NJ 39:3-29B Failure to possess driver registration

[TrafficGuy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey

I was driving down the highway when a state trooper pulled me over and accused me of doing 77 in a 55. I very clearly denied his accusation (I had set my cruise control to 55 several miles before reaching him) and stated that the GPS in my cellphone, my girlfriend's cellphone (she was in the car with me), and the GPS for the navigation system would all corroborate. He seemed slightly shocked and concerned at how firmly I stated the information and demanded my documents (DL, registration, and insurance). I couldn't find my registration card which I thought odd because I take particular care to make sure I have all the needed documents. The officer returned to his car and I had found the registration (it had become attached to the back of another document in my center console). I held it out my window and called multiple times to the officer but he didn't return for the registration card. I considered getting out to give it to him but from my understanding they are trained to take that as a threat to their safety. He returned to my car at which point I made sure to show him I did indeed have my registration. He handed me a ticket for $180 and stated "It's on demand" and that if I didn't want to pay the "small fine, you could go to court".

So my two questions are:

1) The ticket was for $180, but the statue specifically states "Any person violating this section shall be subject to a fine of $150, of which $25 shall be deposited in the Uninsured Motorist Prevention Fund established by section 2 of P.L.1983, c.141 (C.39:6B-3)". Where did he get the $180 figure from?

2) I can more than likely get the fine dismissed since both the officer and my girlfriend could testify I had the registration at the time. The issue is I would have to take an unpaid day off work, wait at the courthouse, get the fine dismissed, and still have to pay the court costs. Is there a way to have the prosecutor completely drop the case and not have to pay any court costs either?

We are all adults and can admit that just because quotas are illegal doesn't mean they don't exist. I honestly felt harassed and extorted by this interaction. I'm quite sure if he thought I was actually doing 22mph over the speed limit I would have been the recipient of a speeding ticket. Also to support the quota theory, I was returning the other way and literally within 7 minutes the officer had pulled over another individual. I'm not a police officer, but if I was attempting to fill a quota that didn't exist I would attempt to do it all at once too. Something else I'm curious about is that between the time the officer turned around from the other side of the highway and pulled me over, he definitely lost sight of my vehicle because it was around a curve and also there was merging traffic. What are the restrictions for losing sight of a vehicle? Thanks in advance for the helpful information!

 

[FlyingRon]

Cases are not adjudicated on the side of the road. Your assertion you weren't speeding means nothing there (and likely nothing in court either).

Anyhow, the officer was indeed a jerk, but you are required to show it on demand. He's not obliged to hang around until you dig it out from wherever you lost it.

Best bet at this point is go to court with the registration and tell your story. The judge has leeway to throw this out (and frequently will even if you had never found it but you did have the car registered).

 

[TrafficGuy]

Nj 39:3-29B

Thanks for the quick response! As you mentioned, "Cases are not adjudicated on the side of the road. Your assertion you weren't speeding means nothing there (and likely nothing in court either)"; I completely agree with you. The reason I brought it up was because if needed I would been able to subpoena three separate sets of GPS records to indicate I wasn't speeding (each one is a different carrier). However, because the ticket isn't for speeding I don't see any need to subpoena those records. If I was an officer looking to fill a quota that doesn't exist and the driver had told me there was no way he was speeding and could prove it, I would look for something else to write a ticket on too. The time between me finding it and the officer walking away was no more than 15-20 seconds and the entire stop was less than 5 minutes. As you suggested, I plan to go to the court with documents, etc and contest it. Thanks for your input!

 

[Zigner]

...f needed I would been able to subpoena three separate sets of GPS records to indicate I wasn't speeding (each one is a different carrier).

What makes you think that information is stored somewhere?

 

[HighwayMan]

What makes you think that information is stored somewhere?

And what makes him think that the court would automatically assume that his GPS receivers are accurate and functioning correctly?

 

[HighwayMan]

He seemed slightly shocked and concerned at how firmly I stated the information...

Ridiculous and irrelevant.

1) The ticket was for $180, but the statue specifically states "Any person violating this section shall be subject to a fine of $150, of which $25 shall be deposited in the Uninsured Motorist Prevention Fund established by section 2 of P.L.1983, c.141 (C.39:6B-3)". Where did he get the $180 figure from?

Perhaps "Fine of $150 plus court costs." explains it.

2) I can more than likely get the fine dismissed since both the officer and my girlfriend could testify I had the registration at the time.

No you can't. Read the statute:

If a person charged with a violation of this section can exhibit his driver's license, insurance identification card and registration certificate, which were valid on the day he was charged, to the judge of the municipal court before whom he is summoned to answer to the charge, such judge may dismiss the charge.


It does say "may" not "shall" and no testimonial evidence is required.

Is there a way to have the prosecutor completely drop the case and not have to pay any court costs either?

See above - the prosecutor does not "drop" anything. The judge MAY dismiss the charge.

We are all adults and can admit that just because quotas are illegal doesn't mean they don't exist. I honestly felt harassed and extorted by this interaction

Poor baby. You failed to produce your required document. It gets kind of tiring waiting and waiting for people to produce their documents.

I'm quite sure if he thought I was actually doing 22mph over the speed limit I would have been the recipient of a speeding ticket.

Then you'd be wrong.

Also to support the quota theory, I was returning the other way and literally within 7 minutes the officer had pulled over another individual.

You just can't get away from this "quota" thing, can you? If the officer was out there doing traffic enforcement then of course he'll be stopping alot of cars - there are many violators out there (MANY) and some officers actually enjoy working.

