Is it lawful for an officer to give you a tckt aftr the fact

Thick yellow lines by the shoulder spaced 500 metres apart.

He said "How did you know it was me driving"

posted a few posts up, he told them already

ynotp wrote:

If If you didn't admit to being the driver of the car and the footage doesn't show your face and there are no witnesses establishing your identity from the car to the gym the case is going to fall apart so long as you do not testify.

That being said, this is not a case that you should be unrepresented there is too much at stake.

He didn't have much of an answer for me when I asked him how he knew it was me driving,

should have said, "DO YOU know who was driving"

Radar Identified wrote:

Thick yellow lines by the shoulder spaced 500 metres apart.

The 404 that goes north of Newmarket does not have the yellow line? I checked last night on the way home along with another set of eyes.

You're over analyzing this and speculating at the moment about most of the potential evidence. Wait until you get disclosure and then post any questions you may have.

Most important thing you can do is request disclosure and ask for copies of notes from ALL officers in the helicopter & of the officer that had your vehicle towed & of the officer that showed up at your door (don't assume it was same officer) & of any other officers that end up dealing with you before trial.

You will also want disclosure of all audio and video from the helicopter as well as any other audio video they have available. If they said they had video of you from the helicopter then they would need that to identify you. I used to work for a company near Hamilton that made camera systems for mounting on helicopters... they could zoom in clearly on a license plate from 10,000 feet, so it is possible for them to have good clear video footage of your face.

If they give you a summons (Part III), then that first appearance court date on the summons is usually where you would plead not guilty and they would set the actual trial date (officers will NOT be at this first appearance).

At the actual trial date, ALL the officers involved have to show up in order to testify. So for each charge there may be more than one officer involved in the process, and all those officers need to be there.

Ditto to Decatur

Secure legal representation, they are your best answer

I know we are waiting on disclosure on this one but....If they did have footage of his face and he hired a representative and never attended trial, then the footage could never really be compared to the actual person because it would not be possible for the officer who issued the ticket to have viewed the video before issuing the summons......So the case falls apart?

@ynotp - That is definitely one avenue to pursue for sure. Makes for a good point on appeal if the jp does not accept it during the trial. But never rely on just one thing... plan as many points and issues as you can, so you have lots of point and issues if it goes to an appeal.

If you hire a lawyer, make sure you get them to go over their strategy and what things they will be going after BEFORE you send that lawyer to court! There are good ones and not so good ones.

Too many times a lawyer or paralegal will do the bare minimum and just try to get charge reduced, as opposed to actually fighting it. A reduced charge may be okay/acceptable to client sometimes, but did they have a plan how to fight it if they could not get it reduced?

Too many times a lawyer or paralegal will do the bare minimum and just try to get charge reduced, as opposed to actually fighting it.

That's quite the charge/allegation - what do you base that on?

karra wrote:

That's quite the charge/allegation - what do you base that on?

+1

While I think we all agree there are good lawyers/paralegals and bad ones... just to back up what you're saying... the reality is that many times the lawyer/paralegal is simply looking at the evidence, the odds, and based on his/her experience decides a plea bargain is better than fighting the charge and losing. For the most part, we're dealing with relatively straightforward HTA/CAIA offences where the standard for conviction is much, much lower than CCC.

I base it on experience ... having hired lawyers in the past (before I understood the process), they would literally wait until trial date to get disclosure and then just basically accept the deal the prosecutor offers without putting any time or effort into possible ways to fight it.

A good lawyer would be requesting disclosure ahead of time and then have a plan and suggest possible ways to fight the charge with the pros/cons and would also suggest the benefits of accepting a deal.

I agree that sometimes accepting a deal is the best option, but my experience has been that too many lawyers/paralegals would rather just take your money for getting you a deal which you could have easily made yourself.

This is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree with it, but your disagreements won't change my opinion.

Out of Curiosity does anyone know what the lesser charge of 172(1) race a motor vehicle would be and any case law that would be relevant?

Also this was asked earlier by someone else earlier on but is there any case law on the defendant being found not guilty and recovering impoundment fees.

I've spoken to numerous officers and a lot of them said it was pretty sketchy the way the OPP laid the charges.. Too bad our court system doesn't have some sort of approval process before any type of consequence is enforced or funds are paid. In this example the vehicle was impounded for a week and it will cost almost a thousand dollars to get it out of the impound.

I spent $2000 one time to win appeal and get speeding ticket thrown out. It was an $80 ticket. Would have been a whole lot cheaper to just pay it, but the point is I was not guilty. Our justice system works great for those that can afford it!

There is no way for me to recover that $2000 though. Even though the prosecutors/crown have basically unlimited resources in the form of our tax dollars AND everybody gets paid to be at court (the JP, the Judge, the Officer, the Prosecutor and my lawyer) except for me!

Hopefully there is some case law on being able to recover your impoundment fees but I am not aware of any. And if there is not any, then most likely you will not be able to get your money back.

anthony.singh wrote:

Out of Curiosity does anyone know what the lesser charge of 172(1) race a motor vehicle would be and any case law that would be relevant?

Generally, they are not in a hurry to offer you some reduced deal for this kind of charge. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but you'll have to prepare yourself for the possibility of being convicted.

anthony.singh wrote:

Also this was asked earlier by someone else earlier on but is there any case law on the defendant being found not guilty and recovering impoundment fees.

You don't get your money back.

anthony.singh wrote:

I've spoken to numerous officers and a lot of them said it was pretty sketchy the way the OPP laid the charges.. Too bad our court system doesn't have some sort of approval process before any type of consequence is enforced or funds are paid. In this example the vehicle was impounded for a week and it will cost almost a thousand dollars to get it out of the impound.

These officers aren't really in a position to give you any good advice about your case. There's nothing sketchy about having your speed calculated from the sky while a ground officer lays charges. It happens all the time. If there's something somewhat different than most, it's that you weren't in the vehicle. It doesn't mean there still isn't enough evidence to convict you. Have a professional go over the evidence that will be made available to you. You're making a whole case based on assumptions right now.