Source: https://www.anthonyvecchiolaw.com/blog/penalties-of-driving-without-a-license-in-nj-njsa-393-10/
Timestamp: 2017-10-17 11:30:53
Document Index: 172085295

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 5', '§ 7', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 7', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 37', '§ 24', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39']

Penalties of Driving without a License in NJ – NJSA 39:3-10
Home Blog Penalties of Driving without a License in NJ – NJSA 39:3-10
Under NJSA 39:3-10, all motorists on any New Jersey road or highway must be properly licensed to drive. The penalties for violating this statute are severe, and include a fine of up to $500, a six-month driver’s license suspension, and the possibility of jail. I routinely defend those accused of driving without a license in Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, and Mercer counties.
NJSA 39:3-10 provides:
Motorcycle license or endorsement: $ 18.
Omnibus or school bus endorsement: $ 18.
Basic driver’s license: $ 18.
Amended L. 1938, c. 66, § 3; 1953, c. 72; 1955, c. 8, § 5; 1955, c. 76, § 1; 1957, c. 108; 1964, c. 118; 1968, c. 130, § 2; 1977, c. 25, § 1; 1979, c. 97, § 1; 1979, c. 261, § 5; 1980, c. 105, § 7; 1981, c. 322, § 2; 1982, c. 45, § 1; 1983, c. 162; 1983, c. 163; 1983, c. 403, § 7; 1984, c. 33, § 2; 1985, c. 264, § 2; 1987, c. 20, § 1; 1988, c. 8, § 2; 1991, c. 452, § 7; 1992, c. 110, § 1; 1993, c. 34, § 1; 1998, c. 108, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2001; 1999, c. 28, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2000; 2001, c. 391, § 2; 2001, c. 420, § 3, eff. Jan. 8, 2002; 2003, c. 13, § 37; 2008, c. 50, § 24, eff. July 22, 2008.
2008 amendment, by Chapter 50, in the sixth paragraph, substituted “the ‘Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act,’ P.L.2008, c.50 (C.26:6-77 et al.)” for “the ‘Uniform Anatomical Gift Act,’ P.L.1969, c.161 (C.26:6-57 et seq.).”
Section 13 of L. 1998, c. 108 provides: “This act shall take effect on January 1, 2001 and shall apply to any applicant for a special learner’s permit who is under 16 years of age, or, in the case of an applicant for an examination permit, at least 17 years of age on the effective date of this act. Prior to the effective date, the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Transportation and the Director of the Office of Highway Traffic Safety in the Department of Law and Public Safety may take such anticipatory administrative action in advance as shall be necessary for the implementation of this act.” Chapter 108, L. 1998, was approved on September 17, 1998.
Section 19 of L. 1999, c. 28 provides: “This act shall take effect January 1, 2000, but the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Transportation may take such anticipatory administrative and regulatory action in advance as shall be necessary to implement the provisions of this act; provided, however, that section 14 of this act shall take effect immediately and, further provided, that for good cause, the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles may on January 1, 2000 delay implementation of the provisions of this act, other that those set forth in section 14, for a period not to extend beyond January 1, 2001.” Chapter 28, L. 1999, was approved on February 25, 1999.
Section 18 of L. 2001, c. 391 provides: “This act shall take effect immediately, except that sections 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and the required fees for the 48-month license added to R.S. 39:3-10 by section 2 of this act shall remain inoperative until the 60th day after the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Transportation certifies to the Commissioner of Transportation that the division is prepared to issue drivers’ licenses with digitized pictures of licensees, but such operative date shall be no later than January 1, 2003.” Chapter 391, L. 2001, was approved on January 8, 2002.
Section 13 of L. 2001, c. 420 provides: “This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to any applicant for an initial special learner’s permit or examination permit on or after the effective date of this act.” Chapter 420, L. 2001, was approved on January 8, 2002.
