Airplane Caught Me!

So I got pulled over for speeding and following too close, on HWY 11 north of Barrie. The airplane caught me! I will fight this as I have fought ALL my tickets and won EVERY ONE of them (one per year... man I need to drive slower). So any thoughts out there on how to fight this one? Does the Crown have to bring the 2 officers in the plane, plus the one in the cruises to court? If 1 in 3 doesn't show up, do I have a case for dismissal? I know all about disclosure and Charter arguments, so specifically, I'm looking for a defense by using the airplane somehow (a non-witness officer gave me the actual ticket), so I know there is something I can try at, or before court (in adition to the typical disclosure stuff). Anyone?

The officer in the plane timed you between paint marks (I assume) and will need to be there to testify about it. The officer on the ground identified the driver and will also need to be there to testify. The charging document (ticket) must be signed by the charging officer. In this case the charging officer is acting solely on the statement of a witness, the aerial officer, so naturally both would need to be available for questioning.

I'm not sure who the 2nd aerial officer is. Did you mean the pilot? I doubt he'd be required.

Here's an example of a multi-cop speed trap win:

http://www.gtcars.ca/online/traffic-tic ... y-7-a.html

Hope you follow up with the outcome.

The prosocution needs both officers to testify, otherwise it becomes hearsay evidence. Fight this one, it can be easily beaten.

Not as easy as you might think.

It is identical procedure as we use for LIDAR intercept programs.

One officer does the targetting with the lidar (gathering of evidence...such as an officer would in a plane) relays via radio to the intercepting officer. They confirm the vehicle and the intercepting officer writes the offence notice based on the evidence of the first officer.

However both officers will have to attend court.

Actually this is the same as a traffic complaint where a civilian witness provides a statement and the charge is laid by an officer, both have to attend court.

I'm curious though, how can the areal officer (observer) testify to the altitude and air speed of the plane? I really think the pilot needs to a witness too. That makes it 3 witnesses. Maybe BOTH officers in the plane are pilots?

How does the aerial officer see that far to the ground? Does he (or she) use binoculars?

After a very long absence, airplane surveillance was brought back last year. There is an actual machine called VASCAR (Visual Average Speed Computer & Recorder) used to determine your speed and the plane has a viewport to observe you. I may be wrong, but I believe in Ontario the pilot is the officer using the device.

A good introduction to it can be found here. (ignore the first part about "aerial radar")

You said you know all about disclosure so forgive me for mentioning that the point of disclosure is to obtain the names of witnesses and all evidence that will be used against you including finding out what device was used to measure your speed and therefore the implications of it (officer certification, repair and calibration logs, etc).

Finally, somebody put those triangles on the road and they have to testify that they were in fact placed exactly so many meters apart.

COMBAT, thanks for the info... VERY helpful.... especially having the info about VASCAR .. so I will then ask for a training certificate to prove the officer knows how to operate such device (well, first, I'll find out if that was indeed the device he used) ... AND, I will definitely ask for proof (assuming some kind of certificate) that those lines/arrows on the road are exactly the correct measure! Beautiful stuff. All we have to do, is raise some doubt.

It is the observer officer in the plane.

Not using VASCAR either....that is a way to measure speeds of vehicles while on the ground, mostly in the USA.

I was recently in the air at about 1000 feet, it is NOT hard to see the vehicles or colour at all, easy to pick things out. Just say have a "dinky car", put it on the floor and stand up and look down, that is a relatively good comparison.

Not using "triangles" either. The marks in our area are exactly 500m apart.

Wow I had no idea you could actually be caught and be ticketed by an airplane...

How does that happen exactly? Did a cruiser actually pull you over and notify you? or did you get notified in the mail or something?

I mean I am assuming an actual airplane didn't pull you over, so I would be interested in knowing the procedure of how one gets this type of ticket physically.

