Traffic Court as a Bunko Operation

Inconvenience as a Law Tool

They make 100 people come at 9 AM. There is an order of appearance which the judge claims was set by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Those with plea agreements, the prisoners in the jail, those who want a trial who are represented by attorneys, and lastly, those who want a trial and are representing themselves. This order will become clearer later. I had demanded discovery in a prior appearance, and they had sent me a videotape of the traffic stop and the notes on the ticket. They had not sent me anything about the officer. This is needed because the elements of careless driving are so subjective, the character of the accuser is material. None of that was sent. One famous careless driving charge was that against Tiger Woods recently. When I sent a second demand letter of the prosecutor, they replied by moving up my court date by 5 days. I called the clerk who absolutely refused to reschedule it to the later date. I demanded to speak to the chief judge about scheduling and the unfairness of changing it at the last minute. He refused to accept my call. The defendant is an innocent party, and the judge is too good to take a phone call after making a very disruptive schedule change.

True Aim of Traffic Court Appears to Be Revenue Raising

But sit in the back of the court at the start of the day, and within 10 minutes one understands what the place is really about. Within 10 minutes, 5 people have pled to the amended charge of unsafe driving, with $123 fine, $33 in court costs, and a $250 New Jersey state surcharge. A dozen consecutive defendants are pleading to the same charge, unsafe driving, and thanking the court. They have been let off easy, and without points. So this court is rolling along, and is making around $10,000 an hour.

Hardly Working

The judge works a half hour, and needs a break for a half hour, perhaps to avoid fatigue. He opens with the explanation that their traffic charge is a criminal charge requiring the prosecution meet the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. He will not tolerate rudeness. If your cell phone rings in court, it will be confiscated, and the owner will be put last in line for the day.

The bailiff calls out the list of names, 5 at a time. They stand in line to speak to the prosecutor. The latter is different each time, knows nothing about the charge, asks about it. Then, you got it he offers unsafe driving charge with the above fine, but no points in New Jersey. The problem for me is that unsafe driving still gets 2 points in Pennsylvania. And the sole charge without points is speeding by less than 5 mph. The prosecutor did not disclose that. I had to learn it from the practice manual of the Municipal court, which I bought used.

There is a light hearted camaraderie on the line to the prosecutor. The vast majority of people are recent immigrants with accents, and the rest are working class guidos from the area, which is in Soprano country.

Send in the Goons

I get into the office, and I tell the prosecutor that he has been stonewalling the discovery I demanded, and that mistake will change his life. He says, you are threatening me, and calls the police. I reply that asserting a legal right is not a threat and that he has libeled me to the police, now in the room, hand on pistol, yelling, sit down, and be quiet. I want to avoid the disorderly conduct charge and an arrest that day, so I comply.

Continuances to Break Innocent Defendants
Another defendant is Israeli. His police officer does not show up for a trial. The judge grants the prosecution a continuance, to return another day with the police officer. The defendant complains he has already lost a day of work, and his wife is pregnant in Israel. The judge demands he show him a ticket to Israel, proving he is going there. The defendant does not have one, but continues to argue about the burden being imposed.

Send in the Goons Again
The judge stands up, and demands he be quiet. The defendant continues to complain. Four East Brunswick police officers surround him, hands on weapons. The defendant and I get the message. There will be no trial, never. He decides to accept a plea bargain, despite his feeling he is innocent.

I accepted an unrelated charge that carries no points in Pennsylvania, and that is half the cost of the most common plea, unsafe driving. It carries no points in New Jersey but does in Pennsylvania. I accept a plea to driving 1 to 4 miles over the speed limit, the sole moving violation without points in Pennsylvania. The fine is $100, doubled in a 65 mph zone, plus $33 court costs, for a total of $233, instead of $433 for unsafe driving. The New Jersey prosecutor does not tell me Pennsylvania law. I had to find out Unsafe Driving still carries points in Pennsylvania from research of used library editions of the manuals on the New Jersey driving laws.

Rules of Conduct for Judges I run into my new Israeli friend at the pay booth. I offer to write a letter of complaint to the Judicial Review Board for the outburst by the judge. He declines, stating he still has to drive in the vicinity and does not want to be targeted.

