So this morning I come up to what appears to be a ride program. As the officer waves me up to him, he says "why is your front plate in your dash?" I asked him what the reason for stopping me was and all he said was please pull to the side. The officer then approached me and asked for my DL INS and OWN. I provided him with all 3 documents and he said be right back. After 20!, 20! minutes he returns and says I am issuing you a ticket for not displaying two plates. I then asked the officer what was the reason for stopping me today. He said "its a ride program". I then said when I approached you, you did not say it was a ride program or ask me if I had anything to drink. He then said "well, I would be able to smell it". I then thanked him and drove away. What do you guys think about this? To myself, It seems that the officer was not conducting his primary duty at the time which was to check for impaired drivers. He in no way asked me if I have had anything to drink. He also pointed to the plate in my dash before I was close enough to him where he could "smell" the alcohol. What is your opinion on this? Thank you
So this morning I come up to what appears to be a ride program. As the officer waves me up to him, he says "why is your front plate in your dash?" I asked him what the reason for stopping me was and all he said was please pull to the side.
The officer then approached me and asked for my DL INS and OWN. I provided him with all 3 documents and he said be right back. After 20!, 20! minutes he returns and says I am issuing you a ticket for not displaying two plates. I then asked the officer what was the reason for stopping me today. He said "its a ride program". I then said when I approached you, you did not say it was a ride program or ask me if I had anything to drink. He then said "well, I would be able to smell it".
I then thanked him and drove away. What do you guys think about this? To myself, It seems that the officer was not conducting his primary duty at the time which was to check for impaired drivers. He in no way asked me if I have had anything to drink. He also pointed to the plate in my dash before I was close enough to him where he could "smell" the alcohol.
Can police issue a ticket for a non-drinking related offence in a ride program? I was issued a ticket for no front plate while going through a ride program. It is my understanding that the SCC ruled that ride programs are justified in that the removal of freedom of the person is acceptable because of the removal of impaired drivers from the road. In other words, the benefits outweigh the costs. However, I thought it was also ruled that RIDE checks may only be used for that purpose, and not for any other investigation?
Can police issue a ticket for a non-drinking related offence in a ride program?
I was issued a ticket for no front plate while going through a ride program.
It is my understanding that the SCC ruled that ride programs are justified in that the removal of freedom of the person is acceptable because of the removal of impaired drivers from the road. In other words, the benefits outweigh the costs. However, I thought it was also ruled that RIDE checks may only be used for that purpose, and not for any other investigation?
The short answer is yes. While then goal of a RIDE programme may be to target impaired drivers, it doesnt limit police from investigating other offences which they may discover in good faith. When you drive up to such a programme with no front plate, its readily apparent youre committing an H.T.A. offence. The officer is then free to switch gears from RIDE check to HTA investigation.
The short answer is yes.
While then goal of a RIDE programme may be to target impaired drivers, it doesnt limit police from investigating other offences which they may discover in good faith. When you drive up to such a programme with no front plate, its readily apparent youre committing an H.T.A. offence. The officer is then free to switch gears from RIDE check to HTA investigation.
Thank you Stanton. There are a few points I wish to state. In the case of R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615, it is stated that "The primary aim of check stop programs, which result in the arbitrary detention of motorists, is to check for sobriety, licences, ownership, insurance and the mechanical fitness of cars" I do not see how a licence plate would fit any of these categories- It is not a mechanical issue, I provided the PO with DL, INS and OWN, and was sober. Also, there were only 2 POs conducting the RIDE checkpoint. At the time I was signaled to the side, the other officer was tending to another vehicle which had been pulled over. Therefore, as the officer who issued me the ticket spent 20 minutes in his cruiser writing the ticket, cars were FREELY passing through the RIDE program. The purpose of the RIDE program is to take impaired drivers off of the road, yet, for 20 minutes, cars freely passed through the checkpoint...therefore, as stated, the officer "switched gears" from RIDE check to HTA investigation, however, I was only stopped because of the RIDE program and the only purpose for the officer being in that location was to conduct RIDE stops. How can this be okay? Apparently, a simple licence plate violation is more important than drunk drivers committing criminal offences? In my opinion, the officer went out of his way to issue me a PON for a very minor offence while he should have been conducting RIDE stops to check for drunk drivers. I might add, I am a young male who was driving an expensive sports car - seems like a was targeted
Thank you Stanton.