Funny stuff, an airplane with cherries and a siren on it's roof... no, the airplane caught me (measured my speed), but didn't pull me over... the thought of a Zesna landing on the 400 and giving chase (funny stuff, and would be great story for Cam Wooley) ... there were a bunch of cruisers parked on the shoulder and one of 'em waived me over. So, he gave me the ticket based on the airplane observer radio-ing him from the airplane. So, both officers have to show up in court. That much I know. They use helicopters too (on HWY 400).

Hwybear, what markings are there on Hwy 11 north of Barrie? How do they know for sure the measurement between them? Did the Staff Sergeant simply tell the traffic cops, or is there a certificate to prove this?

Speaking of Cam Wooley, is there some way to get him on this site lol?

McGuinty announced the launch of OPP air on May 5. You can see a video of the OPP plane in action but you have to listen to his speech. Pictures of the event can be seen here.

The London Free Press did a story in July.

It is the observer officer in the plane.

State troopers (I believe from Ohio) have been training OPP since last August. The training was for one pilot to both fly and observe like they do in their state. Here's a video of their program.

Not using VASCAR either....that is a way to measure speeds of vehicles while on the ground, mostly in the USA.

VASCAR originally referred to a specific device but now it generally means any speed measurement done by timing a vehicle between two points. But you are right Bear, it measures distance which doesn't work on a plane.

The OHIO video shows the pilot using the Accutrack (Robic) which is likely what they are using here. It's a fancy stop watch with the distances pre-programmed. Makes sense as the press release says all the new lines are 500m apart on 400 series highways.

Speaking of Cam Wooley, is there some way to get him on this site lol?

Cam just got off desk duty for saying too much instead of touting the OPP line. I doubt Fantino will let him spout here.

The whole plane idea is based from the OHIO State Police program

We are trained by our own members. One pilot and the observer in ours. Think it is a lot easier for the observer to write notes of an offence rather than a solo pilot, unless theirs is all digitally voice recorded *thumbs up*

I do not know what markings are on Hwy 11 or Hwy 400. Ours are "hash" marks. One in the passing lane along the left shoulder. Other directly across on the driving lane. I have yet to measure their actual size with a tape measure, appear to be 1 metre long x 0.5metre wide.

Proving distance......I have actually stopped and driven hash mark to hash mark, front tire to front tire, bang on 500m on all our marks.

Thanks guys.. I just found the first statement for reasonable doubt... this quote is great ......

"You can't make out makes of vehicles, but you can pick out the colour, position and tell a truck from a car." -- OPP pilot Dan Cameron

synergy wrote:

Thanks guys.. I just found the first statement for reasonable doubt... this quote is great ......

"You can't make out makes of vehicles, but you can pick out the colour, position and tell a truck from a car." -- OPP pilot Dan Cameron

Does not seem like much doubt at all.....we do it all the time at ground level (obs 4dr blue sedan, kept sight and stopped same).....air would not be any different, kept sight and confirmed with ground unit the subject vehicle is directly in front.....or during intercept on ground, same thing.

Quite honestly, someone has to be blatantly brutal to be stopped via plane or even on the ground.

(EG 25,000 mv pass through my patrol area every day....say 5 officers per shift x 2 shifts = 10 officers....if on a high day for every officer stop 20 vehicles each that is only 200 vehicles = less than 1%)

hwybear, I didn't realize the observer had constant sight of the vehicle, but it makes sense now ... although, in court, he can't honestly say "I observed a red 1998 Camero exceeding the speeing, now can he? .... I guess it's tag team in court between him and the ground officer..

I am a little upset on this one as I was only doing 121 in a 100. Yes, I know it's still speeding, but come on, 121? And to use an airpplane at hundreds of dollars an hour to catch someone only doing 121? I can see 130, 140+, but this is nuts. I blow past parked crusiers doing 130 in the city. Up north, it's a whole different ball game.

Up north,children play soccer on the soft shoulder.....SLOW DOWN!

I was on the 400, so there are no pedestrians allowed.

In remote parts of HWY 11, I see no problem doing 10 or 20 over, but in the built up areas, where you are probably referring too, then of course, I'd slow down.

