Handicapped Parking Ticket

NEW JERSEY HANDICAPPED PARKING LAWS
-Prohibit parking motor vehicles in handicapped spaces without a special vehicle identification card; mandate initial and subsequent fines of $250 each and up to 90 days of community services (C.39:4-197.(3)c).
- Authorize municipalities to establish handicapped spaces in front of residences, schools, hospitals, public buildings, and in shopping and business districts (C.39:4-197.5).
Municipalities may establish accessible spaces in front of residences, schools, hospitals, public buildings, and in shopping and business districts. (C.39:4-197.5)
- Municipalities may establish accessible parking zones in front of residences occupied by people with disabilities, unless such parking interferes with the normal flow of traffic. (C.39:4-197.6)
-Enable enforcement officers to enforce handicapped parking laws on both public and private property (C.39:4-138.o).
-Authorize municipalities to set up parking enforcement units that concentrate on shopping centers and malls (C.39.4-197.9).
- Authorize eligible people with disabilities to request law enforcement officers to arrange for the removal and storage of motor vehicles unlawfully parked in handicapped parking spaces or zones (C.39:4-207.7).Temporary Placards (see Fig. 3) can be granted for short-term mobility impairments. Written medical certification from a qualified practitioner is required. Temporary Placards are valid for six months, are renewable one time at the discretion of the issuing authority, and are issued by the chief of Police of each municipality. (C.39:4-206)
• Parking motor vehicles in accessible spaces without special vehicle identification is prohibited and punishable with an initial fine of $250 and subsequent fines of at least $250 and up to 90 days of community service. (C.39:4-197(3)c)
• Law enforcement officers may enforce accessible parking laws on both public and private property. (C.39:4-138.o)
• Municipalities may set up parking enforcement units that concentrate on shopping centers and malls. (C.39.4-197.9)
• Eligible individuals with a disability may request law enforcement officers to arrange for the removal and storage of motor vehicles unlawfully parked in accessible parking spaces or zones. (C.39:4- 207.7)
• Access to parking spaces, curb cuts, or other improvements designed to provide accessibility, shall be unobstructed. Owners or controllers of public parking areas must remove snow or ice from these areas within 24 hours after the weather condition causing the snow and/or ice ceases. Violation of this act is punishable with penalties of $500 to $1,000. (C.394:4-207.9)**
RKING IN NEW JERSEY
NJ Statutes outline the following:
• Every application for the issuance or renewal of a “person with a disability identification card”  required every three years, must include medical certification from a qualified practitioner that the qualifying disability continues to exist. (C.39:4-205)
• The “Person with a Disability Identification Card” must be in the vehicle or with the qualified person at all times as proof of disability. This card is for the sole use of the individual with a disability and is non—transferable. Abuse or misuse of this privilege will be cause for immediate revocation of the ID card, placard and plates and fines of at least $250.00. (C.39:4-205)
• Permanent Placards are required to be renewed every three years and will clearly display the date on which they shall become invalid. (C.39:4-206)

Speeding ticket defense in NJ

More info at http://www.njlaws.com/speeding_and_radar.htm
Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents persons charged with speeding more than 15 miles over the speed limit an other serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey.

It is well established that the prosecution of a defendant for a motor vehicle violation is a quasi-criminal proceeding. In such a proceeding the burden of proof is upon the state to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

In every charge of a speeding violation, the complaint or summons must specify (l) the speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven, (2) the speed which is prima facie unlawful, and (3) the time and place of the alleged violation.

A sign showing a speed limit is merely notice of the law or an ordinance or regulation prohibiting a greater speed. The sign itself does not set the speed limit. There can be no conviction for violation of the edict of a posted sign, but only for violation of the statute, ordinance, or regulation having the force of law. There are many unauthorized signs in the state which may serve as a warning but have no effect in creating an offense. Radar

Speed-measuring radar in various forms has been accepted since State v. Dantonio, l8 N.J. 570 (l955), where the N.J. Supreme Court held it is not essential that the court determine the precise speed at which the vehicle was being operated when the alleged offense occurred, and that the operator of the vehicle must be adjudged guilty if the evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the drive exceeded the statutory speed limit.

It is not necessary for the trial court to make a particular finding as to the precise speed in excess of the speed limit at which the defendant was traveling at the time of the violation. State v. Bookbinder, 82 N.J. Super. l79, l83 (App. Div. l964).

However, if the defendant is found guilty, the trial court should determine the quantum of excess was so many miles per hour in exercising its discretion as to the penalty to be imposed within the statutory limitation. The precise speed a motorist was traveling thus is material only on the question as to the penalty to be imposed, not on the question of guilt or innocence.

State v. Readding, l69 N.J. Super. 238 (Law Div. l978), restated the general rule that in order for the radar speedometer reading to be admissible into evidence, it should be established that: (l) the device is scientifically reliable; (2) the particular speedometer used in the case being tried is accurate; (3) the operator is qualified; and (4) the device was operated properly in the case being tried. How Radar Operates

In State v. Wojtkowiak, l70 N.J. Super. 44 (Law Div. l979), revd on other grounds, l74 N.J. Super. 460, Judge Wells examined in detail the K-55 Radar, and his conclusions were incorporated by the Appellate Division. This case should be read and reread for a detailed explanation of Radar by a Court.

The traffic radar method speed detection measurement depends upon the Doppler effect. Simply stated a radio wave which strikes a moving object is reflected from that object at different frequency from that of the incident wave. A radar which transmits waves and receives reflected waves can determine their frequency difference and calculate the speed of the object which produced the reflective wave.

Courts have accepted as scientifically reliable MPH Industries K-55 Traffic Radar -- the primary system employed for the purpose of measuring the speed of motor vehicles in New Jersey.

In State v. Wojtkowiak, l74 N.J. Super, 460 (App. Div. l980), the appeals court held in all future cases the state should adduce evidence at the municipal court level as to (l) the specific training and extent of experience of the officer operating the radar, (2) the calibration of the machine was checked by at least two external tuning forks both singly and in combination, and (3) the calibration of the speedometer of the patrol car in cases where the K-55 is operating in the moving mode.
Qualified Operator?

While it appeared to the court in State v. Wojtkowiak, Supra that the K-55 Radar is an accurate and reliable tool for the measurement of speed, its accuracy and reliability in any case are no better than the skill of the person operating the radar. Id. at l74. The court made this emphasis as a warning to all police departments that proper courses of instruction be developed before the K-55 Radar device is employed in any municipality.

A calibration check is accomplished with the use of two tuning forks and their accuracy must be the subject of the documentary proof. Use of the K-55 does not eliminate the need for such proof. State v. Wojtkowiak, l70 N.J. Super. at 50, n.l

KENNETH  VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
(Phone) 732-572-0500
 (Fax)    732-572-0030
website: www.njlaws.com