13:19-10.8 Driving during period of suspension
(a) Whenever the driving privileges of an individual have been suspended or revoked for any reason, either judicially or administratively:
1. The operation of a motor vehicle by the individual during the period of suspension or revocation shall be cause for extending the period of revocation or suspension for an additional six months, or for some other period determined by the Chief Administrator.
2. Should information be received by the Commission after restoration of an individual's driving privileges that the individual operated a motor vehicle during the period of revocation or suspension, the Chief Administrator may revoke or suspend the individual's driving privileges for a period of six months, or for some other period which the Chief Administrator determines.
3. In addition to the revocation or suspension of an individual's driving privileges as provided for in (a)1 and 2 above, the Chief Administrator may determine to suspend the motor vehicle registration privileges of an owner-operator who operates a motor vehicle during a period of revocation or suspension of driving registration privileges. Such period of suspension of registration privileges shall coincide with the period of suspension of the individual's driving privileges, or for some other period to be determined by the Chief Administrator.
History
HISTORY:
Amended by R.2005 d.47, effective February 7, 2005.
See: 36 N.J.R. 4005(a), 37 N.J.R. 505(a).
In (a), substituted "a" for "the" preceding "motor vehicle" in 1, substituted "as provided for in (a)1 and 2 above" for "as provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 above" in 3, and substituted "Chief Administrator" and "Commission" for "director" and "division" respectively throughout.
Case Notes
Agency rejected the 45-day suspension recommended by an ALJ for a motorist who drove while under suspension, which suspension was imposed when he failed to answer and/or appear in response to a traffic summons following his initial plea of not guilty. There were numerous mitigating factors that were properly considered including that he had not committed a point-carrying violation for more than 10 years and had never had a suspension in the prior 10 years. Given all the circumstances, a 25-day suspension was appropriately imposed. In re Barrett, OAL DOCKET NUMBER: M.V.H. 10752-18, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1188, Final Agency Determination (December 31, 2018).
Holder of a NJ driver's license had shown "good cause" for a special exception to the usual suspension of her license, resulting in a 20-day suspension being imposed. The holder believed she had satisfied her obligation when she paid the restoration fee in 2015, reacted immediately to resolve the suspension, and had a commendable driving record. Moreover, the holder's job required her to drive to locations for which mass transit was unavailable, and the holder, as the sole caretaker, drove her child to school each day. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Fauntleroy, OAL DKT. No. MVH 11021-18, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 668, Initial Decision (December 13, 2018).
ALJ modified a driver's proposed license suspension from 180 days to 120 days, despite the driver's habitual failure to pay fines assessed in a timely manner. The ALJ recognized the driver's efforts to restore his driving privileges following a long, multi-year period of suspension, and that the offending conduct, a speeding ticket, took place over four years ago. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Ogbonnaya, OAL DKT. No. MVH 14129-18, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 667, Initial Decision (December 12, 2018).
Prior administrative suspensions of driving privileges are not prior convictions which will support imposition of enhanced penalty for driving vehicle while on suspended or revoked list. State v. Conte, 245 N.J.Super. 629, 586 A.2d 353 (L.1990).
Proposed suspension of a driver's license was rejected by an ALJ on findings that the MVC was seeking to suspend the driver's license for driving on June 5, 2016 when in fact the order suspending his privileges was not issued until June 8, 2016. Because the driver thus was not shown to have operated a motor vehicle during a period of suspension, he was entitled to prevail on his challenge to the suspension. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Weissman, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 13295-17, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 168, Initial Decision (March 5, 2018).
Administrative suspension of a college student's driver's license for 180 days was reversed on findings that the prior order of suspension that the driver allegedly violated was not prepared until 12 days after the moving violation that had triggered the proposed suspension and was not mailed to him until more than a week later. The evidence showed that the student ceased driving on and after the date on which he received the order. However, given this sequence of events, the student properly was found not to have committed a moving violation while subject to an order of suspension and thus was entitled to an order reversing that suspension. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. White, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 14197-2017, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 851, Initial Decision (December 11, 2017).
Driver who repeatedly violated license suspension imposed for unspecified reason was properly penalized by the imposition of a new 120 day suspension because the driver, despite his claims to the contrary, in fact knew that his license had been suspended and because the driver's record evidenced a continuing refusal to comply with motor vehicle and traffic laws. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Aslam, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 00326-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 165, Initial Decision (March 22, 2017).
Though the Motor Vehicle Commission agreed with the conclusion of an ALJ that the holder of a NJ driver's license had shown "good cause" for a special exception to suspension of his license and that a 30-day suspension was properly imposed, the Commission also concluded that the driver should be required to complete a Commission Driver Improvement Program class to address the "points" suspension. The driver also would be required to serve a one-year probationary period. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Corporan, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 06425-16, N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Corporan, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 06425-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1212, Final Administrative Determination (October 24, 2016).
