NJ Appellate Division in held in State v Lutz 309 N.J. Super. 317 (App. Div. 1998) that merely because an accident took place a driver does not been the driver is guilty of careless driving.

Careless driving requires the State to provide the vehicle was operated by the defendant carelessly or without due caution and circumspection, in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a person or property

       The NJ Appellate Division in held in State v Lutz 309 N.J. Super. 317 (App. Div. 1998) that merely because an accident took place a driver does not been the driver is guilty of careless driving. The court wrote:

       "Finally, we find merit in defendant's contention that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of careless driving. We agree that the proofs established essentially that defendant was involved in an accident which happened in the opposite lane of travel. In finding defendant guilty of careless driving, the Law Division judge stated:  

"The defendant quite clearly operated his vehicle carelessly, failed to exercise appropriate caution in the prevailing circumstances, and endangered both the persons in the other vehicle. These conclusory remarks, however, were insufficient to establish a careless driving violation. ( It appears that both the Municipal Court judge and the Law Division judge applied a res ipsa loquitur analysis in finding defendant guilty of careless driving. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, however, has no application in the determination of careless driving due to the quasi-criminal nature of the proceeding in which the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the offense. See State v. Wenzel, 113 N.J. Super., 215, 216-18 (App. Div. 1971)(the mere fact of an "otherwise unexplained jackknifing" where a tractor-trailer entering a construction area had jackknifed on the wet roadway, crossed into the opposite lane and broadsided another truck fatally injuring the truck's driver, did not establish that the defendant had been driving carelessly. The carelesss driving statute provides:   [a] person who drives a vehicle on a highway 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.

        [N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.]

       Here, other than the accident itself, the State only presented defendant's statement that his vehicle began to slide on the wet highway and continued to do so when he tapped his brakes. Moreover, his apology was not an admission to driving carelessly, but merely a statement that his car had slid on the wet pavement. The State presented no evidence indicating that defendant had been speeding, driving too fast for the wet road conditions, distracted or otherwise driving without due caution and circumspection. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for careless driving, and we reverse that conviction." State v Lutz, supra

      In State v. Wenzel, 113 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 1971) defendant was charged with careless driving when his tractor-trailer jackknifed and struck another trailer. The State's only witness did not see the accident. There was no evidence defendant was speeding or that he drove without due caution or circumspection. However, both the municipal and county courts determined that an otherwise unexplained jackknifing was indicative of careless driving. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the res ipsa doctrine employed by the lower courts had no place in a quasi-criminal action for careless driving. The rationale of the Wenzel decision applies to this case.

      

See also State v Roenicke 174 N.J. Super. 513 (Law Div 1980)

       Defendant was involved in a one-car accident which was not observed by the trooper or any other witness. The State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove in a reckless manner.  Defendant cannot be found guilty of reckless driving, and his conviction is set aside.

  

S385 ScsSca (SCS/1R) Revises penalty provisions for certain drunk driving violations, including use of and applicable time periods covering driver's license suspensions and installations of ignition interlock devices on motor vehicles.

S385 ScsSca (SCS/1R)   Revises penalty provisions for certain drunk driving violations, including use of and applicable time periods covering driver's license suspensions and installations of ignition interlock devices on motor vehicles.

SENATE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

STATEMENT TO 

SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

SENATE, No. 385

with committee amendments

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

DATED:  OCTOBER 27, 2014

      The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee reports favorably, Senate Bill No. 385 (SCS), with committee amendments.

      As amended, this bill revises the penalty provisions for various drunk driving offenses, particularly making changes concerning the use of, and applicable time periods covering, driver’s license suspensions and installations of ignition interlock devices on motor vehicles owned or operated by these drivers.

      Drunk Driving

      Concerning the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (R.S.39:50-4), the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:

      For a first offense, if that offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10%, or otherwise operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for three months, unless the court was clearly convinced, based on a series of aggravating factors outweighing mitigating ones as set forth in the bill, to instead order a license suspension of three months (the three month suspension would also apply instead of device installation if the person did not own or lease a motor vehicle and there was no motor vehicle the person principally operated).  

      The aggravating and mitigating factors for consideration by the court to order a license suspension instead of device installation would include, but not be limited to: the nature and circumstances of the person’s conduct, including whether such conduct posed a high risk of danger to the public; the person’s driving record; whether the character and attitude of the person indicate that the person would be likely or unlikely to commit another violation; and the need for personal or general deterrence.

      If the court did order the installation of the ignition interlock device, the person’s driver’s license would only be reinstated within the 10-day suspension/device installation period by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and the commission would imprint a notation concerning driving with the device on the person’s driver’s license.

