Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

An OPP helicopter clocked my vehicle going 60 kilometres over the speed limit. The helicopter followed my vehicle to where it was parked and they claim they have footage from (1000 plus feet in the air) identifying that the person driving was me which I find hard to believe. A YRP officer then came and sat behind my car until a tow truck arrived and took my car away. Once I found out, I called YRP and a YRP officer came to my house and issued me a ticket. I don't recall saying I was driving (I don't think the police officer took any notes down at all during the convo), but I know that I did question how he knew it was me driving and that's when he told me OPP had helicopter footage. He then issued me a ticket contrary to the highway traffic act 172(2) race a motor vehicle.. I wanted to know if anyone knows if it is lawful to give me a ticket after the fact and if not what grounds do I have to request this is dismissed? The YRP didn't even seem like he wanted to give me the ticket, he didn't even take a statement from me.. "He didn't want anything incriminating to be said.", nor did he want to impound the vehicle but the sections states he must impound the vehicle. Also Is there a way to retrieve the cost of impounding my vehicle and reinstating my license. Thanks guys!

anthony.singh wrote:

I wanted to know if anyone knows if it is lawful to give me a ticket after the fact

Yes. Just because you park your car and get out doesn't mean the officer automatically loses any right to charge you.

Unfortunately you can not recover the costs of impounding your vehicle and license, even if you're found not-guilty at trial or have the charges withdrawn.

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p3 ... te]Service

(3) The offence notice or summons shall be served personally upon the person charged within thirty days after the alleged offence occurred. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 3 (3).[/quote]http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p3 ... Limitation

76. (1) A proceeding shall not be commenced after the expiration of any limitation period prescribed by or under any Act for the offence or, where no limitation period is prescribed, after six months after the date on which the offence was, or is alleged to have been, committed[/quote]

You can still receive a Part I ticket up to thirty days after the alleged offence; you can receive a Part III summons up to six months after.

From what you described, they appear to have enough evidence to lay the charge. The same officer that stopped your vehicle, did not come to your house to give you the ticket?

Choose the trial option and you can request disclosure, get their evidence: notes, heli-cam footage.

bend wrote:

anthony.singh wrote:

I wanted to know if anyone knows if it is lawful to give me a ticket after the fact

Yes. Just because you park your car and get out doesn't mean the officer automatically loses any right to charge you.

But how would the police officer know who was driving the vehicle?

iFly55 wrote:

Unfortunately you can not recover the costs of impounding your vehicle and license, even if you're found not-guilty at trial or have the charges withdrawn.

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p3 ... te]Service

(3) The offence notice or summons shall be served personally upon the person charged within thirty days after the alleged offence occurred. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 3 (3).

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p3 ... Limitation

76. (1) A proceeding shall not be commenced after the expiration of any limitation period prescribed by or under any Act for the offence or, where no limitation period is prescribed, after six months after the date on which the offence was, or is alleged to have been, committed[/quote]

You can still receive a Part I ticket up to thirty days after the alleged offence; you can receive a Part III summons up to six months after.

From what you described, they appear to have enough evidence to lay the charge. The same officer that stopped your vehicle, did not come to your house to give you the ticket?

Choose the trial option and you can request disclosure, get their evidence: notes, heli-cam footage.[/quote]

There was three officers involved from what was explained to me.

1. Officer 1 & 2 were OPP officers that were in the helicopter.

2. Officer 3 was the Officer that arrived about 20 minutes later after the car had been parked and was the same as the officer that came to my house.

The officer came into a gym near where the vehicle was parked and asked is there anyone with a duffle bag who is driving the red nissan coupe. (I later found out from one of the workers).. Once I found out the officer was towing my vehicle I called the police station asking why my vehicle was being towed, they asked for my address and number and said he would call me.. he appeared at my door about 10 minutes later.. He didn't have much of an answer for me when I asked him how he knew it was me driving, he didn't take a statement from me because he did not want me to say anything incriminating..