Driver who testified that at the time at issue he was going through a divorce, had relocated and was dealing with a child who had serious mental health issues won reduction of 180-day suspension imposed on account of his conduct in driving during a period of suspension on a showing of "good cause" within the meaning of governing regulations. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Gorokhovich, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 11158-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 763, Initial Decision (September 15, 2016).
Holder of a NJ driver's license showed "good cause" for a special exception to suspension of his license because suspension was now premised on a citation that he had received nearly two years earlier in a different jurisdiction, which citation was not addressed by the driver because the state where the violation allegedly had occurred took more than ten months to post it so that it could be addressed in an original suspension proceeding. That being so, his license would be suspended for 30 days, not the 180 day penalty that usually was imposed. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Corporan, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 06425-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 650, Initial Decision (July 21, 2016).
Driver was entitled to relief on his appeal from a notice of suspension of his driving privileges because he was not shown to have operated a motor vehicle "during a period of suspension" within the meaning of governing regulations. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Tart, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 14311-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 176, Initial Decision (April 7, 2016).
Driving privileges of a licensee were properly suspended for 180 days because she admitted to having driven while under a period of suspension. That suspension was imposed because she persistently failed to appear and/or pay fines in three municipal courts. The licensee did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying a reduction or waiver of the administrative suspension because her argument that her family members required her attention and that she could not provide that attention if her license was suspended was unconvincing. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Bowser, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 05823-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 518, Initial Decision (August 26, 2015).
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended that a Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) order suspending a motorist's driver's license for a combined period of 1300 days be reduced to a suspension of 240 days in total. The motorist failed to establish a right to relief due to what he characterized as an unfair delay in the imposition of any suspension because he had unclean hands and demonstrated no actual prejudice from the delay, but the motorist did show good cause for a reduction in the period of suspension based on his rehabilitation, which included his successful completion of a drug court program, his maintenance of steady employment and the extent to which he had demonstrated that both his children and his aged parent rely on him to transport them. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Johnson, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 3605-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 302, Initial Decision (May 26, 2015).
Licensee who was cited for operating a motor vehicle while under suspension was properly subjected to a 60-day suspension of driving privileges rather than the 180-day suspension that had been imposed by the N.J. Motor Vehicle Commission. It was true that the licensee had been cited for driving while under suspension, which suspension had been imposed when she failed to pay fines imposed by a municipal court based on unpaid parking tickets. That said, the licensee demonstrated good cause for a reduction in the suspension based on proof showing that she had family members who suffered from considerable health and medical/educational issues and that she was the sole support of such family members. Moreover, the vast majority of the incidents on her driving abstract were administrative actions rather than moving violations. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Lloyd, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 10729-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 239, Initial Decision (May 4, 2015).
Driver's license was properly suspended for 180 days on the grounds that the driver had operated his vehicle while under suspension in violation of governing law despite the driver's claim that he was prejudiced by the long delay in addressing the proposed suspension and his ostensible need to have a license to earn a living. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Wingate, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 01002-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 267, Initial Decision (April 30, 2015).
Administrative law judge ordered the suspension of a driver's privileges for 50 days pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.6(a). The driver's privileges were suspended on May 24, 2013, and she had another speeding violation on May 29, 2013. Therefore, her driving privileges are subject to suspension pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.8. Her privileges were restored with a warning, and within a one year of the warning, she had the second speeding violation. The length of the suspension was reduced from 180 days for good cause under N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.6(a) and N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.8. She needed her driving privileges to commute to college and to her job. In addition, she was unaware of the suspension of her driving privileges at the time of her speeding violation. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Deandrea K. Dennard, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 08113-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 708, Initial Decision (October 16, 2014).
Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) failed to establish that a motorist whose N.J. driver's license was suspended in fact was behind the wheel on his vehicle when the vehicle was stopped by a police officer and the driver thereof was cited for failing to exhibit license, registration or proof of insurance. The police officer who issued the citation did not appear nor was there any other evidence to dispute the motorist's claim that he was a passenger in his own vehicle that was being driven by a friend due to the fact that the motorist's driver's license was suspended. In re Amogretti, OAL DOCKET NUMBER: M.V.H. 17356-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1335, Final Administrative Determination (September 16, 2014).
Motorist did not establish "good cause" for a special exception from the provisions in N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.1, N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.2, and N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.8 requiring the suspension of his driving privileges because he had 12 or more points on his record and because he had operated a motor vehicle during a period when his license in fact was suspended. Though the motorist sought leniency based on various factors including that he had lost his house in foreclosure, had to go on welfare, and had encountered various other difficulties, his driving record was less than stellar and he had failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances that would justify a reduction or waiver. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Marut, OAL DKT. NO. MVH 3603-14, AGENCY DKT. NO. 05652, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 366, Initial Decision (June 20, 2014). source New Jersey Office of Administrative Law