      Additionally, for a person with an ignition interlock device installed, the three-month installation period would be subject to possible extension for an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period, for attempting to operate the affected motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher during the last one-third of the installation period, or for failing to present the affected vehicle for device servicing at any time during the installation period.  This extension would occur without need of further court order, following notification of the event to the court by the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission, which notification would be supported by a certification from the ignition interlock device manufacturer, installer, or other party set forth in regulation responsible for the servicing or monitoring of the device.

      If the first offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or higher but less than 0.15%, the court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for not less than seven months or more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, based on the series of aggravating factors outweighing the mitigating ones as described above, to instead order a license suspension of not less than seven months or more than one year (the seven month to one year suspension would also apply instead of device installation if the person did not own or lease a motor vehicle and there was no motor vehicle the person principally operated).  As above, if the person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the person could only reinstate the person’s driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described.

      If the first offense involved a person’s blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% or higher, the court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, and maintain installation of the device during a period of license suspension of not less than seven months or more than one year and after license suspension for an additional period of not less than seven months or more than one year, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.

      With respect to the license suspension of a person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% or higher, the person would have the opportunity, beginning 90 days after the start of the suspension, to petition the court to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the initially ordered suspension period, subject to the person maintaining the installation of the ignition interlock device in the person’s motor vehicle both for the remainder of the initially ordered suspension period and afterward for the additional seven-month to one-year period.  Additionally, a person whose driving privileges were suspended for an additional period because the person does not own or lease a motor vehicle and there is no motor vehicle the person principally operates, may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or principally operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the initial and additional suspension period, subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.  As above, a person ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described. 

      If the offense involved a “drugged” driver (i.e., operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit-producing drug), the court would order a license suspension of not less than seven months or more than one year, with no option to instead operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device installed.

      For any such first offense of drunk or “drugged” driving occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other first offenses.

      For a second offense, the bill increases, for all drunk and “drugged” drivers, the period of license suspension from the current law’s two years to instead a period of not less than two years or more than four years.  The court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the two to four year suspension period, and to remain installed afterward for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.

      With respect to a second offender’s license suspension, a person who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three year suspension period (not the initial two to four year period), subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle. 

      As above for any first offender, a person who is a second offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described for a first offender.     

      For a second offense occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other second offenses.

      For a third or subsequent offense, the bill increases, for all drunk and “drugged” drivers, the period of license suspension from the current law’s 10 years to instead a period of not less than 10 years or more than 20 years.  The court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year suspension period, and to remain installed afterwards for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.

      With respect to a third or subsequent offender’s license suspension, a person who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three year suspension period (not the initial 10 to 20 year period), subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle. 

      As above for both first and second offenders, a person who is a third or subsequent offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described for first and second offenders.

      For a third or subsequent offense occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other third or subsequent offenses.

      Refusing a Breath Test

      Concerning the offense of refusing to submit to a breath test (section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a)), the bill revises the relevant penalty provisions as follows:

      For a first offense, the court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for not less than seven months or more than one year, unless the court was clearly convinced, based on the series of aggravating factors outweighing the mitigating ones as described above for drunk driving offenses, to instead order a license suspension of not less than seven months or more than one year (the seven month to one year suspension would also apply instead of device installation if the person did not own or lease a motor vehicle and there was no motor vehicle the person principally operated). As above with respect to drunk driving offenses, if the person was ordered to install an ignition interlock device, the person could only reinstate the person’s driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described.

      For any first offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other first offenses.

      For a second offense, the bill increases the period of license suspension from the current two years to instead a period of not less than two years or more than four years.  The court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the two to four year suspension period and remain installed afterward for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.  

      A person who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three year suspension period (not the initial two to four year period), subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.  

      As above with respect to any drunk driving offense, a person who is a second offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described for a drunk driving offense.     

      For a second offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other second offenses.

      For a third or subsequent offense, the bill increases the period of license suspension from the current 10 years to instead a period of not less than 10 years or more than 20 years.  The court would order a 10-day license suspension, during which the person would have to install an ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle owned, leased, or operated by the person to be maintained during the 10 to 20 year suspension period, and to remain installed afterwards for a period of not less than one year or more than three years, unless there was no such vehicle, in which case the person would receive an initial period of suspension plus an additional period of suspension equal to the total period the person would have had an ignition interlock device installed.

      A third or subsequent offender who does not own or lease a motor vehicle or have a motor vehicle the person operates may petition the court that established the forfeiture period, upon proof of owning, leasing, or operating a motor vehicle, to reinstate the person’s driving privileges for the duration of the additional one to three year suspension period (not the initial 10 to 20 year period), subject to the person maintaining the installation of an ignition interlock device in that vehicle.  

