Little in the way of disclosure

In my disclosure request I asked for a copy of the officer's notes (typed) as well as the location and position of the police officer in order to determine his point of view. When I received the package it included the officer's note (typed) and not much else. I use the singular because the officer's note was four words long and basically restated the charge. It is going to be difficult to defend myself without knowing where the officer was positioned so that I can determine his point of view. When I went to the prosecutor's office to request that information I was told that the disclosure included all of the evidence in his file. The position of the officer would be provided at trial from the officer's recollection.

Without knowing in advance of the trial where the officer was positioned, it is impossible to determine and verify his point of view. Since that information is only going to be made available at the trial, how is it possible for me to dispute?

It seems to me that the strategy for the other side is to include little in writing so that there is nothing to disclose. In addition to being less work for the officer and prosecutor, it ensures that I have nothing to dispute at trial.

Is this acceptable procedure? Is there any way to compel the disclosure of this information?

I'm at a loss here and it's frustrating as all get out and any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

If the officer doesn't have good notes he will not make a great witness unless he has an exceptional memory. What color was the car? How many occupants? What was the weather like? These details make the officers testimony more credible are usually in the notes. In the absence of detailed notes he can only depend on his recollection. How good can his recollection be if he can only remember you blew a stop sign but nothing else?

Poor notes are good for you IF you are good at cross examination.

Read this thread:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7041.html

Here is a good line of questioning in cross examination about independent recollection:

I would query the penultimate question. I doubt I could ever pick out the driver of a vehicle that I ticketed 6-9 months before if they were in a group. That's why we say we identified the driver by means of a photo drivers licence.

By law notes are there to refresh the officers memory. Could i testify on a everyday ticket with out them. No not unless there was something extra ordianry to the stop. But I do not have to because I have notes.

Police are allowed to review their notes prior to trial to refresh their memory. Why did I do it. "To refresh my memory" (that is their purpose and will be the only answer given"

Type ,color,and model of color are meaningless. I stopped a vehicle with Ontario plate "XXXXX" that is all that is required.

How many tickets I write in a month is not relevant to the facts in issue for this trial so so this will be ruled not relevant( actually happened in court)

last line of notes for me PPDL,INS, PM given.(Photo provincial drivers licence, insurance,permit provided)

I do not need to id the defendant after the fact. I ID'ed them at the time of the stop and I was satisfied with the identity(again all that is required by court. Good Id at the time of the stop)

How many cars stopped (again not relevant to the facts in issue( again tried in court and shut down in every case)

No having said that When i ran into a sovereign citizen type for a trial other than the defendants name I was able to recall pretty much the enter stop other then the guys name(I deal with hundreds a a month. I remember this because it is extra ordinary and things like that will stick in my mind. Someone asking am I legally required to provide this or will I be charged if I do not will cause most police officers to remember the details.

And for those seeking to claim sovereign citizen ore free man of the land status a Judge in AB tore apart every argument and that judgement is used to this day when they come to court. The truth is it is all BS and now treated as such. I have run in to them twice in my career. The first time we wasted a lot of time trying to convince them. The second time the stop went ask, tell, make. We make a legal demand and ask for documents. We then demand them. and if that does not work we arrest using the force necessary.(In this case the door was opened and driver extracted against his will all while he was yelling I don't consent". Charges laid and courts settled(plead guilty)

ops

I had one run in with a Freeman. Drunk in Public and was going to get a warning and a drive home but managed to talk himself into Drunk in Public, Resist Arrest, Mischief, Assault Police Officer. Found guilty on all.

I'd agree with OPS Copper. A vast majority of the questions on that list are immaterial and not relevant to the ticket at issue.

It's no secret that bad notes lead to all sorts of acquittals and withdrawals of the charges and that good notes will do just the opposite. I know it's subjective but can we agree basically to what the notes must include to help "refresh" the officer's memory to the extent where he can testify in such a way where he can demonstrate that he has a clear independent recollection of the event and therefore support a conviction? (In the absence of an incredible ability to clearly remember mundane events many months later.)

