• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

"Careless Driving" in NJ...

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the name of your state? NJ

Hi! I was driving to a supermaket just before midnight on Saturday. No people nor traffic on the road. 25 mph zone, travelling about 15. Decided I needed to check my coat pocket to make sure I had my shopping list. If not, I had to go back home. It became a bit of a struggle because of the seat belt, so I swerved a bit...enough for the driver side wheels to cross the double yellow. Quickly straightened out and proceeded to drive slow and normal, thinking to myself, "it's Saturday night...if a cop saw that he might think I was drunk!" Sure enough, the flashers appeared behind me.
I explained to the officer what happened. He explained that he uses a radar on that avenue during that shift and tends to catch speeders and looks for drunk drivers as well; and he thought I might have been drunk. (Understandable...I realize it was Saturday night, I could understand the officer pulling me over to see. Getting pulled over for this would not have happened at, say, noon.) Convinced that drunk wasn't the case, I thought he'd give a warning. Or something without points if he was so inclined. He gave me CARELESS DRIVING! I was stunned. I view this as a pretty serious offense. $85. 2 points. Same as blowing a stop sign. Insurance sure to go up.
The officer's exact words: "I gave you a summons for careless driving. If you want, you can plead not guilty". He then continued with explaining his routine. I feel as though he was hinting that I should plead "not guilty". I also feel that I AM "not guilty". The punishment doesn't fit the crime. It was a momentary error. I was not likely to injure person or property. It was deserted. I did not continue to drive in this manner.
I plan to show up in court and defend myself. Does anyone have insight into the New Jersey municipal court system? Do I stand a chance? Can I expect the officer to be there? Are there court fees involved? Anything else I should expect? Thanks for any knowledge or thoughts you can share...What is the name of your state?
 


AlanShore

Member
Ok, so you were swerving on the road, cop pulled you over, and gave you a justifiable ticket. And you feel, though you admit to the crime, that you are not guilty. You could have caused an accident.
 

camdenle

Junior Member
Ok, so you were swerving on the road, cop pulled you over, and gave you a justifiable ticket. And you feel, though you admit to the crime, that you are not guilty. You could have caused an accident.
Ok prosecutor in order to make you case beyond any reasonable doubt - you are going to have to define precisely what "careless" is to avoid being overbroad and vague in violation of the US and NJ constituitions.

A good question to ask is: What was the specifc person or property endangered and why were there not any damages from the activity - perhaps since there was no persons and no other vehicles or property nearby to be endangered and the charge was an arbitrary and capricious attempt to "justify the pretextual stop".

For the OP I hope you bring this to the judge and see what he thinks of this charge. I have seen these type of charges not do so well for the officer.

If you can afford it you may want to look for a traffic attorney - I'm sure there are plenty who would be glad to argue a case like this for $300 or so...
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Ok prosecutor in order to make you case beyond any reasonable doubt - you are going to have to define precisely what "careless" is to avoid being overbroad and vague in violation of the US and NJ constituitions.
Oh brother, what a moron...
It is careless to drive over the double-yellow line - happy now?
 
Ok, so you were swerving on the road, cop pulled you over, and gave you a justifiable ticket. And you feel, though you admit to the crime, that you are not guilty. You could have caused an accident.
Obviously, this type of summons is an officer's "judgement call". Since the full name for the summons, I'm told, is "Careless driving - likely to injure person or property", I feel the officer used poor judgement. I was not likely to injure person or property. I could not have caused an accident uner these circumstances. Under a different scenario, maybe, but under a different scenario than the one described I would not have reached into my pocket. The infraction was the same as often happens when a driver reaches into their pocket approaching a toll booth (aside from the yellows, of course).

So it seems my defense will take some work. Some good advice so far. Thanks camdenlee! Anything else that may help? Since I never had points before, I don't think it's worth it to hire an attorney. It's already going to cost me a day's pay to appear (I work on commission)...

Thank you!
 

AlanShore

Member
Obviously, this type of summons is an officer's "judgement call". Since the full name for the summons, I'm told, is "Careless driving - likely to injure person or property", I feel the officer used poor judgement.
Wrong. The officer saw you swerve, which you admitted in your first post that you did, that’s a violation of the law, end of story. You’re the one with the poor judgment. Should of waited for a red light, a stop sign, or pulled over on the side of the road. The officer has the duty to uphold the law, you broke it, got a ticket. I really hope you don’t go in with that kind of defense because the judge will hammer you.

