above ticket was dismissed today, without a trial. The prosecutor stated that something was wrong with the State's paperwork.

Thank you everyone who contributed to giving advice! I followed up by researching what the law and governing bodies stated about traffic signs. I also reviewed the construction plans.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2008, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Vermont
5,441 posts, read 15,354,912 times
Reputation: 2641
njwoman I bet that they just did not want to admit their wrong doing so as not to set a precident (sp) so admitted to something vague. IMO it IS absolutely the construction company's responsibility to have signs posted for the modified speed limit!!!! If a kid ripped it down guess what, it's still their responsibility. Put up a new cover. Congratulations.. and its a shame you had to go through all of this BS.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top