My point is that I find it silly using an airplane (and all the costs asscoiated with that), to catch a guy doing 21 over when it's somewhat of a remote area. If I had been doing 21 over in a school zone (which I wouldn't), then yes, throw the book at me.

It's common sense man!

LOL,I was being sarcastic!

21 over the PSL is slow for the 400,you just helped pay for the fuel!

I didn't pick up on the sarcasm, but I get it now ... I am really pissed by this ticket..... I wonder if it's simply a matter of me being the only guy actually speeding at the time ... maybe no one was driving unsafe (30-50 over), so, in order to justify the cost of the airplane, they have to keep writing tickets in a certain time frame. Even if that means ticketing people doing 5-20 over. If no one is seriously speeding, including me who was only doing 21 over, would they get in trouble coming back to the station with no tickets written?

So, this past long weekend, the messge must've got out to stop driving agressively. This is obviously good news as no one (in the GTA) died this past weekend, but does it mean that they will now be handing out tickets to people only doing 5-20km over (because no one is driving 30km+ anymore)? Is there revenue being lost?

synergy wrote:

... although, in court, he can't honestly say "I observed a red 1998 Camero exceeding the speeing, now can he?

I would think it would be more an observation such as monitoring traffic and observed a red camaro traveling faster than the posted speed limit. So much greater that it passed 7 other motor vehicles. The camaro was "clocked" between 2 known points and calculated to be "X" speed, thus confirming the my observations that in fact it was going faster than the posted speed limit.

I buy that, but what I am trying to do, is establish doubt.

What if there were two similar looking cars in the traffic flow? The airplane observer cannot tell the difference from a blue Acura and a blue Civic, can he? There is some doubt to EXACTLY which car then that the land officer has to pull over.

Since the airplane observer cannot identify my vehicle by at least the brand name (let alone license number), then there has to be a little doubt here.

Using this lack of exact identitfication, coupled with some other things, I could establish enough doubt..

In trying to establish doubt, here are a few things ("thinking out of the box") to look into:

• car color: Over one in five cars are silver, if the officer took his eyes off you for even a second he may of picked up a similar colour car...only good if you have a silver, white or dark colour (black) car as there would be, statistically, a lot of them on a busy highway.

• Natural Obstructions like trees, bridges, road curving, or hills which may have caused the officer to loose sight of you.

• Where was the plane flying? Did it have to bank or make flight corrections while observing you? Request the flight log.

• Weather: turbulance, high wind, anything that would make the plane quickly change altitude. Human eyes cannot see in motion. They must be still. Look at something on the left side of the room and then quickly on the right side of the room. Everything in between is blurry because your eyes are moving. When we look at something are eyes have to stop to focus on an object. If the plane lurched (or was likely to lurch in high wind) then the observer would have lost focus, even if only for a split second.

• Did you change lanes and did the road curve? The inside curve is a shorter distance and you would have reached the second marker faster. Did you drive beside a semi which may have obstructed his view. Typically they have to fly off to the side, not directly overhead (there's no viewport at the bottom of the plane!)

• Disclosure: what were the exact highway lines they used to measure you? Can they pinpoint or recall the exact ones?

Some of this is stretching things but sometimes thinking outside of the box can lead to something you can use.

ticketcombat, those are excellent things I would never have considered in casting doubt. Hence the reason why I am tuning into this forum. I really would like to know how the observer knows that those two white lines are exactly 500 meters apart. This seems like a very good area to explore. But what I am concerned about the most (or perhaps extremely happy about), is that they have only been using the airplane for a couple of months so it's not likely that many guys have taken the ticket to trial. My case could actually be one of the first few to bring up such issues (casting doubt about all those things you mention). A JP may never have realized these things either, so it would be quite easy for him to dismiss the case.

synergy wrote:

I really would like to know how the observer knows that those two white lines are exactly 500 meters apart.

I would think the same way construction zones are proven. Police receive a certified MTO copy of the zone and bring it to court.

Police receive a certified MTO copy of the zone and bring it to court.

And those MTO boys are a real crack staff, pun intended.