Wasn't wearing seatbelt, was delivering a pizza...

Well.... All of those pertain to statements and their admissibility.

Identifying yourself with a drivers licence is not a statement..

If you chose to not identify yourself with one, thats your choice. You'll pay the price for that. And if you then decide to not incriminate yourself by speaking to the polices do identifying yourself, I could see you in a fancy pair of bracelets.

Wow.... Nuff said.....

You misunderstand... I am compelled to give my license, which I do, but only after asking "Am I required to give that to you?" followed by "Here is my license but I am giving it to you because I have to and I am not giving it to you voluntarily". Any compelled information obtained (whether a statement or a drivers license) can not be used against you. Nuff said!

jsherk wrote:

You misunderstand... I am compelled to give my license, which I do, but only after asking "Am I required to give that to you?" followed by "Here is my license but I am giving it to you because I have to and I am not giving it to you voluntarily". Any compelled information obtained (whether a statement or a drivers license) can not be used against you. Nuff said!

lol

Yup, that should work...but if it doesn't, just tell the Justice of the Peace that a leprechaun jumped into your car a moment before and told you that you didn't need to wear the seat belt, then jumped out just before the officer saw you...+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++

Jsherk, I've been lurking on this forum for about a year now without joining or posting. Your posts continually become more and more borderline freeman of the land or sovereign citizen like. Just sayin..

jsherk wrote:

You misunderstand... I am compelled to give my license, which I do, but only after asking "Am I required to give that to you?" followed by "Here is my license but I am giving it to you because I have to and I am not giving it to you voluntarily". Any compelled information obtained (whether a statement or a drivers license) can not be used against you. Nuff said!

Thats a great statement. Are you a paralegal?

So had the trial what do you want me to do or say? ( I already had the early resolution meeting )

I will plead guilty, and then ?...

tryingtoimprove wrote:

So had the trial what do you want me to do or say? ( I already had the early resolution meeting )

I will plead guilty, and then ?...

The clerk will hand you a piece of paper, you walk to the cashier, and pay your fine. The conviction will stay on your record for 3 years (may or may not affect insurance), and demerit points (if any) for 2 years (shouldn't affect insurance).

Pretty Straight Forward.

jsherk wrote:

You misunderstand... I am compelled to give my license, which I do, but only after asking "Am I required to give that to you?" followed by "Here is my license but I am giving it to you because I have to and I am not giving it to you voluntarily". Any compelled information obtained (whether a statement or a drivers license) can not be used against you. Nuff said!

Complete nonsense. Compelled statements - yes. Providing a driver's licence - no.

If that were the case no-one would ever get charged for a driving offense because the drivers licence is the means of identification.

People come here for simple advice on how best to deal with traffic tickets. Your advice is becoming more and more confusing and therefore less and less helpful. If I was a mod, I'd ban you.

Ban Him? LOL. If he was banned then the only regular contributors here would be police and retired police. Both of which appear (from my limited experience) to be biased. I have read alot of threads here and I can remember very few instances where someone has offered a defence......only criticism and mocking of potential defences. To wit, when I asked "Is radar infallible....i.e. is there ANY way a radar can be wrong", I got a grand total of ZERO replies from the people who operate(d) them. Nobody said it was infallible, which tells me it isn't perfect.....but nobody is willing to tell you HOW it's imperfect. This speaks volumes to me.

Decatur wrote:

What do you mean by a secondary offence?

Are you an officer/retired officer? I thought it was a common term. I even googled it before I posted to make sure.

Schreech, you are correct that I meant a secondary offence is one that you cannot be pulled over for. You get pulled over for the primary offence....i.e. speeding, then the officer sees that you don't have your seat belt attached so he lays the seat belt charge also.

I was certain (OK 80% certain) that the seat belt used to be secondary. Perhaps some of you aren't old enough to remember when they brought that charge into law. Perhaps Ontario back doored that change. Pretty sure they back doored it in New Jersey.....i.e. get it on the books as secondary and then sneak the change in when nobody is looking.

You got no replies so you assumed that meant it was fallible. Why not make the other assumption ?

When operated correctly I never saw anything to question the reading. The reading and the observation go hand in hand.

I'm all for fighting tickets at the right time but jsherk goes the extra mile by trying to recommend ridiculous defences which are just going to confuse people coming here for simple advice. To recommend a charter argument that is at the core of traffic enforcement is not particularly helpful to a chap who's come here with a simple question about a seatbelt ticket. If he was so certain this was a valid defence why hasn't he used it himself or recommended it to any other poster for a more serious charge for example.

rank wrote:

Decatur wrote:

What do you mean by a secondary offence?