What are the restrictions for losing sight of a vehicle?

There are none. It's up to the officer to articulate the facts if necessary in court. Maybe there was a slight doubt in his mind and THAT'S why you didn't get the speeding ticket.

 

[TrafficGuy]

To answer both questions succinctly, Triangulation. For those who don't know what triangulation is, your wireless service provider regardless of who they are or if they use the GSM/CDMA standard must locate your device's location in order to provide you service (and by extension also collect the direction and speed the device is moving). Triangulation uses the position of the device relative to the angle of three towers in order to determine a location within a few feet. If you were able to pass by a wifi network it could be reduced to within inches or the exact location itself.
In technical terms, locating a device via radio signals would be called localization by multilateration, triangulation is using angles between known points, and GPS would be using satellites, but since everyone is more familiar with the term GPS, that's what I opted for.

Every carrier's tower is required to keep logs of any device that is communicating with it or attempting to communicate with it. The court would actually be viewing records from the carriers of the time it took a signal to reach each tower (position and distance determined mathematically), so as long as the device is transmitting a radio signal there isn't much room for error.

I posted the questions with as much information as possible so that I could receive the most informed responses from individuals who are lawyers, judges, etc or from those who simply have more experience than I do. I didn't plan to subpoena the records because it's not for a speeding ticket and no one has made any mention of thinking otherwise. FlyingRon has given me the most accurate responses to his interpretation of the situation so far. Do either of you (Zigner or HighwayMan) have any thoughts on the importance of me requesting these records, or were you just curious as to how I knew the records were available? Again, I'm asking because you are both members who have plenty of posts on these forums and so I assume have valuable input. Thanks again!

HighwayMan: I saw your new post as I was writing this. First, thank you for the information even though you're quite patronizing about it, your honest thoughts are much appreciated even if delivered in an unsavory way. Again, thanks for taking the statements point by point. I'm going to assume you're an officer judging by your mo****r and the positions you've taken in this and other threads.

 

[TrafficGuy]

Hahaha the word in this sentence "I'm going to assume you're an officer judging by your mo****r" is M-O-N-I-K-E-R

 

[Zigner]

You weren't cited for speeding, so it's absolutely irrelevant.

Even if it were, what makes you think a record of that information is stored?

 

[TrafficGuy]

Zigner: These particular records are required to be kept because of standard data retention laws most people are unaware of. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) are typically good places to learn more. If you want to read much more about the many other things that are actually being collected, feel free to pursue the WikiLeaks documents for an in-depth look on everything the government is creepily collecting.

Two corporate really creepy examples would be if you've ever used google maps and didn't explicitly turn off location logging, you can see everywhere you've ever been while using them. I believe the full name for it is "Google Maps Timeline Feature".

Target (the company) particularly targets pregnant woman because their shopping habits are the most likely to change during this period and they can be turned into "loyal" customers.

I don't ever expect anything to be taken at face value so feel free to research what I just mentioned on your own.

Thanks for your comment on the irrelevancy.

 

[Zigner]

Zigner: These particular records are required to be kept because of standard data retention laws most people are unaware of. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) are typically good places to learn more. If you want to read much more about the many other things that are actually being collected, feel free to pursue the WikiLeaks documents for an in-depth look on everything the government is creepily collecting.

Two corporate really creepy examples would be if you've ever used google maps and didn't explicitly turn off location logging, you can see everywhere you've ever been while using them. I believe the full name for it is "Google Maps Timeline Feature".

Target (the company) particularly targets pregnant woman because their shopping habits are the most likely to change during this period and they can be turned into "loyal" customers.

I don't ever expect anything to be taken at face value so feel free to research what I just mentioned on your own.

Thanks for your comment on the irrelevancy.

What makes you think cell phone triangulation is precise enough to measure your speed accurately (even if it were relevant and even if you were successful in obtaining the information)?

 

[TrafficGuy]

With a single set of inputs, you would only get a single point (e.g. my car is at X).

However, in order for excellent service to be provided this signal is typically transmitted from your device multiple times a second so that the carrier has accurate updated information.

With multiple inputs, (my car was at X, now Y, now Z) you can determine distance between each point and you also have the time value between each point (X was taken at this time and Y was taken a second later, and so on). Using distance and time you can calculate speed. This would be average speed but because the time frame is so small it can be accurately calculated. You could also find acceleration/velocity, etc. Basically this is high school physics no one thought they would ever use.

Maybe we should start teaching this example instead?

 

[Zigner]

With a single set of inputs, you would only get a single point (e.g. my car is at X).

However, in order for excellent service to be provided this signal is typically transmitted from your device multiple times a second so that the carrier has accurate updated information.

With multiple inputs, (my car was at X, now Y, now Z) you can determine distance between each point and you also have the time value between each point (X was taken at this time and Y was taken a second later, and so on). Using distance and time you can calculate speed. This would be average speed but because the time frame is so small it can be accurately calculated. You could also find acceleration/velocity, etc. Basically this is high school physics no one thought they would ever use.

Maybe we should start teaching this example instead?

In other words, you have no way to prove the accuracy of your theory.

 

[TrafficGuy]

Please explain?

 

[Zigner]

You have no way of proving the accuracy or even the legitimacy of your theory. You have no access to the equipment that you are relying on for the signal, nor do you have access to the various maintenance records, etc. Then comes the precise measurement of distance from your car to the towers, etc.

This is pointless because you won't even take a moment to consider that you may be wrong. Because of the fact that it's irrelevant, I'm done.