Do I have to wait till my summons date to request for my disclosure?

Would the helicopter footage have to a good shot of the drivers face to prove who it is otherwise there would be a reasonable doubt? Especially with the fact that there was numerous people with gym bags and such who went into the gym.

anthony.singh wrote:

But how would the police officer know who was driving the vehicle?

Those are going to be two different issues. The officers believe they have enough evidence to charge you. Therefore, whether or not you leave you vehicle doesn't change whether or not a charge can be laid. They can, they will, and you will be convicted should there be enough evidence to do so.

Proving you weren't driving is another issue. That's something you'll have to deal with in court. You'll go over the evidence against you and start from there. Preferably, you'll do this with a professional as the penalty you're faced with isn't really something you want to joke around with. Note the fine and penalty varies and playing the "it wasn't me" game may backfire in your face.

bend wrote:

anthony.singh wrote:

But how would the police officer know who was driving the vehicle?

Those are going to be two different issues. The officers believe they have enough evidence to charge you. Therefore, whether or not you leave you vehicle doesn't change whether or not a charge can be laid. They can, they will, and you will be convicted should there be enough evidence to do so.

Proving you weren't driving is another issue. That's something you'll have to deal with in court. You'll go over the evidence against you and start from there. Preferably, you'll do this with a professional as the penalty you're faced with isn't really something you want to joke around with. Note the fine and penalty varies and playing the "it wasn't me" game may backfire in your face.

Yes, this isn't something I am taking lightly.

I am not sure of how much evidence the OPP really has as the YRP officer that came to my house seemed almost reluctant to give me the ticket and actually apologized. I will request the footage and evidence before saying anything...Can I request the disclosure prior to the summons, if so how do I do this? I was told that it would be the attorney general instead of the prosecutor due to the level of the offence(not sure if this effects who I send the disclosure request to). To my understanding I need to be very specific with what info I am requesting any advice on what to request would be much appreciated.

Thanks again!

If you were charged as a driver and not the owner then prosecutor must establish the identity of the driver beyond a reasonable doubt. If that doesn't happen then you cannot be convicted. Disclosure will reveal if a reasonable doubt to your identity exists. 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.

iFly55 wrote:

Unfortunately you can not recover the costs of impounding your vehicle and license, even if you're found not-guilty at trial or have the charges withdrawn.

Is there case law or legislation addressing this?

Was this daytime or night? I'm going to assume daytime.

anthony.singh wrote:

Can I request the disclosure prior to the summons, if so how do I do this? I was told that it would be the attorney general instead of the prosecutor due to the level of the offence(not sure if this effects who I send the disclosure request to). To my understanding I need to be very specific with what info I am requesting any advice on what to request would be much appreciated.

You still go to the Prosecutor's office at the courthouse to make the disclosure request. Yes, you can do this prior to the summons. Some places have "templates" for disclosure requests, others don't. I'm being lazy right now so instead of providing you with a link, maybe check in the Courts & Procedures section of this website for stuff on disclosure. What I'd suggest you ask for are:

- Officer's notes, from both the helicopter and the YRP;

- If a speed-measuring device was used, a copy of the relevant parts of the manual (I don't think one was used, I'll explain momentarily);

- Any audio recording from the OPP helicopter regarding you or your vehicle;

- Any video recording from the OPP helicopter that shows you or your vehicle;

- Any other audio or video evidence that the Prosecutor has regarding your vehicle or you; and

- Any other evidence or information the Prosecutor has and intends to use at trial.

What I think happened is the OPP chopper saw your vehicle pass over the painted markings on a 400-Series Highway (e.g. 400, 404) that they use for speed enforcement (they're a fixed distance apart) and a stopwatch was used to time you, as opposed to any specialized airborne device. If you weren't driving on any road with the markings painted on them, this is going to make things, uh, interesting...