There are a few points I wish to state.
In the case of R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615, it is stated that "The primary aim of check stop programs, which result in the arbitrary detention of motorists, is to check for sobriety, licences, ownership, insurance and the mechanical fitness of cars"
I do not see how a licence plate would fit any of these categories- It is not a mechanical issue, I provided the PO with DL, INS and OWN, and was sober.
Also, there were only 2 POs conducting the RIDE checkpoint. At the time I was signaled to the side, the other officer was tending to another vehicle which had been pulled over. Therefore, as the officer who issued me the ticket spent 20 minutes in his cruiser writing the ticket, cars were FREELY passing through the RIDE program.
The purpose of the RIDE program is to take impaired drivers off of the road, yet, for 20 minutes, cars freely passed through the checkpoint...therefore, as stated, the officer "switched gears" from RIDE check to HTA investigation, however, I was only stopped because of the RIDE program and the only purpose for the officer being in that location was to conduct RIDE stops. How can this be okay? Apparently, a simple licence plate violation is more important than drunk drivers committing criminal offences?
In my opinion, the officer went out of his way to issue me a PON for a very minor offence while he should have been conducting RIDE stops to check for drunk drivers.
I might add, I am a young male who was driving an expensive sports car - seems like a was targeted
While you make feel that this was unfair, the law supports the officer's actions. There is nothing to say that an officer must ask if you had been drinking, often a random conversation can be used through which the officer could detect signs of impairment such as slurred speech, glassy eyes, odour of liquor etc. Your argument that they should have just ignored your, and by extension any, HTA infraction would result in vehicles with all sorts of violations being allowed to pass through a police checkpoint. This is nonsensical and I have no doubt the JP would think the same.
While you make feel that this was unfair, the law supports the officer's actions. There is nothing to say that an officer must ask if you had been drinking, often a random conversation can be used through which the officer could detect signs of impairment such as slurred speech, glassy eyes, odour of liquor etc.
Your argument that they should have just ignored your, and by extension any, HTA infraction would result in vehicles with all sorts of violations being allowed to pass through a police checkpoint. This is nonsensical and I have no doubt the JP would think the same.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
LICENCES would include vehicle LICENCE plates. Having a PRIMARY aim does not imply that incidental issues that come up will be ignored.
arnoldstheman wrote:
There are a few points I wish to state.
In the case of R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615, it is stated that "The primary aim of check stop programs, which result in the arbitrary detention of motorists, is to check for sobriety, licences, ownership, insurance and the mechanical fitness of cars"
I do not see how a licence plate would fit any of these categories- It is not a mechanical issue, I provided the PO with DL, INS and OWN, and was sober
LICENCES would include vehicle LICENCE plates. Having a PRIMARY aim does not imply that incidental issues that come up will be ignored.
This is not a general police checkpoint. It is a RIDE program. The primary aim is not to target people for driving offences, it is to remove drunk drivers for the road. There is a reason the whole idea of ride checks went to the supreme court of Canada, it is a violation of the charter. However, it was ruled that this infringement on citizens is necessary for the security of citizens because impaired drivers are being removed from the road. As I stated earlier, this was not a RIDE program conducted with several officers. There were only 2 officers conducting the RIDE stops. Therefore, the officer neglected his primary duty to check for impaired drivers to issue me a PON for a minor offence. I also stated that a random conversation was not initialized. The officer pointed at my plate on the dash as I approached him and said it cannot be there and too pull over. He did not check if I was impaired before he detained me for the HTA violation. There are numerous times when police may be engaging in a minor traffic stops and a call comes in over the radio signally all units to respond. So while he may have been legally allowed to issue me a ticket, there is still a precedent set here. The primary and significantly more important goal of the RIDE check was to search for impaired drivers. If an officer were to pull me over me over for the same offence and then witnessed a violent assault at the side of the road, I guess he can ignore it because he is legally issuing me a PON?? No, there are always levels of the severeness of laws and certain ones must be attended to before others, especially when the primary goal is to attend to the serious offence in a RIDE program which is of course impaired driving. You say a JP will think it is nonsensical to allow cars with HTA violations to pass through a police checkpoint. Will the JP not think it is nonsensical to allow potential drunk drivers to pass through a RIDE check because of a minor HTA violation? I understand that the law may have supported the officers actions, however, I believe I do have a descent defense here. LICENCES would not include LICENCE plates in that way- it is referring to the legal licencing of a vehicle, including DL, OWN, INS and that is has plates and is registered. The ticket is my case is for wrongful placement of the front plate. The car is plated.
