THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me, u-turn and pulled me over. Ticket was reduced to 15 over
Now, that’s a sweet deal!! 31-over on conviction means 4 demerit points to your record. The speeding offence was lowered 2 point-brackets. Not unheard of but very rare.
I would take the deal. The risk of loosing and getting stuck with 4 demerit points is a scary one to me.
My question was more a strategic one - is it better to explain in detail in the first letter, or to submit a generic discovery request for "everything" and then suggest at trial the crown can't prove the reliability of the equipment.
Perhaps you could ask for disclosure with an “including but not limited to” statement. For instance: “This letter is to request that you provide me with full disclosure, including but not limited to, the speed testing device brand, model, serial number, it’s operation and maintenance manual and maintenance and calibration records if any, to allow me to make full answer and defence, as per Supreme Court guidelines in Stinchcombe”.
Once you have received disclosure, see if you got everything you requested and if not, ask for it again. You do not have to explain the reasons for your request in your letter. If what you asked for is not provided then you can bring that issue to the justice of the peace before arraignment on the trial date.
Keep in mind that the test for disclosure is how relevant the requested material is to allow you “to make full answer and defence”, and whether it is possible for the prosecution to get such material.
Everything needs to be maintained, especially when used for evidence. RE the tuning fork maintenance
Tuning forks were used to test the device, but now they are not and the courts have accepted –right or wrong- that they are not necessary. I can not agree with that at all. I always make fuzz about it –not always successfully- because initially they were a fundamental part of the tests.
BTY, tuning forks are used only on devices based on microwave systems and not laser systems. They are two different technologies. Also, forks are not used to calibrate, but to test the speed measuring device.
Respectfully, I think you may face some difficulty in that area at trial and you would need a lot of experience and skills to make your questions and submissions, not only for the trial, but also for use in the case of an eventual appeal.
Simon Borys wrote:
Some of the other things that are mentioned, like how the moving radar is affixed to the unit, are just not relevant.
Well I was just curious above how mobile these radar units are, or whether they are kinda built into the car after reading this site
Actually, this issue is quite relevant because in the case of the Genesis-II, made by Decatur Electronics, for instance, the test using the tuning forks indicate that the forks should be at a distance of about 3 inches from the antenna. When mounted on the cruiser’s dash, it is impossible to place the fork at three inches since the windshield is at more than 3 inches from the antenna.
In two other cases (Connecticut v. Tomanelli and New York v. Struck) it was further ruled that a tuning fork calibration should be performed immediately before and after a citation is issued. All of these cases have established that tuning at the start and end of the shift is not acceptable even though this is often the normal practice.
This is not the standard accepted and applied in our courts. It is enough that the speed measuring device be tested –not calibrated- at the beginning and at the end of the officer’s shift.
Police Officer - Arrest record (day of offense and last three months prior to your date of offense), daily log for the date of your offense, radar training record and operator’s certification and copies of both sides of your original citation.
Respectfully, this is not relevant to the offence and almost certainly it will not be admitted in evidence even if you get that information on your own.
Surely if the crown can't prove that the equipment is maintained and in working order, then they cant prove you were speeding.
Yes; you are right. The real question, though, is what the court will accept to be satisfied that the unit had been maintained and, at the time of the offence it was in working order.
Asking for the date of purchasing and the usage log may help you to question those points, but don’t be surprised if the justice of the peace does not go along with your view.
As a final opinion, NOT LEGAL ADVICE,
I would suggest that you take the 15 over deal simply because, knowing our POA court system, the alternative is very risky.