Section 127 of L. 2003, c. 13 provides: “Sections 1, 2, 3, 12, 38, 109, 110 and 121 shall take effect immediately, sections 105, 106, 107, 108, and 120 shall take effect on July 1, 2003 and the remainder of this act shall take effect on the date the Commissioner of Transportation certifies to the Governor (hereinafter the ‘date of certification’) that a majority of the members of the commission have been appointed or are in office and that all necessary anticipatory actions have been accomplished, provided, that the amount of revenues received pursuant to sections 109 and 110 prior to the date of certification are hereby appropriated to the division. Upon the date of certification, all such collected revenue shall be revenue of the commission. The Commissioner of Transportation, the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles and the commission may take such anticipatory administrative action in advance as shall be necessary for the implementation of the act.” Chapter 13, L. 2003, was approved on January 28, 2003.
Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction where it showed that the inspector for the division of motor vehicles passed a person on the written examination who could not read or write English and only made a few scribbles, passed the same person on a vision test after he said A, B, C and nothing more, and signed that he administered a driving test to the person when he did not. State v. McKinlay, 98 N.J. Super. 280, 237 A.2d 274, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 394 (App.Div. 1967), affirmed by 51 N.J. 25, 237 A.2d 264, 1968 N.J. LEXIS 135 (1968).
Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses > Vehicular Crimes > Driving Under the Influence > General Overview
Defendant’s contention on appeal of his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:4-50(a), and also of driving without a license, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:3-10, that there was a conflict of interest between him and a co-defendant, which made it improper for a single attorney to have represented them both, was rejected because the Supreme Court found no conflict between the two after counsel moved and was granted judgment for the codefendant on the ground that defendant was not guilty of operating the car and both codefendant and defendant then testified that codefendant was the driver; the Supreme Court held that defendants failed, not because they had one lawyer instead of two, but because the trial court believed the officers’ testimony that defendant and codefendant switched at the wheel after they were stopped. State v. Smith, 59 N.J. 297, 282 A.2d 33, 1971 N.J. LEXIS 179 (1971).
Decision revoking defendant’s driver’s license after two convictions for driving under the influence was a reasonable and proper exercise of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicle’s discretionary authority in light of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:4-50, which permitted such a revocation and N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:3-10, which gave the commissioner such discretion. Hinnekens v. Magee, 135 N.J.L. 537, 53 A.2d 356, 1947 N.J. Super. LEXIS 378 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1947).
Criminal Law & Procedure > Double Jeopardy > Attachment Jeopardy
Where defendant charged with various driving violations under N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 39:4-50, 39:3-47, 39:3-40, 39:3-10, and 39:4-51a, consented to a municipal court trial on the sole issue of whether he was driving, double jeopardy protections attached to that municipal court decision in favor of the defendant, and the prosecutor’s appeal under N.J. Ct. R. 3:24, treated as a pretrial ruling by the law division judge, was improper. State v. Cuneo, 275 N.J. Super. 16, 645 A.2d 151, 1994 N.J. Super. LEXIS 318 (App.Div. 1994).
Motor-vehicles director was empowered to keep a license in suspension beyond the determinate period imposed by a municipal court; implicit in the pervasive power for the licensing and suspending of driving privileges was a right to keep a license in suspension until it was restored after appropriate application. State v. Zalta, 217 N.J. Super. 209, 525 A.2d 328, 1987 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1153 (App.Div. 1987).
Transportation Law > Commercial Vehicles > General Overview
Where defendant was charged as an unlicensed commercial driver under N.J. Stat. § 39:3-10, rather than charged with operating a commercial vehicle with a learner’s permit without being accompanied by a licensed driver pursuant to N.J. Stat. § 39:3-10.18, all charges were dismissed; the correct charge was a different substantive offense and the issuing summons could not be amended. State v. Parkins, 263 N.J. Super. 423, 622 A.2d 1370, 1993 N.J. Super. LEXIS 130 (Law Div. 1993).
Transportation Law > Private Vehicles > Operator Licenses > General Overview
Under the authority granted by N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 39:3-10, 39:3-11 and 39:5-30, the director of the division of motor vehicles may require reexamination of current holders of a license and may impose reasonable special classifications based on age, accidents, violations or other suitable standards for the issuance of a driver’s license. Bechler v. Parsekian, 36 N.J. 242, 176 A.2d 470, 1961 N.J. LEXIS 259 (1961).