This is not a general police checkpoint. It is a RIDE program. The primary aim is not to target people for driving offences, it is to remove drunk drivers for the road. There is a reason the whole idea of ride checks went to the supreme court of Canada, it is a violation of the charter. However, it was ruled that this infringement on citizens is necessary for the security of citizens because impaired drivers are being removed from the road.
As I stated earlier, this was not a RIDE program conducted with several officers. There were only 2 officers conducting the RIDE stops. Therefore, the officer neglected his primary duty to check for impaired drivers to issue me a PON for a minor offence.
I also stated that a random conversation was not initialized. The officer pointed at my plate on the dash as I approached him and said it cannot be there and too pull over. He did not check if I was impaired before he detained me for the HTA violation.
There are numerous times when police may be engaging in a minor traffic stops and a call comes in over the radio signally all units to respond. So while he may have been legally allowed to issue me a ticket, there is still a precedent set here. The primary and significantly more important goal of the RIDE check was to search for impaired drivers.
If an officer were to pull me over me over for the same offence and then witnessed a violent assault at the side of the road, I guess he can ignore it because he is legally issuing me a PON??
No, there are always levels of the severeness of laws and certain ones must be attended to before others, especially when the primary goal is to attend to the serious offence in a RIDE program which is of course impaired driving.
You say a JP will think it is nonsensical to allow cars with HTA violations to pass through a police checkpoint. Will the JP not think it is nonsensical to allow potential drunk drivers to pass through a RIDE check because of a minor HTA violation?
I understand that the law may have supported the officers actions, however, I believe I do have a descent defense here.
LICENCES would not include LICENCE plates in that way- it is referring to the legal licencing of a vehicle, including DL, OWN, INS and that is has plates and is registered. The ticket is my case is for wrongful placement of the front plate. The car is plated.
Stating the officer should have remained diligent for impaired drivers is not a defence. This type of argument arises frequently in Court, where motorists state there were other people committing more serious offences at the time they were stopped. The Court is not interested in the other offenders, only whether the person before the Courts committed the offence for which they were charged. Unless there was a Charter violation in how you were stopped (something youve yet to demonstrate), arguments regarding what the officer should have been doing are irrelevant. If youre going to trial you need another strategy.
Stating the officer should have remained diligent for impaired drivers is not a defence. This type of argument arises frequently in Court, where motorists state there were other people committing more serious offences at the time they were stopped. The Court is not interested in the other offenders, only whether the person before the Courts committed the offence for which they were charged. Unless there was a Charter violation in how you were stopped (something youve yet to demonstrate), arguments regarding what the officer should have been doing are irrelevant. If youre going to trial you need another strategy.
An officer doesn't need the ride program to pull you over and ask for license and registration. He can do that anytime anyone is on the road driving a vehicle. As for the "drunk drivers are getting away" argument, you can make that argument with any ticket in the history of pulling people over. Maybe it's because you drive with your plate on your dash, which only serves as a big "hey, did you notice I don't have a front plate attached to my vehicle? Please pull me over". You're probably better off with no plates at all. There's no difference.
An officer doesn't need the ride program to pull you over and ask for license and registration. He can do that anytime anyone is on the road driving a vehicle.
As for the "drunk drivers are getting away" argument, you can make that argument with any ticket in the history of pulling people over.
arnoldstheman wrote:
I might add, I am a young male who was driving an expensive sports car - seems like a was targeted
Maybe it's because you drive with your plate on your dash, which only serves as a big "hey, did you notice I don't have a front plate attached to my vehicle? Please pull me over". You're probably better off with no plates at all. There's no difference.
