There are a couple of ways of getting it reduced or dropped. If the 407ETR can read the plates, I still think a ticket for a yellow tinted plate covering is a little overboard... but that's just my opinion. (Doesn't mean my opinion works in court.) What police service did the officer belong to? Some are more likely to show up for trial than others.

Take all of the photographs (make sure they have a time-date stamp) and the 407ETR bills. Have your boyfriend remove the plate covering. Send in a disclosure request to the Crown. They likely won't send you much except for the officer's notes.

See if you can meet with the Prosecutor and attempt a plea-bargain (a First Attendance meeting). The key thing here is have your boyfriend show that he believed that he was not breaking any law and that the plate covering did not prevent anyone from correctly identifying and reading the licence plate (show 407ETR bills)... but since there is some doubt and he is a law-abiding citizen, he removed the plate cover as a precaution. Invite Prosecutor to inspect the vehicle (he likely will not). State that you also believed that you were obeying the law and had no reason to think that the plate cover would prevent anyone from reading the plate or create any confusion. See what they say. If you cannot reach a resolution with the Prosecutor that satisfies both you & the Crown, then a trial becomes an option, but that's a little more complicated... too tired to post a full explanation right now though...

Thanks
Its the Kingston police,but the also have abrand new building so i guess thay gota get money from somewhere lol.
I will post when i know more

I had a chat with the prosecutor today over the phone.I have to ask for my trial to be delayed due to a family emergency overseas.He was like you are not gonna drive all the way here to go to court ,you might as well pay the ticket.You are gonna get convicted bla bla bla.
Not coming back until september.

Has anyone gone to court for a tinted plate cover and won?If so what was your defence??
Thank you

I'm guessing will be convicted.

The not plainly visible part includes the colour of the plate. The colour of the plate which is part of it's identity is being obscured...

Plus you lose the very important part of being able to see it, you greatly reduce the contrast of dark colour on light colour.

Your intent, whether or not you knew (you're required to know the laws of the road) and who's car it is don't matter in court, for any offence.

Hi everyone
Just a quick update.I showed up for my court date and the prosecutor did his rounds cutting deals with everyone outside the courtroom.When he approached me and offered to lower the fine i simple told him no .
30 minutes before i was supposed to appear in court the cop came out and informed me my case had been dropped.
Thanks everyone

That's great news for you but did you find out why?

I am guessing the prosecutor knew he wasnt going to get an easy conviction.I think and have been told they had me under the wrong section also .I had 407 toll bills and the prosecuter saw me looking at them before going in.I dont think he wanted to look like an idiot.Anyway worked out for me lol

Weird, I've charged maybe 75 times under that section and always gotten a conviction...people bring their 407 bills, but the 407 is known to make lots of mistakes...and clearly if you've changed the apparent colour of the plate it's confusing the identity. Plus a tint of any kind makes it harder to read as it lowers contrast. I had one JP state that you can't rely on the 407 cameras as they 'see' much better than a human being...

I actually once stated in court that the SR71 spyplane could photograph a licence plate at 18,000ft, but if you shrunk yours down to the size of a postage stamp, despite it clearly being visible, it would be difficult to read...I think when the gallery stopped laughing (I have a great sense of humour) the JP saw my point and registered a conviction.

I'm glad it worked out for you, but would suggest you leave it off to prevent another trip to the courthouse...

Yeah dont know as i said i dont think the prosecutor wanted to take a chance and loosing the case.Everyone else before me had done something worse like driving without license etc .I had my 1 year old baby with me to lamo.
And i was prepared to fight it and was 100 percent innocent.Anyway the plate covers are off i didnt have to pay 110 dollars. either way i feel that the police should had taken the opportunity to educate instead of slamming me with a ticket.But maybe he had a bad day

Well I suppose it could be argued you should have got a warning, but then everyone else should get one too right...where do you draw the line on warnings?

I suppose we could all go around everyday and warn everyone all the time, but then really people would not fear the consequences and just say I'll just do it til I get a warning, then wait to get stopped again, get another warning...blah blah blah...

The problem is it's not our job to educate the public, it's their responsibility. One of our responsibilities as Ontario drivers is to make ourselves aware of the laws in the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario...I can appreciate you didn't knowingly break the law so you feel you are innocent...but that just doesn't cut it in the eyes of the law.

People will claim they didn't know their headlight was out, so they didn't know they were breaking the law...but if you ask them, when was the last time you checked it? Oh I didn't check it tonight / this week / ever!

It's called due diligence, you are responsible.

You borrow a friends car and get stopped and don't have the insurance documents? You aren't innocent cause you didn't know they were in the glove compartment, you are guilty cause you failed to ensure they were there when you took the car.

Same with tinted licence plate covers.

You aren't innocent cause you borrowed the car, didn't know the law or it wasn't your vehicle...you are guilty cause you are responsible to know the law before you borrow the vehicle.

The law doesn't impact the seller or the owner, but the driver.

I have no idea why the crown dropped your case, was it a time issue or your clean record so they cut you a break, but I've never lost one in court and have charged tons...so really, the case was anything but loseable...

Another reason for banning covers all together, I've seen bad guys find a car matching their stolen wheels, remove the plates and run them thru a colour copier, paste that on a nice piece of cardboard and put a plate cover on it to hide the fact it flat and has not raised surfaces, and voila drive around for months, years even with no insurance and hiding in plain sight.

The average person doesn't think like this cause the average person isn't a criminal. But how do we a police officers prevent this?

The cost to replace plates? $10

The cost of plate covers (which trap salt, grime and moisture, thus hastening the deterioration of your plates)? $20

Does it really make any sense to cover your plates?

