Citation For A Bolt?

State of my residence: Pennsylvania
State of residence of who I'm talking about: New Jersey

Submitted for your approval and input... a friend of mine was driving down a road in Jersey, and a local cop who had been behind her a while lit her up. She pulled over and waited about 15 or more minutes she said for the officer to come to the window. When he did, he explained he was citing her for a missing bolt on her license plate - as in one of the bolts that holds it onto the car or whatever. She says the plate was not crooked, and that she feels the officer wanted to just give someone a hard time. She didn't say the officer was rude or anything like that, but she's pretty annoyed about this fine. What I'd like to know is if anyone else has had this sort of experience. What is the limit when it comes to disrepair on a vehicle? How small is too small for a cop to not bother? She had no idea of the missing bolt she says, and has fixed it the same day she received the citation for failure to maintain vehicle or something like that. She's not an incompetent person at all... and really... how often do we all take the time to look at our license plate bolts??

As a side note... is something like this still considered a moving violation because she was driving at the time?

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by UnwillingTarget

State of my residence: Pennsylvania
State of residence of who I'm talking about: New Jersey

Submitted for your approval and input... a friend of mine was driving down a road in Jersey, and a local cop who had been behind her a while lit her up.

**A: so did she burn up after being lit up? She must have been hot under the collar.
*******

She pulled over and waited about 15 or more minutes she said for the officer to come to the window. When he did, he explained he was citing her for a missing bolt on her license plate - as in one of the bolts that holds it onto the car or whatever. She says the plate was not crooked, and that she feels the officer wanted to just give someone a hard time. She didn't say the officer was rude or anything like that, but she's pretty annoyed about this fine. What I'd like to know is if anyone else has had this sort of experience. What is the limit when it comes to disrepair on a vehicle? How small is too small for a cop to not bother? She had no idea of the missing bolt she says, and has fixed it the same day she received the citation for failure to maintain vehicle or something like that. She's not an incompetent person at all... and really... how often do we all take the time to look at our license plate bolts??

**A: Ok, and she was driving a brand new BMW 740 series with a "Cops Are Pigs" license plate holder correct?
******
As a side note... is something like this still considered a moving violation because she was driving at the time?

**A: no, it is considered an equipment violation.

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: so did she burn up after being lit up? She must have been hot under the collar.

As far as I know, she did not. She's a pretty cool customer, so to speak. She's not one to flip out over something this small. She was just feeling like the officer wanted to give her a hard time, and I think she's frustrated more so than offended or anything like that.

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: Ok, and she was driving a brand new BMW 740 series with a "Cops Are Pigs" license plate holder correct?

LOL! No, a red 760 iL with an aftermarket wing on the back, spinners, bumble-bee exhaust tip, body art, tinted windows, had an air-freshener hanging, and finally, a "Bad Cop, No Donut" sticker! Just kidding, of course. Actually, your guess is chilling a bit, as she indeed drives a late model white BMW 530i, but to my knowledge, does not have an "anti-cop" sticker or holder of any kind.

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: no, it is considered an equipment violation.

Ah, okay. Thank you again for your input.

Do police usually, as SOP, go after small things like this or do they usually tend to overlook them? Saying the SOP is to stop and such, I don't see why penalize her as her car is in good shape other than this small thing. Why not just inform her she needs to get fixed and give a "non-penal" warning (no points or fine, but a record of the interaction)?

[CdwJava]

I am having a hard time trying to figure out why not having a bolt in place is a violation of any kind. Out here, that would only be a problem if the license plate were askew.

If there truly is no other problem, then I have to conclude that NJ has some bizarre equipment requirements.

On the other hand, there may have been some other issue and the officer just let the driver off with the least intrusive cite they could.

This just seems too odd to me. But, if they have that law, I can understand the stop and the citation. I just can't understand the law.

- Carl

Originally Posted by CdwJava

This just seems too odd to me. But, if they have that law, I can understand the stop and the citation. I just can't understand the law.

It does to myself as well. Were I the officer in question, and I saw that the bolt was lose or gone or whatever the case may be; and if I bothered to actually pull the motorist over without the plate being askew, I'd not even write anything up. I'd simply explain it's a bad situation. "Your plate could become askew, and that would be a problem, etc. Please get it fixed, ma'am." That simple. Perhaps the officer or that county or something is just really picky? Out where I live, if you have a burned-out headlight or tail-light, if you're even stopped for it, the officer simply says pretty much what I did above. Just go get it fixed. No paperwork, nothing.

[CdwJava]

Well, I can understand the cite as opposed to a verbal warning because very often people decide that the verbal warning is not compeling enough to make them fix it. But, it depends on who the parties are and what the violation is.

With things like bad mufflers, broken windshields, tinting, etc., a verbal warning will probably not result in a change. With things like lights, most the time they want to get it fixed.

Personally, if it is someone I know, and I know to be dirty, I might let them go with a warning and hope they do NOT fix the violation just so I can have a reason to stop them at a later date when I think they might be up to something.

Essentially, it's usually a matter of discretion. But, in places where mandatory "racial profiling" documentation is in place, a citation can sometimes be easier than filling out the paperwork for NOT giving a citation. So that may be a reason here as well.

- Carl

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Essentially, it's usually a matter of discretion. But, in places where mandatory "racial profiling" documentation is in place, a citation can sometimes be easier than filling out the paperwork for NOT giving a citation. So that may be a reason here as well.

