STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALBERT J. FIELDS, JR. Â (09-15, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2757-15T1

On July 10, 2015, Fields drove southbound in a no-passing zone, crossed double yellow lines to pass two slower cars, then returned to his lane; a police officer observed and stopped him.
Fields was charged with violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-86 (crossing no-passing lines).
At municipal court trial, the officer testified and the dashboard camera was reviewed; Fields admitted he crossed the double yellow lines because the vehicle ahead was slow.
Municipal court found Fields guilty and imposed a fine and costs; Fields appealed to the Law Division.
The Law Division conducted a de novo review, concluded that the statute permits passing in a no-passing zone only when the lane is both "obstructed and impassable," and that a slow vehicle did not render the roadway impassable; it affirmed the conviction.
Fields appealed to the Appellate Division raising statutory-interpretation and sufficiency-of-evidence claims; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fields)	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 39:4-86 requires the lane be both "obstructed and impassable" before passing in a no-passing zone	The statute's plain text allows passing only when the lane is both obstructed and impassable; trial court applied plain language correctly	Court added words to the statute by requiring both elements; statute does not demand both	Affirmed: plain language requires both obstructed and impassable; no legislative language was added
Whether a slow-moving vehicle can constitute an "obstruction" or justify passing in a no-passing zone	Obstruction must be judged factually; trial court correctly found slow vehicle did not make roadway impassable	A slow driver can be an obstruction (relying on Cruz); slow speed here justified passing	Affirmed: slow vehicle may disturb traffic but did not make the roadway impassable here; factual finding supported
Whether the Law Division erred or lacked sufficient evidence to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Law Division performed de novo review, considered testimony and dashboard video, and found sufficient credible evidence	Municipal court credibility should bind appellate review; State bore burden and offered insufficient proof	Affirmed: de novo trial judge properly made independent findings; evidence was sufficient

DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) (statutory interpretation focuses on legislative intent and plain meaning)
Cruz v. Trotta, 363 N.J. Super. 353 (App. Div. 2003) (whether a slow vehicle constitutes an obstruction is a factual question for the trier of fact)
Locurto v. Koster, 157 N.J. 463 (1999) (appellate review limits and deference to trial court credibility findings)
Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964) (scope of review for municipal appeal)