Second, there was a ruling in the New Jersey state courts some years ago about jurisdiction. Some people might not like it, but when you think about it, it is absolute common sense.
In the case, a local police officer observed an offense outside of his town and stopped the car. The accused was convicted and appealled based on the fact that the offense did not happen in the officer's town, and the stop was not made in the officer's town, therefore the officer had no jurisdiction to make a stop.
The state argued that police officers in New Jersey are sworn to uphold the laws of the State of New Jersey. Since moving violations are part of the state laws, title 39, the court ruled that the officer was in fact upholding the laws of the State of New Jersey and was doing exactly what he was sworn to do.
And they are right. The oath and the laws authorizing police officers in new Jersey say nothing about the particluar town that swears the officer. If you're a cop in New Jersey, you're a cop in all of New Jersey. I wonder why other states have not followed this ruling.
"We do not want a police state," [Commonwealth Court President Judge James Gardner] Colins wrote in his dissent. "It seems we are on the precipice of becoming one, in the name of DUI."
Because state laws vary by state. That's why. What happens under New Jersey state law is irrelevant in Pennsylvania.
The judge was commenting on the lack of due process for one particular type of offense.
No other States follow New Jersey law because New Jersey judges don't follow Jersey law. See the Toricelli case for example.