Wow, okay. I did not realize that there was still paperwork to fill out if an officer does not issue any sort of warning or citation. So even if an officer gives a verbal warning, he/she still must make out a report of sorts, or is it less complicated than that?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by UnwillingTarget

Wow, okay. I did not realize that there was still paperwork to fill out if an officer does not issue any sort of warning or citation. So even if an officer gives a verbal warning, he/she still must make out a report of sorts, or is it less complicated than that?

Well, it depends. Where I currently work we do not have to fill out anything ... but, pending state or federal legislation may create a greater workload for warnings than for citations (depending on the procedures implemented).

I am just saying that this might be the case. And agencies that have had to deal with tracking the race and gender of subjects stopped or detained have sometimes created systems where the paperwork is greater for the warning than for the cite.

This may not be the case here. But, it might be.

- Carl

It sure seems that you gentleman have a lot to worry about, and it's no easy job. This is why I respect police officers a great deal. With the one exception of the other night, all my run-ins with police have been "good". Good meaning that they were professional, courteous, and so forth. The ticket I got in Jersey, for example, I did not fight. I was speeding, he clocked me, I was guilty. Bottom line is I'm a person who likes to step up and answer for his mistakes, and also appreciates the kind of work police do, and the hardships they endure.

Well, my friend has decided to fight this citation for the missing bolt. She actually said she has a court date over this. I'm not sure if this is really worth fighting as I doubt it's any points or something, but I guess with her, it's the principle.

I'll post the results of the court case if/when I'm informed of them. I wish her luck I guess... all this over a bolt on a plate. I don't know... but I'm finding it amusing a little.

[lwpat]

The question I have is why was the stop made in the first place? You need a reason to stop a vehicle and I doubt that you could detect a missing license plate bolt unless the plate was askew. I also doubt that a missing bolt is grounds to initiate a stop if the plate is fully visable.

Could you post the statute cited on the ticket?

My suggestion would be to take a picture of the plate in its position without the bolt and then another to show it has been corrected. I can't imagine it not being dismissed by the judge but I have seen some strange things happen in traffic court.

Originally Posted by lwpat

The question I have is why was the stop made in the first place? You need a reason to stop a vehicle and I doubt that you could detect a missing license plate bolt unless the plate was askew.

Could you post the statute cited on the ticket?

I'll ask her for that information, and if perhaps there was another reason for the stop. Sure, I don't see why it's not possible that there would be some other reason she was stopped but the only thing the officer found citable was that missing bolt.

[James Young]

From New Jersey Permanent Statutes

Title 39:3-33. Markers; requirements concerning; display of fictitious or wrong numbers, etc.; punishment


39:3-33. The owner of an automobile which is driven on the public highways of this State shall display not less than 12 inches nor more than 48 inches from the ground in a horizontal position, and in such a way as not to swing, an identification mark or marks to be furnished by the division; provided, that if two marks are issued they shall be displayed on the front and rear of the vehicle; and provided, further, that if only one mark is issued it shall be displayed on the rear of the vehicle; and provided, further, that the rear identification mark may be displayed more than 48 inches from the ground on tank trucks, trailers and other commercial vehicles carrying inflammable liquids and on sanitation vehicles which are used to collect, transport and dispose of garbage, solid wastes and refuse. Motorcycles shall also display an identification mark or marks; provided, that if two marks are issued they shall be displayed on the front and rear of the motorcycle; and provided, further, that if only one mark is issued it shall be displayed on the rear of the motorcycle.

The identification mark or marks shall contain the number of the registration certificate of the vehicle and shall be of such design and material as prescribed pursuant to section 2 of P.L.1989, c.202 (C.39:3-33.9). All identification marks shall be kept clear and distinct and free from grease, dust or other blurring matter, so as to be plainly visible at all times of the day and night.

No person shall drive a motor vehicle which has a license plate frame or identification marker holder that conceals or otherwise obscures any part of any marking imprinted upon the vehicle's registration plate or any part of any insert which the director, as hereinafter provided, issues to be inserted in and attached to that registration plate or marker.

The director is authorized and empowered to issue registration plate inserts, to be inserted in and attached to the registration plates or markers described herein. They may be issued in the place of new registration plates or markers; and inscribed thereon, in numerals, shall be the year in which registration of the vehicle has been granted.

No person shall drive a motor vehicle the owner of which has not complied with the provisions of this subtitle concerning the proper registration and identification thereof, nor drive a motor vehicle which displays a fictitious number, or a number other than that designated for the motor vehicle in its registration certificate. During the period of time between the application for motor vehicle registration and the receipt of registration plates from the division, no person shall affix a plate or marker for the purpose of advertisement in the position on a motor vehicle normally reserved for the display of the registration plates required by this section if the plate or marker is designed with a combination of letters, numbers, colors, or words to resemble the registration plates required by this section.

A person convicted of displaying a fictitious number, as prohibited herein, shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $500.00 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 60 days.

A person violating any other provision of this section shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $100.00. In default of the payment thereof, there shall be imposed an imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding 10 days. A person convicted of a second offense of the same violation may be fined in double the amount herein prescribed for the first offense and may, in default of the payment thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding 20 days. These penalties shall not apply to the display of a fictitious number. [Emphasis in text added by JY]

Note that the statute does not require bolts or even any fasteners at all. It merely says the plate cannot swing. I suspect the cop was just trying to pick up the lady.