Home  |  Subscribe Now  |  Access Archive  |  Contact
 
Search News

 By Keywords
 By Publish Date

(dd-mm-yyyy)


Read News

RSS Reader

Categories

 ALL
 Front Page Muni Mail
Top Muni Mail stories.
 Muni-Mail
Muni-Mail updates.

Archives

September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003

 

Front Page Muni Mail
 Prev    Next

"U-turn" Means You Turned & Went the Other Way - State v. Smith
Published on 07-31-2009Email To Friend    Print Version

[7/30/09 – 11:20 pm] Today’s Appellate Division decision in State v. Smith construes the provisions of NJSA 39:4-125, the U-turn statute. The Court ruled that the statute does not require that the motorist literally make a 180 degree turn. Instead, the statute broadly prohibits any type of attempt to turn a vehicle around and proceed in the opposite direction in an area where a “no U-turn” sign has been conspicuously posed.

The Defendant in Smith was driving down a roadway. He made a left-hand turn into a private driveway, remained there for a few moments, backed out and drove off in the opposite direction. This conduct, according to the Appellate Division, constituted a violation of NJSA 39:4-125.

This opinion contains important discussions on numerous other collateral issues, including the appointment of counsel on minor traffic tickets, the trial of a matter following a promise by the judge to dismiss the complaint if the officer does not show up for court, an analysis of whether 39:4-125 only applies to state highways and how the State may supplement the record as part of a municipal appeal.

Download a copy of State v. Smith.

 



Powered by Comdev News Publisher