Do you think this is a good try?

Recently I got a ticket about failing to disobey signs. After having done some researches online I found that one guy on another web site posted that although he failed to obey the sign he actually found that police officer could not see him made the turn from where the office stayed. So he decided to fight for that. Do you guys think this is a good try even though there that guy made the mistake? I have a similar case here.

Thanks for your feedback.

The officer does not have to directly observe the sign itself at the exact moment of the offence. They do have to observe the offence. Example: Sometimes they'll sit around a corner where there is a "no right turn" or "no left turn" sign, or whatever, and nail anyone who makes the turn. That's enough to get a conviction, usually.

BUT (a little more technical)... If the officer is, say, half a block from the intersection, he doesn't have a clear view of the intersection, so often the defendant can be found not guilty if the sign was obscured by something. In that case, the officer would have to be far enough away from the intersection that they could not have seen what might have obscured the sign for that defence to work. You'd have to ask the officer "did you have a clear view of what I was seeing when I approached the sign?" You'd then have to, more or less, show how the sign was obscured. If the officer wasn't in position to observe the actual offence occurring, you could take photographs looking from where the officer was sitting to where the offence occurred to show that he couldn't have observed you commit the offence. If he could not have seen the offence itself occur, that should be enough for dismissal. How far away was the cop?

There are other ways to beat the charge.

Couple of questions: What sign were you ticketed for disobeying? Have you requested disclosure yet?

Radar Identified wrote:

The officer does not have to directly observe the sign itself at the exact moment of the offence. They do have to observe the offence. Example: Sometimes they'll sit around a corner where there is a "no right turn" or "no left turn" sign, or whatever, and nail anyone who makes the turn. That's enough to get a conviction, usually.

BUT (a little more technical)... If the officer is, say, half a block from the intersection, he doesn't have a clear view of the intersection, so often the defendant can be found not guilty if the sign was obscured by something. In that case, the officer would have to be far enough away from the intersection that they could not have seen what might have obscured the sign for that defence to work. You'd have to ask the officer "did you have a clear view of what I was seeing when I approached the sign?" You'd then have to, more or less, show how the sign was obscured. If the officer wasn't in position to observe the actual offence occurring, you could take photographs looking from where the officer was sitting to where the offence occurred to show that he couldn't have observed you commit the offence. If he could not have seen the offence itself occur, that should be enough for dismissal. How far away was the cop?

There are other ways to beat the charge.

Couple of questions: What sign were you ticketed for disobeying? Have you requested disclosure yet?

"No right turn between 4pm and 6pm". If both officers sit in the car (parked behind a condo entrance, about 10 meters away from the intersection) writing ticket, how can they see which car made the right turn?

Unless they were parked WAY behind the entrance, they probably could've seen if anyone made the turn. If the officer shows up for trial, he'll testify that he clearly observed you make the turn. To fight his testimony, you'd have to take a photograph from exactly where he was standing/sitting and show that it would be impossible for him to observe anyone turning. You'd need a copy of the officer's notes, your own camera and you'd have to take a photograph with a date-time stamp on it and submit it to show that, from his vantage point, he could not have observed the offence.

However, was the sign bilingual? If it has English only on it (the 4-6 PM thing is key), the sign (depending on what part of the province you're in) might be invalid.

http://www.ticketcombat.com/step5/bilingual.php

There are a couple of other ways of fighting the charge, such as if you do not get proper disclosure, etc. Keep in mind that if it comes down to the officer's word (he saw the offence) versus yours (you don't think he could have), they'll accept his as being more credible, unless you have proof to the contrary. Also... do you know for sure that they did not have a "spotter" who was at the intersection and radioed to the officers who were pulling people over? Ottawa used to do this quite a bit for red-light offences.

Moved to here:

ohtat wrote:

I received the disclosure form, however the handwritting is too hard to recoganize it. What should I do next? Much thanks.

I'd try another request, and specify "Typed Version of Officer's Notes".

Were there any other pieces of information missing from disclosure that you requested?

But my trail date is next week. I don't think I have time to get another one. I received copy of officer's note and the original ticket. That's all.

Thanks.

What else did you request? List anything that is missing. Then make a compelling case for unusable disclosure.

Wow, this is almost 10 months after you received the infraction notice. You have a good chance to get it stayed if you can prove disclosure is improper, using 11B argument.

I requested disclosure form sometime in April and re-requested sometime in July. Only got it last month.

I used the example form downloaded from TicketCombat website. Here is on the request list:

. a full copy of police officer's notes

. a copy of both sides of the officer's copy of the ticket

. a typed version of any hand written notes.

. witness will say statements and witness statements

. any statement made by defendant.

. copyies of the original notes of such statements and

. the name, address, occupation and criminal record of the persons providing such information.

Looks like they did not give me the "typed version of hand written notes". Can I use this to say that I did not receive all information I requested? If I want to apply a stay, what should I proceed next?

Much thanks.

You can apply for a stay and back it up with saying that the disclosure is unreadable, and there was plenty of time to send you proper paperwork, since the 1-st request was sent out in April. Had it been submitted on time, you would have had more time to prepare, request new disclosure. Crown will try to reschedule, that is where you play the 11B card, saying that A) you've been to court once already, and it is not your fault that the disclosure is unusable, and B) the second court will be scheduled in well over a year, and that breaches your right to a speedy trial, which might have happened already.

Also, read THIS

Since I don't have enought time to request stay by proper way, should I ask for my case adjourned on the court? Or, I ask for a stay directly on the court? Which strategy is better?

Thanks.

I'd try to ask for stay due to improper disclosure. Then the crown will try to adjourn, then you say that that is impossible due to 11B argument - too long since the alleged offence took place, and the fact that you have suffered enough financially by taking off one day of work. Taking off a second day would cause even more financial discomfort.

Ohtat , would you let as know if you won or lost and how