My question involves traffic court in the State of: New Jersey.

I received a Red-Light camera summons in the mail today. Evidence of the offense was posted on the summons in the form of three images, and a video viewable on Violationinfo.com. If you wish to view the video, PM me.






The offense on the summons is cited as being "39:4-81 - Failure to Observe Traffic Signal" (verbatim). The video and images are embarrassingly in contra to what is alleged. I did not fail to observe the traffic signal; the video and images exhibit my vehicle to be behind the stop line at the intersection after the signal turned red, and moreover, I make a right turn shortly after.

Interestingly enough, there was a vehicle of my exact kind and color (Nissan Murano) directly ahead of my vehicle on the images and videos that did, in fact, pass the red light. Maybe the camera encountered a technical error and confused the inherent violator's vehicle with mine, granted that they were identical.

Anyways ...

They are citing NJ 39:4-81 as the offense.

NJ 39:4-81 is titled "Traffic signals, observance; rule at nonoperational signals." and vaguely articulates that drivers should obey all traffic control instructions, lacking specificity. Here it is below:

39:4-81. a. The driver of every vehicle, the motorman of every street car and every pedestrian shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device applicable thereto, placed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer.

b.When, by reason of a power failure or other malfunction, a traffic control signal at an intersection is not illuminated, the driver of a vehicle or street car shall, with respect to that intersection, observe the requirement for a stop intersection, as provided in R.S.39:4-144.

Amended 1951, c.23, s.40; 2004, c.92.


In my understanding, this is just a general pretext and says nothing about passing a red light specifically.

Moreover, as evidenced in the video footage I COULD be cited for an illegal right turn. It COULD be argued that even if I did not pass the red signal, it is patently obvious that I made a right turn without making a full stop as codified under NJ 39:4-115.

My argument is a dose of common sense: A quick glance at the images and video footage will clearly exhibit that I did not pass the red light.

However, if the judge wanted to perpetuate the matter - he/she could say that even though I did not pass the red light, I made a right turn at a red signal without first making a full stop.

Whereafter, could I argue that the ticket be dismissed since I did not meet the elements of the cited offense? The wrong statue was identified on the summons, which renders it erroneous. If the judge quickly amended the statue on the complaint/summons in court to reflect the applicable statue, wouldn't this be a denial of my constitutional right to prepare a defense?

Thanks.