From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

STATE v. VAN SYOC

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
May 17, 1989
235 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

Submitted May 3, 1989 —

Decided May 17, 1989.

Before Judges BRODY and SKILLMAN.

Appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County.

Clifford L. Van Syoc, Esq., appellant, submitted a brief pro se. Samuel Asbell, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent ( Frederick H. Martin, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).


Defendant was convicted in the Cherry Hill Municipal Court of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-98 by driving at a speed of 77 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone and fined $70. The Law Division affirmed the conviction based upon a de novo review of the record and imposed the same fine imposed by the municipal court. 235 N.J. Super. 463.

On this appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding that the radar reading which resulted in his conviction was reliable. Defendant also argues that he was improperly convicted under N.J.S.A. 39:4-98 because this section only specifies the lawful speed at which a vehicle may be operated and does not proscribe any conduct as being unlawful. We reject both of defendant's arguments substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Steinberg's opinion of September 23, 1988. See also State v. Dantonio, 18 N.J. 570 , 580 (1955); State v. Dickens, 130 N.J. Super. 73 , 79 (App.Div. 1974).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

STATE v. VAN SYOC

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
May 17, 1989
235 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

STATE v. VAN SYOC

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CLIFFORD L. VAN SYOC…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: May 17, 1989

Citations

235 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1989)
563 A.2d 51

Citing Cases

State v. Zanes

We are satisfied that defendant's argument, that the State failed to present evidence that the Stalker radar…

State v. Price

Thus we agree with the Law Division that defendant has waived any challenge to the reliability of the device…