As for Camdenle’s advice, I am not going to respond to that sort of stupidity. It was actually rather comical; especially the part about so many attorneys would love to argue that for $300! What joke of a lawyer would argue that kind of Case? NONE.
 
What joke of a lawyer would argue that kind of Case? NONE.
You're a bit harsh, but I respect your opinion. But so far I didn't get any advice from you. Are you suggesting that I not waste my time, just pay the ticket, and go to a defensive driving class to rid myself of the points? That's an option. You make it sound as though it is my only true option, and if that's so, I'll consider it. But I've seen, read on the internet, etc., much more severe and dangerous instances of what amounted to careless driving and a summons. If I deserve exactly the same verdict/treatment as these other scenarios, so be it. I'm not a weasel. I'm just looking for advice on what to do and what leniency I can expect, if any.
And in reference to the lawyer question, if they can't defend a case that is an officer's "judgement call" (i.e., not backed by radar, for example), then what is their value in ANY defense? Courts are chock full of lawyers representing clients that went 20mph over the speed limit and whatnot. I'm not going with a lawyer, but I'm curious to know what benefit, if any, a lawyer provides. I guess that is to say...if the cop is always upholding the law properly and there are no witnesses to say he did otherwise, what good is a lawyer?
 

camdenle

Junior Member
And in reference to the lawyer question, if they can't defend a case that is an officer's "judgement call" (i.e., not backed by radar, for example), then what is their value in ANY defense? Courts are chock full of lawyers representing clients that went 20mph over the speed limit and whatnot. I'm not going with a lawyer, but I'm curious to know what benefit, if any, a lawyer provides. I guess that is to say...if the cop is always upholding the law properly and there are no witnesses to say he did otherwise, what good is a lawyer?
You do have a valid point about the lawyers - some are just pure "horse traders" who know the judges and what leniency - deferment, etc they can expect to try and get for the client and basically plead them out regardless of the law and the burden of proof being provided. Others will cross examine the officer in order to meet "reasonable doubt" and get the dismissal - they usually know the judge and what kind of kangeroo court it may or may not be. You will probably have a bunch of people in front of you on the docket and can make some educated guess on how to proceed from that. On you case I would expect them to be able to object to the officer's "testimony" as well if he goes beyond the scope of the alleged crime and to see if Prima Facie elements have been met in the "testimony".

Obviously there is way too much discretion invloved in ticketing as "careless" for simpling going on the line or slightly over with no other traffic around - even stopping/swerving around animals etc is allowed under the law when the opposing lanes are free to do so - you don't have to simply plow them over to avoid a "careless" change:) So the criteria and burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt on the vague charge plays into the favor of the accused.
 

AlanShore

Member
You're a bit harsh, but I respect your opinion. But so far I didn't get any advice from you. Are you suggesting that I not waste my time, just pay the ticket, and go to a defensive driving class to rid myself of the points?
If you read your opening post you realize you never asked for my advice on what to do. You said you were not guilty (even though you admitted to breaking the law) and asked if you had a chance in court based upon your defense. I said no. You want my advice on what to do then ask for it. I can only answer question, when questions are asked.

That's an option. You make it sound as though it is my only true option, and if that's so, I'll consider it.
Not your only option, but probaly the best.

But I've seen, read on the internet, etc., much more severe and dangerous instances of what amounted to careless driving and a summons. If I deserve exactly the same verdict/treatment as these other scenarios, so be it. I'm not a weasel. I'm just looking for advice on what to do and what leniency I can expect, if any.
Why would the judge give you leniency? You just aggravate him with that BS you want to argue. And judges hate people that go in to court and pretend to play lawyer. Listen whether you run a stop sign at 10mph or run a stop sign at 25mph, you still ran the stop sign all the same (speed limit here not withstanding). Same thing for you. Whether you ran it with no traffic around or in the middle of a busy intersection, you still ran the same stop sign. Same thing for you.

