Fighting a ticket that I got for having air freshner hanging on my rear view mirror?

[Kineshi]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ. Is it possible for me to win or should I just pay the ticket?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ. Is it possible for me to win or should I just pay the ticket?

We have at least one or two regular posters who live in NJ. I hope that they will be along soon to comment, but if that is illegal in NJ, that is kind of weird.

 

[HighwayMan]

What does this have to do with auto accidents?

By the way, it's the same in NY - it's called "obstructed view" - nothing to do with air fresheners in particular. Anything hanging from the mirror obstructs the driver's view and it prohibited.

 

[ecmst12]

Illegal in PA also.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Having an obstructed view is illegal by law under statute in all states. An air freshener is usually not a target, cracked windows and GPS units attached to the windshield are the usual issues. That does not make it any lessor of a guilty act. I am not sure what the severity of the ticket is in NJ. I would assume it is an infraction level, however, it is a misdemeanor level, hiring a lawyer to try and get an infraction modification would be a good idea.

 

[FlyingRon]

Except the NJ statute doesn't say that you can't have obstructions, just that it can't obstruct your ability to view traffic. I would make the state prove that the air freshener prevented you from seeing traffic.

It's less of a problem than the blasted inspection stickers.

 

[single317dad]

I would argue that the air freshener hanging from my mirror did not violate 39:3-74:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2009/a4334-07-opn.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2009/a4334-07-opn.html

A. The otherwise lawful operation of a vehicle with small items hanging from a rearview mirror does not violate the provisions of [N.J.S.A. 39:3-74] that prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle with items upon the front windshield or side windows, and a resulting traffic stop based on this premise is unlawful.

B. There is no reasonable articulable basis to believe that the operation of a motor vehicle with small items hanging from a rearview mirror unduly interferes with the driver's vision, in violation of the third paragraph of [N.J.S.A. 39:3-74], and a resulting traffic stop based on this premise is unlawful.

The text of the statute doesn't mention the mirror:

No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, sticker or other non-transparent material upon the front windshield, wings, deflectors, side shields, corner lights adjoining windshield or front side windows of such vehicle

Were you, by any chance, actually pulled over for a higher offense (speeding is common) and then ticketed only for the lesser offense of obstructed view as a "favor?"

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ. Is it possible for me to win or should I just pay the ticket?

I have a work parking permit hanging from my rear view mirror that takes up very limited space but technically should be removed when driving. I have never been given a ticket for this in 30 years.

I'm imagining that your air freshener is similar to those oversized pair of dices that obstruct a third of your driving view and flop around as you navigate your ride. Pay the fine and remove the obstruction before you are be back here with an accident question.

 

[FlyingRon]

I saw that case. The issue was that even if the air freshener didn't necessarily violate the statute, was the possibility it did justify the stop (which led to other more serious things than the traffic ticket).
All that is pretty much spurious to the original poster trying to protest his traffic ticket. The burden of proof on the actual conviction is much more than the "reasonable suspicion" necessary to make a stop.

 

[single317dad]

I saw that case. The issue was that even if the air freshener didn't necessarily violate the statute, was the possibility it did justify the stop (which led to other more serious things than the traffic ticket).
All that is pretty much spurious to the original poster trying to protest his traffic ticket. The burden of proof on the actual conviction is much more than the "reasonable suspicion" necessary to make a stop.

I actually thought the court's opinion was quite clear, but to address my own nagging concern quite similar to your own, I asked my follow up question (Why was OP actually pulled over?).

 

[HighwayMan]

Having an obstructed view is illegal by law under statute in all states. An air freshener is usually not a target...

You should see some of the air fresheners that I have seen.

I generally don't write that but if the motorist has an "attitude" anything is up for grabs.

 

[TigerD]

You should see some of the air fresheners that I have seen.

I generally don't write that but if the motorist has an "attitude" anything is up for grabs.

And that could explain the ticket and the copious notes of the interaction the officer just happened to write.

TD

 

[FlyingRon]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

The decision affirmed that the air freshener was a reasonable suspicion of the violation.

It specifically says it's not going to address whether the air freshener violated the statute or not. Mooted by the fact that the driver plead guilty to that and it's not germane to the appeal anyhow.

 

[Kineshi]

I would argue that the air freshener hanging from my mirror did not violate 39:3-74:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2009/a4334-07-opn.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2009/a4334-07-opn.html



The text of the statute doesn't mention the mirror:



Were you, by any chance, actually pulled over for a higher offense (speeding is common) and then ticketed only for the lesser offense of obstructed view as a "favor?"

Yeah it was a favor.

 

[Kineshi]

I would argue that the air freshener hanging from my mirror did not violate 39:3-74:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2009/a4334-07-opn.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2009/a4334-07-opn.html



The text of the statute doesn't mention the mirror:



Were you, by any chance, actually pulled over for a higher offense (speeding is common) and then ticketed only for the lesser offense of obstructed view as a "favor?"

Will I see the police face to face at court? He did kinda did me a favor. I was pulled over for a higher offense and then ticketed only for the lesser offense .