Upon return to the court with the plea ticket, the atmosphere is completely different. The judge is calm, he apologizes for his temper outburst. There are no goons. Everything is friendly and business like.

Same goes with my plea deal.

The East Brunswick, NJ, Municipal Court and Traffic Offenses

Lessons:

1) The traffic court is a fast moving revenue raiser.

2) The rails to settlement are fully greased.

3) Pressure increases progressively as one asserts a desire for a not guilty plea and a trial. It reaches an unbearable level of cost, quickly, for any productive party. That pressure includes physical threats by township police, albeit staying within the law. The threatening behavior worsens as one tries to assert more legal rights.

4) Defense attorneys at this level of traffic court are a waste of time and money. It suggested that one buy a court practice manual, cheaply. One will learn a great deal about the way things work and one's real choices. One may resell it after the case. The prosecutor has little or no knowledge of any case, and will accept any reasonable offer. If one cannot think of any offer, the prosecutor wants to help. The final pled infraction may have nothing to do with the accusation. But never claim innocence. It makes everyone angry.

Planned Preliminary Motions for Careless Driving Charge in New Jersey

Traffic law is something the average person encounters every day. Naturally, it is not covered in law school. Does any one know of any law school offering any course in the rules of the road. I would appreciate hearing about it.

I am disputing this ticket. It has a potential 15 day jail sentence, a serious potential consequence justifying adequate discovery. It is a criminal charge, with a beyond a reasonable doubt burden on the prosecution.

Here is the law: 39:4-97. Careless driving

39:4-97. A person who drives a vehicle 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.
Amended 1951,c.23,s. 54; 1955,c.220,s. 2; 1995,c.70,s. 3.

It has been declared constitutional by the New Jersey Supreme Court despite an admission of vagueness. The reasoning for upholding the law is that no law can specify the endlessly wide range of dangerous driving.

I demanded full discovery on the records of the officer, including health, driving, complaints, productivity. Due to the subjective nature of the elements of the law, the credibility, character, training of the officer are material.

Here are the planned preliminary motions to dismiss.

1) Violation of Rule 7:7-7 (b) by the prosecution. This charge fulfills the consequence of magnitude in the form of possible jail time. It mandates the production of documents under the control of the government. I move for a dismissal of the charges since the violation made an adequate defense impossible. The subjective, opinion nature of the elements of the charge make the character, training, and knowledge of the officer highly material. I also request sanctions against the personal assets of the prosecutor, not those of the taxpayer for his refusal to obey the clear language of the Rule of Evidence. This stonewalling of discovery is by agents of the prosecutor. He should be held accountable.

2) The sole witness against me will be a fact witness. Yet the elements of the law call for an opinion. It should be against policy to allow the police to make up the law in accordance with their personal preferences. A fact witness may not express the opinions, calculations, and tastes called for in the law.

3) The subjective nature of the charge, and the absence of any objective, measurable damage, make the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt mathematically impossible to meet, unless the probability of damage was greater than 80%. There is no way to show that in the absence of any damage. There is no scientific evidence to support such an increase in the probability of damage.

4) Criminal evidence is subject to the Daubert standard for reliability of evidence. The speculative and subjective nature of the police charge violate the Daubert standard and require an expert opinion to help the court measure the actuarially proven increase in risk.

5) The prosecutor does not dispute that the officer violated four New Jersey traffic laws in this encounter. He just feels it does not matter. The prosecutor says, there is no rule the lawbreaking of the agent of the prosecutor should impact on the validity of the charges against the defendant. Yet, it should be against public policy for a court to reward law breaking with a favorable verdict. If the court allows such law breaking, and actually rewards it, it will get a lot more of it in the future. The court cannot immunize the violation of the law by the police without barring the fruit of the poisoned tree.

East Brunswick, NJ, Traffic Court - Careless Driving Charge

I recommend attending this court for its entertainment and eye opening effects. The high school honor student with a little alcohol in her breathalyzer test received the maximum sentence permissible under the law. The obviously illegal alien testifying from jail on closed circuit television has no identification papers. So what does the judge do? She dismissed the charges.

I demand full discovery on the state police. The information on the police officer is highly relevant because there is no objective measurement of careless driving. This female judge refuses to grant this request. I reserve my objection for a future appeal.