And in reference to the lawyer question, if they can't defend a case that is an officer's "judgement call" (i.e., not backed by radar, for example), then what is their value in ANY defense? Courts are chock full of lawyers representing clients that went 20mph over the speed limit and whatnot. I'm not going with a lawyer, but I'm curious to know what benefit, if any, a lawyer provides. I guess that is to say...if the cop is always upholding the law properly and there are no witnesses to say he did otherwise, what good is a lawyer?
A good lawyer would call his buddy the DA and plea it down to a $100 parking ticket or a broken tailight....etc. (something without points.) Or he atleast get it reduced to a lesser moving violation. They wouldn't take a case like that to trial.
 
And judges hate people that go in to court and pretend to play lawyer.

A good lawyer would call his buddy the DA and plea it down to a $100 parking ticket or a broken tailight....etc. (something without points.) Or he atleast get it reduced to a lesser moving violation.
This is all probably so, but there's the justice system for ya. Sad that it all boils down to "who you know", or "pay to know". Posed this to my friend the lawyer today. He said that a judge tends to get frustrated when people don't know the law, argue anyway, and don't comprehend what the judge is saying. That I can see. I would think that if you represent yourself properly and refrain from being a knucklehead, a judge would give fair treatment. That is why I'm here and that is why camdenle's recommendations are so good. Very good points were made.

QUOTE "You said you were not guilty (even though you admitted to breaking the law) and asked if you had a chance in court based upon your defense. I said no."

I need to clarify here. I feel I'm not guilty "as charged". The officer claimed I went over the double yellows and I probably did. So I'm not arguing that. Plead guilty. But that's not what the summons is for...there exists a summons for that. It reads: "Improper operating of vehicle on divided highway or divider". Even "failure to keep right" can be used. And I'd have no choice but to plea it down (more cash for no points in NJ), or pay and take the points and go to a defensive driving class.

I don't know that I'll be in court because it will cost me too much at that hour in income. But I really want to be there, so we'll see. If I can be there, and the officer makes his testimony, my case thus far:

There is no mention in the summons that I crossed double yellows. I didn't. If I had done it, I'd have a summons for it. "Careless driving" is serious and I'm not guilty of "careless driving" in it's true defined sense. Question: What was the specifc person or property endangered and why were there not any damages from the activity - perhaps since there were no persons and no other vehicles or property nearby to be endangered and this rather broad charge was an arbitrary and capricious attempt to "justify the pretextual stop".

If anyone thinks that something should be added, deleted, or changed, I'd love to hear from you! Thank you all for your help!! Special thanks to camdenle...
 

AlanShore

Member
I need to clarify here. I feel I'm not guilty "as charged". The officer claimed I went over the double yellows and I probably did. So I'm not arguing that. Plead guilty. But that's not what the summons is for...there exists a summons for that. It reads: "Improper operating of vehicle on divided highway or divider". Even "failure to keep right" can be used.
There is no mention in the summons that I crossed double yellows. I didn't. If I had done it, I'd have a summons for it. "Careless driving" is serious and I'm not guilty of "careless driving" in it's true defined sense. Question: What was the specifc person or property endangered and why were there not any damages from the activity - perhaps since there were no persons and no other vehicles or property nearby to be endangered and this rather broad charge was an arbitrary and capricious attempt to "justify the pretextual stop"
The summons is not the deposition so it wouldn't say anything about crossing the yellow lines. The deposition contains that sort of information. Your really a legal idiot, just looking for someone here to agree with you, not for legal advice. You are guilty. Let me teach you something.

NJ LAW-39:4-97. Careless driving 39:4-97. A person who drives a vehicle carelessly, or without due caution and circumspection, in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a person or property, shall be guilty of careless driving.

25 mph zone, travelling about 15.
Committed a careless act called under speeding.

Decided I needed to check my coat pocket to make sure I had my shopping list. If not, I had to go back home. It became a bit of a struggle because of the seat belt, so I swerved a bit...enough for the driver side wheels to cross the double yellow.
Two more acts of careless driving. (Swerving and Crossing a Double Yellow Line)

Quickly straightened out and proceeded to drive slow and normal, thinking to myself, "it's Saturday night...if a cop saw that he might think I was drunk!"
You just implied that you were driving as if you were drunk! You engaged in an activity in which you carelessly drove a motor vehicle. YOU ARE GUILTY BY DEFINITION. Your lucky you didn’t get tickets for under speeding, crossing a double yellow, failure to keep right, and careless driving. If you go in to court with the idea that because there were no cars around you didn’t commit a crime. The law say’s “or be likely to”. There don’t have to be any specific persons or properties. And even with out “or be likely to” there does not have to be actual damage. Can you read?