The lack of notes is not really the issue for me. The problem I am having is that I want to know where the police officer was positioned in order to verify his point of view. The prosecutor simply told me that he gave me all he had in his file and that information would be provided at trial from the police officer's memory. Because it's too late to check the officer's point of view at that time, it's pretty much impossible to dispute.

Is this correct procedure? I don't think it's an unreasonable request and it is really bugging me that the prosecutor and police officer circumvents the request for disclosure by ensuring the information is not in the notes.

An officer can write as little or as much as he wants in the notes. He is not gaming you by not giving away his hiding spot in the notes. BTW if you were hoping to fight the charge based on his vantage point don't waste your breath. The officer will testify that he was positioned so that he could clearly see you commit the act.

You could send another disclosure request asking for the specific details you want. If they are not provided you could then try a charter argument that you did not receive sufficient disclosure. Even if this does not work at trial, it still sets up a good appeal argument. Remember that although you are trying to win at your trial, you also need to be thinking ahead of how you can win on appeal if you lose at trial.

Disclosure means sharing what evidence the crown has. You can't go asking specific questions which are not included. The time to do that is in cross.

During a trail I was sitting as an observer, the officer was sworn in and asked if he had reviewed his notes prior to trail to refresh his memory and if he had independent recollection of that day's events. He confirmed positive to all this then JP asked the defendant if he has any objection and he said no.

In my mind I was thinking that I would object and ask the officer to testify based on his memory and put away his notes. Especially since he clearly was rattled and was showing signs he could contradict himself.

So, what are people's thoughts on this? Would you or would you not object and ask the officer to testify from memory?

Just because you objected would not mean that the officer couldn't use them, just that the judge would then make a ruling on your objection and bearing in mind officer's notes are used in every trial in the country the chances of the justice siding with you are pretty small to say the least.

A couple of things.

1) to the former police officer

A freeman on the land is one of those things that is being really abused lately. I do not identify with any labels, but I do Know that there is a fight for a more natural law society here. This simply means that some people wish to be self sufficient, and in so doing they give up their access to employment insurance, most health care, insurance etc in order to do these things themselves. The other side of it is that they don't want to pay extra for the things they don't use. A true freeman only wants to be left alone because in natural law the basic rules apply - don't steal, don't kill unless it's for food and do that with respect, don't infringe on peoples peace, don't kill the environment off with mass amounts of industrial waste etc. etc. These are the people that don't want to pay for failed systems that people are skimming off of. The same people that are skimming off the top, are likely either sending in provocateurs or saboteurs, in order to scare people into the status quo. They are labeled terrorists and are often harassed through systematic failures before they finally snap and actually do commit a breach of the peace. Understandably, there are some that take it too far, so then everyone who just wants to mind their own business ends up being branded as trouble makers. Honestly, if you were a peace officer, please tell me how issuing tickets is keeping the peace, but assisting victims of crime isn't. I am aware of the police services act, I went to school for law, worked for the courts and in the insurance industry, went back and did security and investigations to make sure that my judgement wasn't too jaded. No offence, but freemen on the land are right about one thing, and that's how policing works. It is not the officers fault at all, it is the system. One example is White ordering Taurus's for police cars. Horrible choice, and the cost was too high. These vehicles were the dumbest thing to use, and ended up costing tonnes in upgrades, which I am sure he profited on, as that's what insurance companies do with preferred vendors. He somehow was appointed to the senate under Harper, despite a long list of misconduct, prisoner abuse, and false arrests happening under his watch. Now it's to the point where Ottawa Police are creating the need for new infrastructure unknowingly(through silly traffic laws and quotas), because it guarantees Ottawa Police another 1.3% profits into their already inflated budget, which is already overinflated by what appears to be 2 staged shootings here in Ottawa. I don't identify with any labels, I'm just calling it as I see it.

