NJSA 39:3-40 for a parked car

[jag6913]

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

This is a little long so hang in there.

My car has out of state plates and I have a NJ Driver's license. My car registration was either expired or suspended and the police came in the middle of the night and towed my car. I was able to get me car 2 days later and registered it in NJ (something I should have done long before). I was not present for the car being towed since they did it in the middle of the night nor did I receive any of the summonses in the mail since they sent it to the registration address. Instead, I contacted the court and found that I had three summonses.

1. 39:3-4 Driving or Parking Unregistered Vehicle (fair enough I did that)

2. Violation of City Ordinance 292-3 Non-Operating Vehicles on Street (not too sure about this one still researching but hey no big deal)

3. 39:3-40 Driving After DL/Registration Suspended or Revoked (This one is the problem!)

As stated earlier, I was never in the vehicle while the police where there. I did not even know that it was towed until the next day. I read through 39:3-40 and it appears by my interpretation I am correct. The statue specifically states that I must be operating the vehicle to be guilty of this offense. Furthermore, it goes on and defines operating the vehicle in the notes and refers to State Vs. Derby. Is my interpretation correct that I cannot be found guilty on this because I was in no way shape or form operating the vehicle. Nor was my licenses suspended at the time (never has been)

Any advice on this or thoughts?

 

[FlyingRon]

As stated earlier, I was never in the vehicle while the police where there.

Your problem is you misunderstand the statute. First, the police do not need to see you in the vehicle. The question was did you operate or PERMIT to be operated the vehicle while the registration was invalid. Now you can argue that the car was parked while the registration was still valid if that was the case. Be careful however, it sounds like you may be stepping into an issue where your car was REQUIRED to be registered in NJ even when it still had unexpired plates from another state.

 

[jag6913]

Your problem is you misunderstand the statute. First, the police do not need to see you in the vehicle. The question was did you operate or PERMIT to be operated the vehicle while the registration was invalid. Now you can argue that the car was parked while the registration was still valid if that was the case. Be careful however, it sounds like you may be stepping into an issue where your car was REQUIRED to be registered in NJ even when it still had unexpired plates from another state.

I will start with your statement "Be careful however, it sounds like you may be stepping into an issue where your car was REQUIRED to be registered in NJ even when it still had unexpired plates from another state" The car was registered in GA and I was licensed in NJ because I was in the Army when I purchased the vehicle. I than came back to NJ and once I established residency it was my intention to get the registered here (within 30 days I believe is the requirement). The plates expired in September (that I am aware of by the sticker on them). The car was parked since September because unfortunately for me I was out of work and had no place to store it off city streets. So the answer to the question "did you operate or PERMIT to be operated the vehicle while the registration was invalid" would be no.

I was able to get the car insured on a Friday and low and behold Murphy's law came into play. The Saturday before I was do to get it registered there was an unrelated accident near my home and the next morning the car was gone. That said the car was actually insured prior to police involvement.

I understand what your are saying but still wouldn't there have to be some burden of proof that the vehicle was operated? How about N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 where Operator is defined as "a person who is in actual physical control of a vehicle or street car".

In State of NJ Vs Derby the case mentions the following.

"In order to show operation a three prong
test must be met, the elements are: physical control over a vehicle, an intent to operate and an ability to do so; this prong requires at least that the vehicle be capable of operation"

The notes in the statue book under the heading Operation of vehicle, generally refers to State vs. Derby where the Defendant was actually in the car while it was in tow and the court found defendant did not operate the vehicle. I was not even in the car or near the car. The car was snow covered in a parking spot on the city street.

If I understand you correctly, the mere fact that it is parked on a city street and unregistered is enough to issue and be found guilty of 39:3-40?

If this is the case do you know of case law that would support this?

Thanks I do not want to sound ungrateful. I completely appreciate the input and as you can see I am trying to avoid what can potentially be a very serious charge. I have zero money for a lawyer and my intention (hope) was to go to court talk with the prosecutor in hopes he would dismiss the 39:3-40. I am trying to get my ducks in a row and understand why a summons such as this was even issued.

 

[FlyingRon]

You're wrong. There is NO grace period.

The burden of proof is that car wasn't teleported on to the New Jersey highway. You permitted it to be operated there. If it was there AFTER you moved to NJ you are guilty.
purg
DERBY talks about whether someone in a car is operating it or not. The driver was in an inoperable vehicle. That's not the case here. And you're not necessarily charged with OPERATING it but even allowing it to be operated.

Frankly, if you admit to the others, and bring your proof you have now registered the vehicle the outcome would likely be better than perjuring yourself about how your car came to be apparently abandoned on the streets of NJ.

 

[jag6913]

You're wrong. There is NO grace period.

The burden of proof is that car wasn't teleported on to the New Jersey highway. You permitted it to be operated there. If it was there AFTER you moved to NJ you are guilty.
purg
DERBY talks about whether someone in a car is operating it or not. The driver was in an inoperable vehicle. That's not the case here. And you're not necessarily charged with OPERATING it but even allowing it to be operated.

Frankly, if you admit to the others, and bring your proof you have now registered the vehicle the outcome would likely be better than perjuring yourself about how your car came to be apparently abandoned on the streets of NJ.

Ok I got it now. I drove it to NJ with a valid GA registration. Once I "moved" here I needed to have it registered in NJ period no grace period and as such I am guilty.

I plan to accept guilty to the other charges in hopes of the more serious being dismissed. OH and the car is registered and insured in NJ now.

Thank you for the enlightenment.