The stop was lawful, you admitted yourself, you look liked a drunk driver.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No need to call someone who is merely trying to make some sense out of this BS summons and determine the proper action an idiot. And yes, officer, it was BS. Talked to enough cops to know. A cop friend told me the other day he lets 1 out of 3 people off the hook. This should have been the 1.

> You lost credibility with the "under speeding" claim. Are you kidding me??? 15 in a 25?
> Does every slight swerve that an officer sees warrant the "careless driving" summons?
> The swerving and crossing the double yellow are one in the same. It doesn't take much, just a few feet.
> I was not driving as if I were drunk. The officer was parked looking for drunk drivers. The swerve AT THAT HOUR, with taverns nearby, made me a suspect...and I understood that. That's it.
>I know full well what the law reads, and my specific action would not even "be likely to endanger" anyone or anything.

Your exaggerations of my incident are not the reality. As a result of your attitude (i.e., coptude), if I appear and DO win, expect me to eat you for lunch. You'd deserve that.

For you more gentle posters, in know way am I saying that I'll win. I'm trying to discern the best points in a defense, and if it's worth my while to give up a night's work to appear. My lawyer friend can't even help with THAT decision. It's all a matter of what the insurance co. might do with points blemishing an otherwise good record. No premium increase, I pay. Large premium increase, I build my best case (with your help). Thanks!
 

AlanShore

Member
Its not a bs summons. YOU ARE GUILTY BY DEFINITION. Its a cops pure discretion to give you a warning or not. Theres no 1 in 3 rule. Underspeeding, Swerving, crossing a yellow line are all acts of careless driving. You could of been likely to endager property or people. You wont win. I assure it.
 

camdenle

Junior Member
No need to call someone who is merely trying to make some sense out of this BS summons and determine the proper action an idiot. And yes, officer, it was BS. Talked to enough cops to know. A cop friend told me the other day he lets 1 out of 3 people off the hook. This should have been the 1.

> You lost credibility with the "under speeding" claim. Are you kidding me??? 15 in a 25?
> Does every slight swerve that an officer sees warrant the "careless driving" summons?
> The swerving and crossing the double yellow are one in the same. It doesn't take much, just a few feet.
> I was not driving as if I were drunk. The officer was parked looking for drunk drivers. The swerve AT THAT HOUR, with taverns nearby, made me a suspect...and I understood that. That's it.
>I know full well what the law reads, and my specific action would not even "be likely to endanger" anyone or anything.

Your exaggerations of my incident are not the reality. As a result of your attitude (i.e., coptude), if I appear and DO win, expect me to eat you for lunch. You'd deserve that.

For you more gentle posters, in know way am I saying that I'll win. I'm trying to discern the best points in a defense, and if it's worth my while to give up a night's work to appear. My lawyer friend can't even help with THAT decision. It's all a matter of what the insurance co. might do with points blemishing an otherwise good record. No premium increase, I pay. Large premium increase, I build my best case (with your help). Thanks!
You should ignore the basher's - there is an ignore fucntion through the "user cp"

I can tell you for sure on a vague charge like this you have an excellent chance of meeting reasonable doubt. If there was a specific charge for crossing the solid line and you were actually charged with that then that would be a different story - careless is vague and speaks nothing to this. As it is - your cross examination of the officer should be very short and to the point. as will be your motion for dismissal based upon "reasonable doubt" - note this is not that hard to meet - "any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."

Your goal is to present the charge and show the actions do not fit the elements of the crime and that the officer has not met his burden of proof- no persons or property were endangered because you checked to make sure the coast was clear - you can also ask the officer if he tickets people for swerving around an animal or other object in the road when it is completely clear to do so... Was he profiling for DUI's and using this as a "pretextual" excuse to pull you over.

The judge is a human being - he has certainly done the same thing before (as have the basher's on this board) - he is either fair or unfair - if he is fair and the officer does not meet the burden of proof you should be in good shape. Even if he is unfair you may get probation or a reduction...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top