State v. Krammes

252 A.2d 223, 105 N.J. Super. 345
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedApril 25, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 252 A.2d 223 (State v. Krammes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Krammes, 252 A.2d 223, 105 N.J. Super. 345 (N.J. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

105 N.J. Super. 345 (1969)
252 A.2d 223

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
RICHARD K. KRAMMES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued April 14, 1969.
Decided April 25, 1969.

*346 Before Judges GAULKIN, COLLESTER and LABRECQUE.

Mr. Richard J. Schachter argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Halpern, Schachter & Wohl, attorneys).

Mr. Raymond R. Trombadore, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Michael R. Imbriani, County Prosecutor, attorney).

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.7, which requires the operator of a motorcycle to wear a protective helmet. Following a trial de novo in the County Court the conviction was affirmed and a fine of $10 was imposed. He appeals.

The sole ground of appeal is that N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.7 is unconstitutional. Defendant argues that the purpose of the legislation is to protect the individual motorcyclist and not the general public, and the requirement that he must wear a protective helmet exceeds the police power of the State. He relies primarily on American Motorcycle Association v. Davids, 158 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968), which held unconstitutional a similar statute.

We do not find the Davids case to be persuasive. We conclude that the statute bears a real and substantial relationship to highway safety generally and does not constitute an improper exercise of the police power. See State v. Mele, 103 N.J. Super. 353 (Cty. Ct. 1968); Commonwealth v. Howie, 238 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 1968), certiorari denied 393 U.S. 999, 89 S.Ct. 485, 21 L.Ed.2d 464 (1968); State ex rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, 241 A.2d 625 (R.I. Sup. Ct. 1968); State v. Anderson, 3 N.C. App. 124, 164 S.E.2d 48 (Ct. App. 1968); Everhardt v. City of New Orleans, 253 La. 285, 217 So.2d 400 (Sup. Ct. 1968); People v. Carmichael, 56 Misc.2d 388, 288 N.Y.S.2d 931 (Cty. Ct. 1968); People v. Schmidt, 54 Misc.2d 702, 283 N.Y.S.2d 290 (Cty. Ct. 1967).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Kirby Lenihan (071497)
98 A.3d 533 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2014)
People v. Kohrig
498 N.E.2d 1158 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1986)
People v. Henninger
328 N.E.2d 580 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1975)
Cesin v. State
288 So. 2d 473 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)
Bogue v. Faircloth
316 F. Supp. 486 (S.D. Florida, 1970)
Elliott v. City of Oklahoma City
1970 OK CR 56 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1970)
State v. Also
463 P.2d 122 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1969)
Arutanoff v. Metropolitan Government
448 S.W.2d 408 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1969)
State v. Darrah
446 S.W.2d 745 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 A.2d 223, 105 N.J. Super. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-krammes-njsuperctappdiv-1969.