      As above with respect to any drunk driving offense, a person who is a third or subsequent offender ordered to install an ignition interlock device could only reinstate a driver’s license through the Motor Vehicle Commission upon showing proof of such installation, and could have the installation period extended by an additional period equal to one-third of the originally designated period in the same manner as previously described for a drunk driving offense.

      For a third or subsequent offense of refusing a breath test occurring on or near a school property or crossing, the bill would eliminate any enhanced penalties currently available under the law and instead treat such an offense the same as all other third or subsequent offenses.

      Ignition Interlock Device Installation – License Reinstatement

      With respect to all cases for which a person has been ordered to install one or more ignition interlock devices, the court would notify the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission.  The commission would thereafter require that the one or more devices be installed before the reinstatement of the person’s driver’s license, whether after a 10-day suspension period or some longer period as applicable to the specific offense.  The commission would imprint a notation on the reinstated driver’s license stating that the person could not operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with an ignition interlock device, and would enter this requirement in the person's driving record.

      Ignition Interlock Device – Failure to Install, Tampering

      Lastly, a person who fails to install an ignition interlock device as ordered by a court, or who drives a device-equipped vehicle after being started by means other than the person blowing into the device, or who drives an unequipped vehicle, would be guilty of a disorderly persons offense.  A disorderly persons offense is ordinarily punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.  Furthermore, the court would suspend the person’s driver’s license for the period of time associated with a drunk driving offense under R.S.39:4-50, except that the applicable period applied by the court would be the period for a second offense (not less than two years or more than four years) if the underlying act was committed by a first offender drunk driver/breath test refusal, and would be the period for a third or subsequent offense (not less than 10 years or more than 20 years) if the underlying act was committed by a second offender drunk driver/breath test refusal; the suspension period for a third or subsequent offender drunk driver/breath test refusal would not be enhanced (remaining not less than 10 years or more than 20 years).

      This bill, as amended and reported, is identical to Assembly Bill No. 1368 (ACS/1R), also reported by the committee today.  Please note the bills are considered identical even though the Assembly bill was not amended to incorporate provisions of the relevant drunk driving statute, R.S.39:4-50, updated by the enactment of P.L.2014, c.54 on September 10, 2014 (which in relevant part increases a drunk driving offense surcharge to, in part, help fund the installation of mobile video recording systems on municipal police vehicles); only this bill, being amended to match the Assembly bill, incorporated the update.  Such a statutory update alone is considered technical in nature and absent any further substantive amendments to the Assembly bill by the Legislature, at which point this technical update would be incorporated, the update can occur after the Legislature’s passage of that bill pursuant to the authority of the Office of Legislative Services’ Legislative Counsel to make such corrections, as concurred to by the Attorney General.  See R.S.1:3-1.

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS:

      The committee amendments to the bill:

      - provide, for all of the relevant drunk driving and breath test refusal offenses described above, a 10-day license suspension period, during which an offender would have to install an ignition interlock device in the one or more motor vehicles required by the bill’s provisions;

      - clarify the device installation requirements for repeat offenders, so that an ignition interlock device would have to be installed in all motor vehicles operated by such offenders (along with all vehicles owned or leased), not just those vehicles “principally” operated by such offenders;

      - add provisions to further explain the available penalties for offenders who are required to install ignition interlock devices versus those offenders who face license suspension because they do not have a motor vehicle in which a device would be installed, as detailed above; 

      - update the existing law concerning the procedure to be followed by drunk driving and breath test refusal offenders who are seeking the reinstatement of their driver’s licenses through the Motor Vehicle Commission;

      - update provisions of the relevant drunk driving statute, R.S.39:4-50, to account for the enactment of P.L.2014, c.54 on September 10, 2014, providing a $25 increase to the surcharge assessed against drunk driving violators ($100 to $125) in order to, in part, help fund the installation of mobile video recording systems on municipal police vehicles as required by that act;

      - reinsert provisions concerning the currently operating supervised visitation program for convicted offenders, providing visits to hospitals which receive drunk driving victims, facilities caring for advanced alcoholics or drug abusers, and public morgues or county medical examiner offices holding deceased victims; the provisions were inadvertently marked for deletion by the underlying bill (see R.S.39:4-50, subsection (h)); and

      - reinsert the penalty provisions for offenders who fail to install ignition interlock devices, tamper with devices, or operate unequipped vehicles, as detailed above, which were included in the bill as introduced but inadvertently left out of the underlying bill. 

FISCAL IMPACT:

      The Office of Legislative Services expects the State to incur certain additional but indeterminable costs as a result of this bill.  These costs are related to the possible redesign and associated processing of a license that is capable of accommodating a notation on a reinstated driver’s license that indicates a person is not authorized to operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with an ignition interlock device.  The costs are also related to the court time that may be necessary to process these cases and to adjudicate additional cases that may arise from the failure to install or maintain, or from tampering with, ignition interlock devices that have been ordered to be installed by the court.

