2C:35-16 Revision to Drug Law Now Authorizes a Court to Refrain from Imposing Drivers License Suspension on Defendant Convicted of Drug Offense If Compelling Circumstances Exist

S-2517/A-878 Under the NJ Drug law, the court must order every person convicted of an offense concerning controlled dangerous substances or drug paraphernalia, as set out in chapters 35 and 36 of the Criminal Code, to forfeit his or her driving privileges for a period of six months to two years. In cases involving juveniles under the age of 17, the period of suspension ordered by the court begins after the day the juvenile reaches age 17. This law allows the court to refrain from imposing the driver's license suspension under certain circumstances. There can be a waiver of the suspension requirement if the defendant's attorney makes a Motion and the court finds compelling circumstances warranting an exception to expenses. For the purposes of this section, compelling circumstances warranting an exception exist if the forfeiture of the person's right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State will result in extreme hardship and alternative means of transportation are not available. If somebody has aready had their license suspended for a driving offense, they can hire an attorney to make a motion. As a condition of receipt of certain federal funds, federal law (set out in 23 U.S.C.A. §159) requires each state to comply with one of the following three options: (1) the state must require driver's license suspension for CDS offenses in all cases (as does current New Jersey law); or (2) the state must require drivers' license suspension for CDS offenses unless there are "compelling circumstances warranting an exception"; or (3) the state's Governor must submit two certifications to the federal Secretary of Transportation: one stating that the Governor is opposed to the enactment or enforcement in the state of a law requiring drivers' license suspensions for convicted drug offenders; and one stating that the legislature (including both Houses where applicable) has adopted a resolution expressing its opposition to such a law. This new law conforms to alternative (2) of the federal statute. Under the bill, the court will not order a driver's license suspension for a person convicted of a drug offense if the court finds "compelling circumstances warranting an exception." For purposes of the law, compelling circumstances warranting an exception exist if the forfeiture of the person's right to operate a motor vehicle will result in extreme hardship and alternative means of transportation are not available. The committee amendments were proposed by the Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing established by P.L. 2003, c.265. These amendments provide that a person, at any time after sentencing and upon notice to the prosecutor, may make an application to the court to restore his right to operate a motor vehicle if the application is based upon new evidence or new information which demonstrates compelling circumstances warranting an exception. For example, a person may be sentenced to forfeit his driving privileges for two years. After serving one year of that sentence he may relocate and alternative means of transportation may no longer be available near his new residence. Under the amendments that person may apply to the court for reconsideration of his loss of driving privileges given the new information bearing on this matter.

39:6B-2 Penalties Failure to carry motor vehicle insurance coverage

 39:6B-2  Penalties  Failure to carry motor vehicle insurance coverage

An owner or registrant of a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State who operates or causes to be operated a motor vehicle upon any public road or highway in this State without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by P.L.1972, c.197 (C.39:6B-1 et seq.), and an operator who operates or causes a motor vehicle to be operated and who knows or should know from the attendant circumstances that the motor vehicle is without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by P.L.1972, c.197 (C.39:6B-1 et seq.) shall be subject, for the first offense, to a fine of not less than $300 nor more than $1,000 and a period of community service to be determined by the court. 

     The court also shall suspend the person's right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of one year from the date of conviction ; provided, however, the period of license suspension may be reduced or eliminated if the person provides the court with satisfactory proof of motor vehicle liability insurance at the time of the hearing.  Upon subsequent conviction, the person shall be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and shall be subject to imprisonment for a term of 14 days and shall be ordered by the court to perform community service for a period of 30 days, which shall be of a form and on terms as the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances, and shall forfeit the person's right to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years from the date of the conviction, and, after the expiration of the forfeiture, the person may make application to the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission for a license to operate a motor vehicle, which application may be granted at the discretion of the chief administrator.  The chief administrator's discretion shall be based upon an assessment of the likelihood that the individual will operate or cause a motor vehicle to be operated in the future without the insurance coverage required by this act.  A complaint for violation of this act may be made to a municipal court at any time within six months after the date of the alleged offense.

Failure to produce at the time of trial an insurance identification card or an insurance policy which was in force for the time of operation for which the offense is charged creates a rebuttable presumption that the person was uninsured when charged with a violation of this section.