I Think that certain people there is no point in giving warnings they are just going to do it again.However with certain people i think i warning will serve the same purpose as a ticket minus the money lol.I am thinking the prosecution in my case knew they had failed to give me full disclosure .I Ask for an explanation and clarification of the charge, specifically the standards for what constitutes "confuse identity" of the plate.And got nothing,also asked for a typed version of the officers notes and got as copy of his scribbled notes.If i had been pulled over for speeding i would had paid the fine .I have a clear record with no other tickets to me it was worth fighting.I mean if i am going to get a ticket it should be for something worth giving a ticket for like speeding or running stop signs etc.I did go through a red light and was caught in the blitz the officer asked why i did not stop when it switched to red.I simply said i did an error judgment and taught the vehicle behind me was closer to me then what he was and did not feel safe slamming my breaks .He told me the officer in front of me was issuing a ticket to the guy in front of me,but was letting me go with a warning to be more careful.I have since then made a point of making sure i will have plenty of time to stop at red lights.The warning worked for me .yes a ticket would have worked to but again it sure was nice to give a warning instead.I was a bit disappointed i didn't get to in front of the judge and prove my case about the plate covers lol.
I think she would have let me go but again i guess i will never know.
Is it worth covering plates,I personally do not have my plate covered.Some do so they can protect the plate and not have to replace them when they are worn and can not be read at all.Do i think that tickets should be issued for that no way.Seems to me there are more important things to chase after.
This cop was gonna give me a ticket for the freshener in the window lamo.
I think i am a safe driver in Sweden we have to complete 6 hrs of driving on ice or oil before we get our license ,we also have to complete 10 hrs in a garage learning maintenance of the vehicle.All things i think should be mandatory here in Canada before letting people out on the road.It sure is nice to know how to come out of a spin on a safe course instead of on the 401.Bottom line the cop ran my plate had no problems doing so from a safe distance he followed me for a while before pulling me over .The plate was clearly visible and he had no problems seeing that.I think that because i was not from the area he taught it was gonna be an easy 110 dollars again a warning would have saved time and money for the prosecution.I would just had taken the plate covers of and gone on my way.I know its not the police jobs to educate ,however a good police will take the time to educate some one who clearly just did not know instead of issuing a ticket

Here's a few questions:

How can you tell which people warnings work with and which it won't?

Why do police have to warn people when they have a duty to know the law?

Statically warnings don't fix the problem. Sure most people will take the cover off, but cause we can't stop everyone, a large number will not. I've personally had several drivers make the changes, satisfy the 72 hr notice, then go put the illegal equipment back on.

Had I ticketed them the first time...they can comply or face a larger fine on a second conviction. Plus there is no way to track a 72 hr once satisfied, there's no way check it on our computer system...You want to be certain it gets fixed or it gets really expensive, you lay the charge.

Sure it costs the uninformed driver money, but we don't get a penny, it goes to the municipalities and we have ZERO dialogue with city hall...in fact every time we get to contract negotiations it's major battle. So I can assure we get none of that money and there is NO benefit career wise unless perhaps you want to go to the traffic enforcement unit. 95% have no interest in working there...

If your plates are damaged it's half the price to exchange them than the cost of the covers so the plate protector argument really makes no $$$ sense either. Unless you have personalize plates.

As far as educating the public, well that gets old really fast, cause believe or not, lots of people expect this and just willfully break the law until the get stopped which can take years...between busy police forces and overworked officers...

If I have a 'ticket gun' I could write 500-1000 a day...then there would be compliance...but people rightfully assert "Well officer my windows have been tinted this dark for years', so tell me how would you be a police officer?

I suppose you might say you would not ticket nice people, and only ticket bad people? If so tell me how you sort them out?

How do you know?You don't you would have to go with that gut feeling and trust your instincts .Sure a lot of people deserve a ticket i just feel that tickets for plate covers are a waste of time.I know it gets old when you have said the same thing a 100 times over and over again and no one seems to give a damn.You are not in my area right because i have a felling you be giving me a ticket lol.
As i said i don't use plate covers,but i don't think ticket should be issued for it
Not as long as they are being sold all over the place.The police don't have to warn people that's up to them,some do some don't.I have been fortunate to meet the once who will

This is a valid point and it is supported by evidence. Scandinavian nations have the lowest collision and fatality rates on the planet. I wouldn't adopt everything that countries like Sweden, Norway, etc., do, but their driver education/training is something every province should look at.



There is no way to tell, as Saraya says. It is the officer's discretion as to whether to charge with the exact offence(s), reduce the charge, or let go with a warning. Anecdotal story: When I was 18, I took a curve too fast in a snowstorm, slid off the road and got stuck on a concrete raised median. No damage, no crash, but stuck. First car that came along was the RCMP (this was on the Ottawa River Parkway). Officer helped me get the car free, and then asked: "Did you learn something from this?" He gave me a lecture, but no ticket. A warning. I suppose I could've been hit with careless driving. I haven't lost control, been in a collision, spun out or anything in winter driving conditions since. At the end of the day, did the officer's approach meet the goal of improving traffic safety? You decide. That approach wouldn't work on every driver, but it worked on me.

As for a plate covering confusing the identity of the plate... "confuse identity" to me seems to be a charge that would be used if someone used blue paint to change a "3" to an "8" or "F" to a "B" or something like that. A plate covering that makes it difficult to read seems like it's obscuring/obstructing the plate. But, that's just my opinion...

_________________
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca

Just to add to FyreStorm post... any length of notice (24, 48, 72hrs, a week) is all officer discretion and not mandatory.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca