NJ Statute 39:3-74

[JakeTB16]

I am a NY driver. One day, while driving in NJ, I was issued two tickets. One, for going 40 in a 30mph zone, and another, for having a window mounted GPS unit, which apparently is in violation of NJ Statute 39:3-74.

The statute itself states:

Every motor vehicle having a windshield shall be equipped with at least one device in good working order for cleaning rain, snow or other moisture from the windshield so as to provide clear vision for the driver, and all such devices shall be so constructed and installed as to be operated or controlled by the driver.

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 other than a certificate or other article required to be so displayed by statute or by regulations of the commissioner.

No person shall drive any vehicle so constructed, equipped or loaded as to unduly interfere with the driver's vision to the front and to the sides.

Neither paragraph one, nor paragraph two of the statute apply, as the ticket is not for the absence of a windshield wiper, and there was never a non-transparent object upon my front windshield. The only object on my windshield was the transparent suction cup attached to the GPS unit.

The third paragraph is completely objective, as there is no way for an officer, without sitting in my seat, to judge whether or not the GPS unit does so "unduly interfere" with my vision. As it so happens, it does not.

What would be the best way to approach this? Take a picture of the front view at eye level, and argue that the unit does not unduly interfere with my vision? Or do you recommend another strategy?

All responses are greatly appreciated.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[patstew]

Neither paragraph one, nor paragraph two of the statute apply, as the ticket is not for the absence of a windshield wiper, and there was never a non-transparent object upon my front windshield. The only object on my windshield was the transparent suction cup attached to the GPS unit.

So... your GPS is transparent?

 

[JakeTB16]

So... your GPS is transparent?

Not what I'm arguing here. According to the Statute,

No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, sticker or other non-transparent material upon the front windshield...

There are four things upon my front windshield:

*Registration and Inspection stickers​

Exempt from this law due to

...other than a certificate or other article required to be so displayed by statute or by regulations of the commissioner.

*Rear view Mirror​

Obviously Exempt, although it could be argued that since there is no statute requiring the use of a rear view mirror, the mirror in itself could be considered an obstruction of view, and thus a violation of 39:3-74​

*GPS Unit​

What I was ticket for. The only thing connected to the front windshield though is the transparent suction cup attached to the GPS Unit. You could make the argument that vicariously the GPS unit in itself is attached to the wind sheild, but the simple fact is, it is not.​

*EZ Pass​

Although issued by the state, there is no statute specifically allowing the placement of an EZ Pass on the front wind shield. The pass is shipped with two pieces of transparent Velcro, and has instructions reading,

Adhere the tag inside your vehicle to the upper center portion of your windshield...

Once again, the argument could be made that the unit in itself is not connected to the wind shield, only the two pieces of transparent Velcro. But, if one considers the placement of a suction cup on the windshield illegal, they must consider the placement of Velcro illegal as well.​

I've also come across some interesting information. N.J.S.A. 39:3-74 was enacted in 1921 and last amended in 1937. Being so, this statute was enacted, and amended long before major technological advancements (for example, GPS) were produced, and later put into consumer electronics. Without foresight into how technology would create new "driving aids," N.J.S.A. 39:3-74 was written to ensure the safety of a now outdated society. As our society advances, so too must our laws, less they inhibit our development.

Take the Constitution for example. It was developed so it would always be a living document. Amendments can and have been added to it, as our society has developed through the years.

We cannot simply ignore the changes, and when laws like this interfere, they have to be re-examined, and new provisions must be made.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Once again, the argument could be made that the unit in itself is not connected to the wind shield, only the two pieces of transparent Velcro.

Remember any of this:

... Your knee bone connected to your thigh bone
Your thigh bone connected to your hip bone
Your hip bone connected to your back bone...​

It would be much easier to argue that your head is connected to your toe, that it would be to claim that it is not... And by the same token, it is much easier to argue that the GPS unit is mounted to the windshield than not.

You can argue your point in court, but chances are, you'll get a smirk from the judge as he/she says "Guilty"...

If your argument made any sense, then an officer can cite you because your car doesn't have properly mounted headlights or tail lights... the screws are mounted to the car but the headlights/tailights aren't.

 

[JakeTB16]

... Your knee bone connected to your thigh bone
Your thigh bone connected to your hip bone
Your hip bone connected to your back bone...​

It would be much easier to argue that your head is connected to your toe, that it would be to claim that it is not

But the song does not go, "the knee bone's connected to the, neck bone." And for good reason, it's not.

Your skin, bones, ligaments, etc. connect your knee to your neck, when looked at as an internal system. But when viewed from a physical standpoint, neither your knee and neck, nor the unit and windshield are in direct contact with each other.

It is true that the GPS unit is connected to the windshield, but as the statute states:

No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, sticker or other non-transparent material upon the front windshield.

The unit is not on the windshield, it is in front of it. The only thing on the windshield is the suction cup, which is transparent.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

But the song does not go, "the knee bone's connected to the, neck bone." And for good reason, it's not.

