Return to Browsing

12 N.J.A.R. 113

Motor Vehicles, Division of v. Egan, Joseph E
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 12 N.J.A.R. 113
Decision Date: 1984
Synopsis: The Division of Motor Vehicles proposed suspending respon- dent's driving privileges for six months. Respondent requested a hear- ing and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law. Respondent, a New Jersey resident, had his reciprocity driving privileges suspended in Ohio for failing to submit to a breath alcohol test. The Ohio suspension permitted respondent to drive within the state in the course of his employment. New Jersey proposed to suspend respondent's driving privileges because of the Ohio incident. One of respondent's arguments was that New Jersey must give full faith and credit to the terms of the Ohio suspension by allowing him to drive for occupational purposes. The administrative law judge assigned to the case concluded that the Division was not required to impose the same suspension applied in another state. N.J.S.A. 39:5-30.1 gives the Division discretion to impose either the suspension applied in the other state or the penalty that would apply in New Jersey. The penalty in New Jersey for respondent's offense is a six-month suspension and participation in an alcohol education or rehabilitation program. The administrative law judge ordered that respondent was subject to the New Jersey penalty. Upon review, the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles affirmed this initial decision. When there has been a foreign state drinking-driving conviction and/or suspension, the policy of the Division is to impose the same penalty as if the offense had taken place in New Jersey. The purpose is to provide uniformity and equity in the imposition of penalties for New Jersey licensees, regardless of where the violation occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed the six-month suspension but remanded the matter to the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles to reconsider the request for occupational driving privileges. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed part of the judgment; the portion of the decision remanding the matter was reversed. Division of Motor Vehicles, unrepresented Peter T. Harris, Esq., for respondent (Einhorn, Harris & Platt, at- torneys)
Rule(s) Cited: 13:19-11.1 
Statute(s) Cited: 39:3-10 39:4-50.4 39:5-30 39:5-30.1 
Citation Tracker adopted-Div. of Motor Veh.; affirmed in part & reversed in part-App. Div., A2902-83-T3, 3/18/85 (unreported); affirmed in part & reversed in part-103 N.J. 350 (1986) [Updated through 1991]