conduct. The Appellate Division summarily rejected the
argument and relied on the holding of the trial court.
State v. Packin, 107 N.J. Super. 93 (App. Div. 1969),
held the intent of the driver is not an element of proof of
a speeding offense. The offense is a per se offense, which
requires no intent on the part of the driver.
C. Radar
- Stationary Doppler
- Moving radar
In State v. Van Syoc, 235 N.J. Super. 463 (Law Div.
1989), aff’d 235 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1989),
defendant challenged his moving radar speeding
conviction on the grounds that the Trooper had not
testified that the radar unit was in the manual position.
However, defendant failed to raise this challenge in a
timely manner, but waited until the State had rested its
case. The court, noting that the holding in State v.
Wojtkowiak, 170 N.J. Super. 44 (Law Div. 1979), rev’d.
on other grounds 174 N.J. Super. 460 (App. Div. 1980),
required the moving radar unit to be operated in the
manual mode, concluded that defendant’s failure to
make a timely objection during the presentation of the
State’s evidence, particularly since the defendant was an
experience trial attorney, was a tactical trial action which
did not inure to the detriment of this defendant. The
defendant’s failure to object in a timely manner
constituted a waiver of his right to later raise such an
objection.
D. Laser/LIDAR
The Law Division issued two separate opinions, IMO
Admissibility Speed Readings LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser
Speed Detection System [Laser I], 314 N.J. Super. 211 (Law
Div. 1996) and IMO Admissibility Speed Readings LTI
Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System [Laser II],
314 N.J. Super. 233 (Law Div. 1998). In Laser I, the Law
Division found that laser was generally accepted in the
scientific community and that the training offered by the
State Police in the use and operation of the LTI 20-20
Marksman was sufficient. However, in that opinion, the
Court was not convinced of the accuracy and reliability of
the instrument for law enforcement purposes. Following
extensive field testing and a statistical analysis of the field
test data, the State applied for a rehearing. On rehearing,
the Court determined in Laser II that the LTI 20-20
Marksman Laser Speed Detection System was
sufficiently reliable for use by law enforcement to enforce
the speeding laws, subject to limitation on the use of the
instrument in inclement weather and at distances under
1,000 feet. For proofs at distances in excess of 1,000 feet
the State would be compelled to produce appropriate
expert testimony. The holding was affirmed by State v.
Abeskaron, et al., 326 N.J. Super. 110 (App. Div. 1999),
aff’d & certif. denied 163 N.J. 394 (2000). Defendants
entry of conditional guilty pleas, their motion for leave to
appeal the trial court’s ruling, and submission of
particular transcripts as part of the record on appeal
resolved any jurisdictional deficiency and procedural
irregularities in the appeal.XIV. TRAFFIC SIGNALS
All “Traffic Control Devices” in use in this State must
conform to “the current standards prescribed by the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways, as adopted by the Commission of
Transportation. N.J.S.A. 39:4-8, 39:4-8.3, 39:4-120,
39:4-183.6, 39:4-183.27, 39:4-191.1 and 39:4-198.
It is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle on public or private
property for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control
signal or sign. N.J.S.A. 39:4-66.2, P.L.1993, c.326, §1.Motorists are required to obey the instructions of any
official traffic control device, N.J.S.A. 39:4-81, including
official traffic control devices at a public-private
intersection. N.J.S.A. 39:4-120.9, P.L.1991, c.298, §5.
The placement of unauthorized traffic signs or signs
which give the appearance they are official traffic control
devices or sign are prohibited. N.J.S.A. 39:4-183.3.In areas on a highway identified as highway
construction or repair, through the use of a posted traffic
control device or sign, the monetary penalties for
violating the following provisions of Title 39 are doubled.
N.J.S.A. 39:4-52; 4-57; 4-66.1; 4-71; 4-80; 4-81; 4-82;
4-82.1; 4-83; 4-84; 4-85; 4-86; 4-88; 4-89; 4-90; 4-
90.1; 4-96; 4-97; 4-98; 4-99; 4-105; 4-1115; 4-119; 4-
122; 4-123; 4-124; 4-125; 4-127; 4-129; 4-144; 5C-1
and N.J.S.A. 27:12B-18; 23-29; and 25A-21.In State v. Casalino, 262 N.J. Super. 166 (App. Div.
1993), the Appellate Division confirmed that failing to
observe a traffic signal was subject to the general penalty
provisions of Title 39 at N.J.S.A. 39:4-203.Cedar Grove Tp. v. Sheridan, 209 N.J. Super. 267
(App. Div. 1986), certif. denied 104 N.J. 464 (1986),
upheld determinations by the Commissioner of
Transportation concerning the type, location or
operation of traffic control devices on State highways as a