State v. Arslanouk
| Decision Date | 30 March 1979 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mahmoud ARSLANOUK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Fred A. Iannaccone, Paterson, for defendant-appellant.
Burrell Ives Humphreys, Passaic County Prosecutor, for plaintiff-respondent (Gary H. Schlyen, Asst. Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges MATTHEWS and KOLE.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MATTHEWS, P. J. A. D.
Defendant was found guilty in the Municipal Court of Bloomingdale, Passaic County, of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2. He was also adjudged guilty of careless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97) and driving an unregistered vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:3-4). He was found not guilty of a charge of driving with fictitious plates.
On De novo review in the Passaic County Court of the adjudication of driving without mandatory insurance, defendant was again found guilty and sentenced to $50 fine, $15 costs and revocation of license privilege for six months.
On June 2, 1978 an officer of the Bloomingdale Police Department approached the car which defendant was operating and asked him for his license, registration and insurance card. Defendant produced a valid driver's license and a California ownership certificate which had expired some 21/2 years earlier. He did not produce any proof of insurance. He told the officer the car belonged to a friend of his who came from California and that he had no idea if the vehicle was insured or not. The California license plates on the vehicle bore an expiration tag for December 1975.
Defendant testified that he had borrowed the car on June 2, 1978 from a friend of his who came from California five weeks before to visit his father who had a heart attack. He had not driven the car prior to June 2. He did not know if the car was insured. He thought the car was registered, due to the fact that the friend had driven all the way from California. When he received the car from his friend he had not asked if he had insurance but asked for the papers. The friend had opened the glove compartment and said they were there. He acknowledged having looked at the California ownership certificate.
The municipal court judge found that N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2 was applicable to the facts before him, as covering a vehicle not registered in New Jersey, and found the defendant guilty of offense.
Before the County Court it was again argued by defendant that the statute did not apply in the instant case. The judge held to the contrary, finding it covered vehicles coming from out of the State as well as New Jersey vehicles, and affirmed the conviction.
The pertinent portion of N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2, violation of which defendant stands convicted, provides in pertinent part:
* * * any 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 this act shall be subject, for the first offense, to a fine of not less than $50.00 nor more than $200.00 or imprisonment for a term of not less than 30 days nor more than 3 months or both, in the discretion of the municipal judge, and shall forthwith forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of 6 months from the date of conviction. * * *
Thus, the sanction is imposed upon a driver who operates a vehicle which is without the liability insurance coverage "required by this act." That section, in turn, has reference to N.J.S.A. 39:6B-1 which mandates that every owner or registered owner of a vehicle "registered or principally garaged in this State" shall maintain motor vehicle liability insurance coverage within the minimal amounts of coverage set forth in the statute.
The question presented is whether the statute applies to any vehicle present in this State regardless of the state of registration or extent of its presence in this State. The clear language of the statute, in referring only to vehicles "registered or principally garaged in this State," appears to negate such a construction. The County Court apparently relied on the language of this court in State v. Schumm, 146 N.J.Super. 30, 34, 368 A.2d 956, 958 (App.Div. 1977), aff'd 75 N.J. 199, 381 A.2d 33 (1978), that "the purpose of the statute was to keep uninsured vehicles off the road for the protection of the public * * *." We reaffirm such to be the purpose of the statute but point out that Schumm did not concern the applicability of the statute to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chalef v. Ryerson
...intent in enacting our current system of compulsory automobile insurance providing basic PIP coverage. See State v. Arslanouk, 167 N.J.Super. 387, 393, 400 A.2d 1206 (App.Div.1979). We construe the term "principally garaged" to mean the physical location where an automobile is primarily or ......
-
Hall v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.
...whether a five-week period would support a finding as to where a vehicle was principally garaged. See State v. Arslanouk, 400 A.2d 1206, 1207-08 (N.J. App. Div. 1979). Fourth, the Wisconsin state court case applying Iowa law involved unique circumstances decided on public policy grounds and......