I think you are descending into the ridiculous here. Of course an officer would leave you to deal with a violent assault. He'd leave an impaired driver to deal with a violent assault if he had to. You are arguing that he shouldn't deal with an offence that is in plain view because he might miss something else that he doesn't have any evidence is happening. I think you'll get crucified in court but go for it !
arnoldstheman wrote:
If an officer were to pull me over me over for the same offence and then witnessed a violent assault at the side of the road, I guess he can ignore it because he is legally issuing me a PON??
...
You say a JP will think it is nonsensical to allow cars with HTA violations to pass through a police checkpoint. Will the JP not think it is nonsensical to allow potential drunk drivers to pass through a RIDE check because of a minor HTA violation?
I understand that the law may have supported the officers actions, however, I believe I do have a descent defense here.
I think you are descending into the ridiculous here. Of course an officer would leave you to deal with a violent assault. He'd leave an impaired driver to deal with a violent assault if he had to.
You are arguing that he shouldn't deal with an offence that is in plain view because he might miss something else that he doesn't have any evidence is happening.
I think you'll get crucified in court but go for it !
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
I had a similar experience about 10 years ago. I was driving my car (which was registered in Quebec where I was living at the time, and also had a Quebec drivers license), and Quebec is one of many Canadian provinces that does not issue a front plate - only a rear license plate. So I came upon a ride spot check, in Ontario, and the office asked me where my front plate was. I told him this is a Quebec registered car, and Quebec does not issue front plates. He walked to the back of my car, and saw my Quebec plate, and also noticed there was no sticker on the plate, since they no longer issue stickers for plates. I told him this, but he didn't believe me, so I got my registration out, and luckily there was a note on it, in English, that said something like "Notice to police officers outside of Quebec, since 1992 the province of Quebec has abolished the use of license plate stickers, please ignore any that are in place." Each year when you renew your license plate, they give you a new registration paper which shows the new expiry date, so there's proof that it's valid. I also had a valid insurance slip. Luckily I had proof of all of this. I wasn't trying to be smug about it, but I felt like the office was being a bit harsh on something he was not informed about, and he almost seemed disappointed that I proved him wrong. He gave my papers back and sent my on my way. Like the orignal poster, I was not even asked if I had anything to drink, though, as mentioned, the officers are trained to spot impairment while speaking with the driver. In any case, I had not been drinking, so I had nothing to worry about even if he did pursue it. The worst that happened was that I was delayed for about 5 minutes.
I had a similar experience about 10 years ago. I was driving my car (which was registered in Quebec where I was living at the time, and also had a Quebec drivers license), and Quebec is one of many Canadian provinces that does not issue a front plate - only a rear license plate. So I came upon a ride spot check, in Ontario, and the office asked me where my front plate was. I told him this is a Quebec registered car, and Quebec does not issue front plates. He walked to the back of my car, and saw my Quebec plate, and also noticed there was no sticker on the plate, since they no longer issue stickers for plates. I told him this, but he didn't believe me, so I got my registration out, and luckily there was a note on it, in English, that said something like "Notice to police officers outside of Quebec, since 1992 the province of Quebec has abolished the use of license plate stickers, please ignore any that are in place." Each year when you renew your license plate, they give you a new registration paper which shows the new expiry date, so there's proof that it's valid. I also had a valid insurance slip.
Luckily I had proof of all of this. I wasn't trying to be smug about it, but I felt like the office was being a bit harsh on something he was not informed about, and he almost seemed disappointed that I proved him wrong. He gave my papers back and sent my on my way. Like the orignal poster, I was not even asked if I had anything to drink, though, as mentioned, the officers are trained to spot impairment while speaking with the driver. In any case, I had not been drinking, so I had nothing to worry about even if he did pursue it. The worst that happened was that I was delayed for about 5 minutes.
I can see the argument from the other side. The reason I am having such a hard time with accepting the charge is because of the way I was detained. To me, by the officer failing to tell me he was conducting a ride checkpoint, and failing to ask if I have had anything to drink was not right. As I stated, the officer pointed to my front plate as I pulled up toward him, before he would be able to smell any alcohol or visually see if I was impaired or not. He simply pointed to my plate and said pull over and then issued me a PON. The way I was stopped makes it appear that the officer was setting up a road stop to check for any violation, this to me would be a charter breach. This is going to be a tough one to beat, but I'm sure going to try!