Regardless, as the others have said, I'd recommend getting a paralegal or lawyer who specializes in traffic law cases. I wouldn't recommend fighting this one by yourself, in which case your representative will make the disclosure request for you.

Does anyone have any Case Law on matters where the accused has been found non guilty when the accused has been given a speeding ticket after the fact. The accused was caught by speeding then the police totally lost sight of the driver for approximately 20 minutes then gave the accused a ticket. The only footage of the accused was from a traffic chopper in the air. Does anyone know if that footage will show an accurate picture of the accused?

Thank you!

Does anyone know the radar equipment used and the video camera used to record while in pursuit.

Thanks!

I thought.. There are mileage markers painted on the highway at specified intervals and then the OPP uses a stopwatch to time how fast you go from one mileage marker to the next. He then looks at a table that converts time and distance into km/h and radios to a cruiser to pull you over. Both the officer in the airplane and the officer in the cruiser need to go to court to provide adequate evidence to convict you. Just to make sure there not telling porkies

Sounds like a pretty expensive way to catch speeders

Unless there looking at the 150+ folks?

so the chopper has the following equipment

1 x pair of eyes

1 x stop watch (or iphone)

anthony.singh wrote:

Does anyone know the radar equipment used and the video camera used to record while in pursuit.

Thanks!

bobajob wrote:

I thought.. There are mileage markers painted on the highway at specified intervals and then the OPP uses a stopwatch to time how fast you go from one mileage marker to the next. He then looks at a table that converts time and distance into km/h and radios to a cruiser to pull you over. Both the officer in the airplane and the officer in the cruiser need to go to court to provide adequate evidence to convict you. Just to make sure there not telling porkies

Sounds like a pretty expensive way to catch speeders

Unless there looking at the 150+ folks?

so the chopper has the following equipment

1 x pair of eyes

1 x stop watch (or iphone)

anthony.singh wrote:

Does anyone know the radar equipment used and the video camera used to record while in pursuit.

Thanks!

I am sure that there is a video camera of some sort when they use the chopper. The Police officer stated there was footage identifying the person leaving the car. Its difficult to believe that a camera from 1000ft plus above has the capabilities to ID someone without any doubt so that's why I am asking what the model of camera do the OPP choppers use..

Radar Identified wrote:

Was this daytime or night? I'm going to assume daytime.

anthony.singh wrote:

Can I request the disclosure prior to the summons, if so how do I do this? I was told that it would be the attorney general instead of the prosecutor due to the level of the offence(not sure if this effects who I send the disclosure request to). To my understanding I need to be very specific with what info I am requesting any advice on what to request would be much appreciated.

You still go to the Prosecutor's office at the courthouse to make the disclosure request. Yes, you can do this prior to the summons. Some places have "templates" for disclosure requests, others don't. I'm being lazy right now so instead of providing you with a link, maybe check in the Courts & Procedures section of this website for stuff on disclosure. What I'd suggest you ask for are:

- Officer's notes, from both the helicopter and the YRP;

- If a speed-measuring device was used, a copy of the relevant parts of the manual (I don't think one was used, I'll explain momentarily);

- Any audio recording from the OPP helicopter regarding you or your vehicle;

- Any video recording from the OPP helicopter that shows you or your vehicle;

- Any other audio or video evidence that the Prosecutor has regarding your vehicle or you; and

- Any other evidence or information the Prosecutor has and intends to use at trial.

What I think happened is the OPP chopper saw your vehicle pass over the painted markings on a 400-Series Highway (e.g. 400, 404) that they use for speed enforcement (they're a fixed distance apart) and a stopwatch was used to time you, as opposed to any specialized airborne device. If you weren't driving on any road with the markings painted on them, this is going to make things, uh, interesting...

Regardless, as the others have said, I'd recommend getting a paralegal or lawyer who specializes in traffic law cases. I wouldn't recommend fighting this one by yourself, in which case your representative will make the disclosure request for you.

Does anyone know what these markings look like? It is a new extension of highway on the 404..

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.