Your skin, bones, ligaments, etc. connect your knee to your neck, when looked at as an internal system. But when viewed from a physical standpoint, neither your knee and neck, nor the unit and windshield are in direct contact with each other.

It is true that the GPS unit is connected to the windshield, but as the statute states:

The unit is not on the windshield, it is in front of it. The only thing on the windshield is the suction cup, which is transparent.

OK, so you have your answers then... Good luck in court!

 

[You Are Guilty]

But the song does not go, "the knee bone's connected to the, neck bone." And for good reason, it's not.

Your skin, bones, ligaments, etc. connect your knee to your neck, when looked at as an internal system. But when viewed from a physical standpoint, neither your knee and neck, nor the unit and windshield are in direct contact with each other.

It is true that the GPS unit is connected to the windshield, but as the statute states:

The unit is not on the windshield, it is in front of it. The only thing on the windshield is the suction cup, which is transparent.

So by your "logic", as long as I use a clear suction cup to hang it from, I can place a piece of posterboard across my entire windshield and cannot be ticketed for doing so.

Let us know how it goes in court when you run your defense past the judge.

 

[JakeTB16]

So by your "logic", as long as I use a clear suction cup to hang it from, I can place a piece of posterboard across my entire windshield and cannot be ticketed for doing so.

Let us know how it goes in court when you run your defense past the judge.

Not at all. That would be in violation of the third paragraph of the statute, as the posterboard would undoubtedly "unduly interfere with the driver's vision."

 

[LSCAP]

With non-metal dashboards there is almost no where else the GPS can be put. I would definitely fight it. But add that it is safer in the lower left corner than anyplace else.

The cars that do have it built into the dashboard force you to take your eyes off the road to look at it.
So what you are doing, (the lower left corner) is safer.
And that the law was not intended to include items such as the GPS.

And that the GPS is safer than, say, wandering in the wrong lane looking for the place you have to turn, etc.

Quoting and arguing, and trying to explain why the law is wrong, is not the best way to fight a ticket.

 

[Maestro64]

With non-metal dashboards there is almost no where else the GPS can be put. I would definitely fight it. But add that it is safer in the lower left corner than anyplace else.

The cars that do have it built into the dashboard force you to take your eyes off the road to look at it.
So what you are doing, (the lower left corner) is safer.
And that the law was not intended to include items such as the GPS.

And that the GPS is safer than, say, wandering in the wrong lane looking for the place you have to turn, etc.

Quoting and arguing, and trying to explain why the law is wrong, is not the best way to fight a ticket.

I agree, do not argue why the law was wrong, can not win that battle, however, you can argue the intent of the law, when the law was written GPS and Easy Passes did not exist so the law was not written to preclude them. To that point tickets are not written because of a review mirror or the Easy Passes units so it can be conclude a GSP was not precluded as well.

I also agree the unit should be mounted lower left, I mount mine there right on top of the inspection stickers, but I live in PA and PA only precludes you from placing things in the particular viewing area not the entire windshield, a much better written law since it takes into consideration things that the law writers might not have foreseen 50 years ago.

lastly, we live in a country will laws preclude you from doing something not written to allow you to do things like in China. In this case if it does not preclude the rear view mirror or an easy pass then a GPS is not preclude either only what is specifically called out in the law.

Face it NJ police are well known for ticketing out of state drivers and they need the money to pay their bills.

 

[JakeTB16]

Thanks guys, great advice. Never having been to court myself, I figured arguing the law was the best approach, but now I can see how arguing intent can be much easier. Thanks again!

Just a quick question.... Say I win in court, the law itself will not necessarily change, correct? Only case law resulting from the decision would change, and thus legal practice regarding the law. If this is the case, tickets could still be issued for this if I continue to drive with a windshield mounted GPS unit in New Jersey, and I would have to go back to court and re contest every ticket.

Like I said, I've never actually been in court, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but is the above true?

Thanks again for all your help guys. Positive and negative comments are all appreciated. Different views on this are what's going to help me (hopefully) win this case!

 

[LSCAP]

If you fight it and win, I doubt that you will have the problem again.

I think the officer was testing the water. Or believes that it is an easy ticket and no one would fight it. Or that he “discovered” an easy ticket.

AND NOT ALL COPS KNOW ALL THE LAWS.

 

[JakeTB16]

Thanks for all your help!

Court date's set for tomorrow, we'll see how it goes...

 

[jhoetzl]

And beyond that "illegal" mount...

NJ legislator: Don’t touch that GPS | GPS Tracklog or

NJ bill would ban the use of non-hands-free GPS devices while driving

Ahhh, life in NJ...

 

[JakeTB16]

Case Dismissed

Once again, thanks for all your advice everybody! Unfortunately (or fortunately, I'm not quite sure) the case was dismissed before litigation. Even though I never got to argue my case, and perhaps change this asinine law, at least I didn't have to pay the fine.

Again, thank you for your input. Maybe someday, somebody will be issued the same ticket, and while researching a way to get out of it they'll stumble across this thread. Looking back on it, all the knowledge and insight you guys presented can be a great help to anybody.

Thanks again,
-JakeTB16