I can see the argument from the other side. The reason I am having such a hard time with accepting the charge is because of the way I was detained. To me, by the officer failing to tell me he was conducting a ride checkpoint, and failing to ask if I have had anything to drink was not right.
As I stated, the officer pointed to my front plate as I pulled up toward him, before he would be able to smell any alcohol or visually see if I was impaired or not. He simply pointed to my plate and said pull over and then issued me a PON. The way I was stopped makes it appear that the officer was setting up a road stop to check for any violation, this to me would be a charter breach.
This is going to be a tough one to beat, but I'm sure going to try!
You're much better off buying front a license plate bracket, keep the receipt; take lots of pictures of your car with the plate installed. Explain why you had your license plate unattached to the prosecutor. There is a real chance the prosecutor may actually withdraw the charge. Maybe worth reading: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com ... tml#p29833 R. v. Ladouceur, [1990]1 SCR 1257, 1990 CanLII 108 (SCC) I don't see the charter breach here, any law enforcement officer in Ontario will give you a ticket for not displaying your front license plate properly. It's the same as OPP officers parked on highway on-ramps looking for hand-held, seatbelt & equipment violations. They will point at your plate, and pull you over in the exact same manner.
You're much better off buying front a license plate bracket, keep the receipt; take lots of pictures of your car with the plate installed. Explain why you had your license plate unattached to the prosecutor. There is a real chance the prosecutor may actually withdraw the charge.
While the routine check is an arbitrary detention in violation of s. 9 of the Charter, the infringement is one that is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I don't see the charter breach here, any law enforcement officer in Ontario will give you a ticket for not displaying your front license plate properly. It's the same as OPP officers parked on highway on-ramps looking for hand-held, seatbelt & equipment violations. They will point at your plate, and pull you over in the exact same manner.
Thanks for the advice, already on top of that. Plate has been installed and pics taken. While I agree with what you are saying, the point I am trying to make is ride programs are legal for the reasons which you quoted, however, police cannot just set up random checkpoints to search for any HTA violations. While I agree with what you are saying that the OPP wait on ramps to search for such offences, I highly doubt they are forcing every vehicle to stop and then search for violations....the rights of the drivers are not impeded until the officer notices the violation. In my case, I was stopped at a checkpoint for a ride check where police were searching for impaired drivers before my HTA violation was pointed out. Therefore, it would seem that my charter right was taken away, because I was detained for possibly committed an HTA offence, and then as I moved up the line of cars waiting to be checked, the officer pointed to my plate. The stop was not to check if any HTA violations had been committed, it was to check for impaired drivers. Police cannot set up road checks on highway ramps and STOP vehicles in search for HTA violations, however, they can search for violations while vehicles are travelling in the normal course of traffic, therefore, not breaching their charter right. I understand what people are saying here, and I appreciate the advice, I am just simply trying to explain the situation from my perspective.
Thanks for the advice, already on top of that. Plate has been installed and pics taken. While I agree with what you are saying, the point I am trying to make is ride programs are legal for the reasons which you quoted, however, police cannot just set up random checkpoints to search for any HTA violations.
While I agree with what you are saying that the OPP wait on ramps to search for such offences, I highly doubt they are forcing every vehicle to stop and then search for violations....the rights of the drivers are not impeded until the officer notices the violation. In my case, I was stopped at a checkpoint for a ride check where police were searching for impaired drivers before my HTA violation was pointed out. Therefore, it would seem that my charter right was taken away, because I was detained for possibly committed an HTA offence, and then as I moved up the line of cars waiting to be checked, the officer pointed to my plate. The stop was not to check if any HTA violations had been committed, it was to check for impaired drivers.
Police cannot set up road checks on highway ramps and STOP vehicles in search for HTA violations, however, they can search for violations while vehicles are travelling in the normal course of traffic, therefore, not breaching their charter right.
I understand what people are saying here, and I appreciate the advice, I am just simply trying to explain the situation from my perspective.
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