Points in Motor Vehicle Violations In NJ

        Points in Motor Vehicle Violations

       Motor vehicle violations and criminal charges can cost you.  If you plead guilty by mail or in court for almost all traffic tickets, you will have to pay fines in court and will later receive points on your driver’s license. Both the DMV/MVC and your car insurance company will impose surcharges and eligibility points for three years.

                   

Compiled by  the Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen

N.J.A.C. 13:-10.1 Point Assessment

         Any person who is convicted of any of the following offenses, including offenses committed while operating a motorized bicycle, shall be assessed points for each conviction in accordance with the following schedule:

N.J.S.A. Statutory Violation             Description                                                      Points                                                                                                                                                                 

39:4-14.3   Operating motorized bicycle on restricted highway                         2

39:4-14.3d  More than 1 person on a motorized bicycle.                                     2

39:4-35      Failure to yield to pedestrian in crosswalk.                                    2

39:4-36      Failure to yield to pedestrian or passing a vehicle yielding to

                    pedestrian in crosswalk                                                                 2

39:4-41      Driving through safety zone.                                                            2

39:4-52,     Racing on Highway                                                                           5

39:4-55      Improper action or omission on grades and curves                          2

39:4-57      Failure to observe directions of officer.                                         2

39:4-66      Failure to stop before crossing sidewalk                                        2

39:4-66.1   Failure to yield to pedestrians or vehicles while entering or

                    leaving highway                                                                             2

39:4-66.2   Driving on private property to avoid traffic signal or stop sign      2

39:4-71      Improper driving on sidewalk                                                          2

39:4-80      Failure to obey direction of officer                                                 2

39:4-81      Failure to observe traffic signal                                                     2

39:4-82      Failure to keep right                                                                        2

39:4-82.1   Improper operating of vehicle on divided highway or divider           2

39:4-83      Failure to keep right at intersection                                               2

39:4-84      Failure to pass right of vehicle proceeding in opposite direction    5

39:4-85      Improper passing on right or off roadway                                        4

39:4-85.1   Wrong way on one-way street                                                          2

39:4-86      Improper passing, in "No Passing" zone                                            4

39:4-87      Failure to yield to overtake vehicle                                                 2

39:4-88      Failure to observe traffic lanes                                                       2

39:4-89      Tailgating                                                                                        5

39:4-90      Failure to yield at intersection                                                        2

39:4-90.1   Failure to use proper entrances to limited access highway              2

39:4-91,     Failure to yield to emergency vehicle                                              2

39:4-96       Reckless driving                                                                          5

39:4-97      Careless driving                                                                               2

39:4-97a    Destruction of agricultural or recreational property                        2

39:4-97.1   Slow speed blocking traffic                                                             2

39:4-98 or  Speeding up to 14 mph above limit                                             2                                             

39:4-99      Speeding 15-29 mph above limit                                                      4

                   Speeding 30 mph or more above limit                                              5

39:4-105    Failure to stop at traffic light                                                         2

39:4-115    Improper turn at traffic light                                                          3

39:4-119    Failure to stop at flashing red signal                                               2

39:4-122    Failure to stop for police whistle                                                    2

39:4-123    Improper right or left turn                                                               3

39:4-124    Improper turn: from approved turning course                                   3

39:4-125    Improper u-turn                                                                               3

39:4-126    Failure to give proper signal                                                            2

39:4-127    Improper backing or turn in street                                                   2

39:4-127.1 Improper crossing of railroad grade crossing                                     2     239:4-127.2 Improper crossing of bridge                                 2         39:4-128    Improper crossing of railroad grade                           2

39:4-128.1 Improper passing of school bus                                                        5

39:4-128.4 Improper passing of frozen dessert truck                                        4

39:4-129    Leaving scene of accident- No injuries                                            2

39:4-129    Personal Injury                                                                                8

39:4-144    Failure to observe of stop or yield signs                                         2

39:5D-4      Moving violation out-of-state                                                          2

27:23-29    Moving against traffic-NJ Turnpike., Garden State Pkwy. and

                   Atlantic City Expressway                                                                2

27:23-29    Improper passing-NJ Tpke., Garden State Pkwy. and Atlantic City

                    Expressway                                                                                    4

27:23-29    Unlawful use of median strip-NJ Tpke., Garden State Pkwy. and

                   Atlantic City Expressway                                                                2

39:3-20      Operating Constructor vehicle in excess of 30 mph                         3

         DWI, Driving While Suspended, No insurance, unlicensed driver and other violations also have both MVC/DMV surcharges and car insurance surcharges/ increases. More details at www.njlaws.com