I got a speeding ticket on June 13, 2012. The cops notes say that he was last trained in September, 2010.

I read somewhere that they are required to get trained every 36 months, but I want to clarify.

Also, I am requesting disclosure and want to know if I should focus on specific training requirements. Does the officer have to be trained on this specific device? He was using a Decatatur Genesis II Moving Radar.

I am looking for help or any defense possible and my scenario is:

The cop was driving a motorcycle and was tightly driving between two cars. He did a Uturn and charged me with 29km over the speed limit.

On his disclosure he notes that he was traveling at 92 km per hour in a posted 80km zone, but he was directly behind another vehicle, so either his notes are incorrect or the car in front of him was speeding as well. Something is not right here as I was not speeding 29 km over - and he actually says he clocked me at 115km in an 80km zone but gave me a 109km over ticket.

Also, his notes say he activated the device directly at my vehicle but how is that possible if he is directly behind a vehicle?

His notes claim that he never took his eyes off of me, but he did a complete U turn and was a pretty good distance away from me. Now obviously it is impossible for him to do a Uturn and not take his eyes off of me , but is there any defense here?

Another error is that in the Provincial Offences Brief the officer notes the offence date of June 15, 2012 when on the ticket is read June 13, 2012 - is there a defense here?

Thank you and I will be doing further research.

LOL.....well that post won't be here long. Kids, stay off drugs.

Wow. That's all I have to say.

Now that the post Decatur and argyll are referring to has been dealt with...

canadaguy wrote:

On his disclosure he notes that he was traveling at 92 km per hour in a posted 80km zone, but he was directly behind another vehicle, so either his notes are incorrect or the car in front of him was speeding as well. Something is not right here as I was not speeding 29 km over - and he actually says he clocked me at 115km in an 80km zone but gave me a 109km over ticket.

Not necessarily, since the cops have some leeway with speeding offences. You'll see lots of cars go through speed traps that are going at least 10 over, but they don't get stopped. It doesn't make much sense for them to stop someone who's going 10 or 15 over if they're looking for people who are going 20+ over.

As for the 115, it sounds like the cop reduced it to 29 over, which for most police services is actually normal. (Halton Region Police as a matter of policy doesn't reduce tickets except in very rare circumstances, but most others have discretion.) 30 over is 4 demerit points, 29 over is 3. 15 over is 0.

canadaguy wrote:

Also, his notes say he activated the device directly at my vehicle but how is that possible if he is directly behind a vehicle?

It means the radar device was pointed in the direction of your vehicle. The radar shoots out a wide-angle beam and gives a reading of everything moving that it picks up (well sort of, but not exactly). The vehicle in front doesn't block the whole signal, only part of it.

canadaguy wrote:

His notes claim that he never took his eyes off of me, but he did a complete U turn and was a pretty good distance away from me. Now obviously it is impossible for him to do a Uturn and not take his eyes off of me , but is there any defense here?

Did he say he didn't "lose sight" or that he didn't "take his eyes off you"? Either way, momentarily loss of visual contact is not enough to introduce reasonable doubt. The date also won't help. There are a few possible options for you here though:

1. See if the officer shows up for the trial, if not it will usually get withdrawn (that doesn't happen often these days);

2. If the officer shows up, if you feel confident that his evidence isn't strong, you could try putting him on the witness stand and asking him about:

- How he tested the device;

- Did he first observe the vehicle speeding and THEN confirm with radar (tracking history);

- Loss of visual contact; etc.

(Not sure this would work. You can try researching the training interval, though) OR

3. Try to plea-bargain to 15 over.

Speeding offences are relatively easy for them to prosecute. If you go to trial, your job is to try to introduce reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, there aren't too many avenues for that with speeding alone.