2)

With regards to further disclosure. I must say that Toronto is THE WORST I HAVE EVER SEEN. Prior to first appearance I had requested disclosure as I knew I was innocent. I had everything I should've needed to dismiss the case immediately, well boy was I wrong. What a *EDIT* show. I asked as soon as I found out about the charges (6months after the fact), this was careless driving, no insurance, fail to remain and fail to report. I knew it wouldn't be an issue because I have motorcycle safety and was not driving carelessly, the vehicle was insured, I stayed to get 3 witness names talked to 2 paramedics 2 police officers exchange information and get photos, and I had the 2 officers badge numbers and report numbers. Careless: If they were going to charge me, they would've done it then and there. I sped up last second to avoid a direct tbone from a driver that wasn't slowing down for the red light to my right, if she didn't hit me, she would've hit the car to the right of me. Had I have not sped up, I could have been charged under 141 which states I have to complete a turn to avoid an accident. Insurance: Anywho, it was minor damage to a bumper, I used to work collision, so I would say 5-800 bucks tops. Remain and Report: Officer felt the same way and gave me a report number. Well, good luck getting a copy of that report. I had to go back to Toronto from Ottawa and appeal and email for report or memo notes, all to get a simple explanation of non reportable accident. Yet somehow I am up on charges.

So I fought with Toronto from Ottawa, they seem to think I can freely drive back and forth, and before the charges were proven they contacted the ministry. You can just imagine how that is for me now, especially when I was about to expire. They are refusing a written hearing despite the rules, and have yet to provide any further disclosure. Technically the onus is on them to prove I did it, not the other way around. I am honestly getting to a point where I want to file a notice because this is not in any way shape or form a fair or even reasonable trial. I sent someone highly credentialed and respected individual in my place to call them out on the disclosure issues and their loss of my evidence, and they simply stated they would start over again knowing that it would cost me more in legal fees. The added issue is that prior to this, the city had sold me 1 permit too many, so I accumulated over 1,500$ in parking tickets, staying at a womens shelter, trying to get through school where I was safe, after losing everything but my life to a known violent offender, and buying my permits! A new trial date has been set and there still isn't the disclosure I asked for. I obviously can't afford to pay to bring in 2 cops, 2 medics, and 3 witnesses from Ottawa, where I am currently unable to work as a result of these matters.

It's a dirty game and I'm disgusted. My education: Business comm. and admin, law clerk, security, investigations, first aid etc. My work experience: everything, including governance, insurance, and auto. I understand they need to intimidate to a point, but there is no freedom of information. The ex that tried to kill me was able to obtain my information through medical office friends and insurance supervisors, he could find out where I lived after trying to kill me using the damn police, but I can't get a damn disclosure when witnesses say the other driver wasn't paying attention!!!!!! and the insurance company massively overpriced her repairs!!!!! Which I know for a fact they do all the time. ALL THE TIME. while she was in a rush to get to her friends and I was on the way to a doctors appointment that I had left early for!!!!!!

I don't know what to do other than file a notice because paramouncy does indeed exist. It's going to take everybody doing it before they start listening though, because money talks and bullshit seems to walk. Not what my ancestors wanted for this country as chief justice I'll tell you that. The only way to get your disclosure is everybody stop living in fear or paying anyways. I literally don't want to work in my field anymore because the corruption is so bad. It should not take months of fighting to get reports, memo notes, or further disclosure. There is some seriously condescending behaviour coming from certain bodies, and it will only get worse. I'm denied reports and memo notes because the matter is before the courts, I ask through the courts, and I'm told it doesn't exist. WELL IT DID EXIST A REPORT NUMBER WAS GENERATED. Law enforcement and justice sectors need to start using some common sense instead of blindly carrying out what one officer says to do. The officer that charged and the sergeant wouldn't even look at any of my evidence. ABYSMAL

If the legal arguments you have made are as rambling and hard to understand as your post I can see the police/court's confusion.