Are you an officer/retired officer? I thought it was a common term. I even googled it before I posted to make sure.

Schreech, you are correct that I meant a secondary offence is one that you cannot be pulled over for. You get pulled over for the primary offence....i.e. speeding, then the officer sees that you don't have your seat belt attached so he lays the seat belt charge also.

I was certain (OK 80% certain) that the seat belt used to be secondary. Perhaps some of you aren't old enough to remember when they brought that charge into law. Perhaps Ontario back doored that change. Pretty sure they back doored it in New Jersey.....i.e. get it on the books as secondary and then sneak the change in when nobody is looking.

I've never heard the term secondary offence - maybe it's a US term. If the charge is in the book then it can be enforced.

100% correct Mr. Argyll

argyll wrote:

rank wrote:

Decatur wrote:

What do you mean by a secondary offence?

Are you an officer/retired officer? I thought it was a common term. I even googled it before I posted to make sure.

Schreech, you are correct that I meant a secondary offence is one that you cannot be pulled over for. You get pulled over for the primary offence....i.e. speeding, then the officer sees that you don't have your seat belt attached so he lays the seat belt charge also.

I was certain (OK 80% certain) that the seat belt used to be secondary. Perhaps some of you aren't old enough to remember when they brought that charge into law. Perhaps Ontario back doored that change. Pretty sure they back doored it in New Jersey.....i.e. get it on the books as secondary and then sneak the change in when nobody is looking.

I've never heard the term secondary offence - maybe it's a US term. If the charge is in the book then it can be enforced.

Yes maybe it is a US term. If it was a term here, you guys I'm sure would be familiar. Thanks

It must be a US term. In Ontario, you can be pulled over for the simple reason of checking that you have a valid licence, permit and insurance card.

rank wrote:

Ban Him? LOL. If he was banned then the only regular contributors here would be police and retired police. Both of which appear (from my limited experience) to be biased.

Officers and retired officer provide this board with some of the best resources. Some probably have shied away from posting frequently here because the same users who want them to answer all their technical questions also want to poop all over them. You can't have it both ways. They are here providing information for FREE and giving their own personal time to the boards.

rank wrote:

I have read alot of threads here and I can remember very few instances where someone has offered a defence......only criticism and mocking of potential defences.

I don't think this board is here to make up defenses on a whim for people looking to get out of tickets. More so, the better users here aren't throwing out wacky defenses and treating new posters as guinea pigs to prove their "theories". Then when things go south it's "Hey man, I'm not a lawyer. That's your fault".

Most users ASK about a particular defense. Criticizing defenses is part of the game. What do you think happens in court? Users can see what works and what doesn't before wasting their time in court and getting absolutely grilled in the process. I see TONS of people showing up to court and going to trial with NO DEFENSE, zero. What they end up doing is making a 10 minute speech that is just an excuse. At that point that person would have been better off taking whatever plea because they are already guilty. I'd rather tell a person here their defense is an excuse and nothing else. At the very least, that person can take a plea deal rather than telling a JP reasons why they are guilty. It may save them a couple hundred bucks at least.

rank wrote:

To wit, when I asked "Is radar infallible....i.e. is there ANY way a radar can be wrong", I got a grand total of ZERO replies from the people who operate(d) them. Nobody said it was infallible, which tells me it isn't perfect.....but nobody is willing to tell you HOW it's imperfect. This speaks volumes to me.

See first response.

bend wrote:

See first response.

Below is the first response.

bend wrote:

Officers and retired officer provide this board with some of the best resources. Some probably have shied away from posting frequently here because the same users who want them to answer all their technical questions also want to poop all over them. You can't have it both ways. They are here providing information for FREE and giving their own personal time to the boards.

If you are suggesting that I got no replies to "Is radar Infallible" question because I pooped on the officer's here, then I must take issue with that suggestion Mr. Bend. You'll have to show me where I did that because I cannot recall.

As for giving time for free...isn't that what the internet is for? Isn't that what we all do?

It's obvious to me, that the real reason there was no replies to "infallible" is because folks are worried about giving up trade secrets or getting in trouble at work or some such thing. And that's fine. Helping by critiquing defenses, but not helping as much as they could. Again.....not that there's anything wrong with that. It's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

rank wrote:

It's obvious to me, that the real reason there was no replies to "infallible" is because folks are worried about giving up trade secrets or getting in trouble at work or some such thing. And that's fine. Helping by critiquing defenses, but not helping as much as they could. Again.....not that there's anything wrong with that. It's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

That silence is simply likely because these are simple devices designed to measure distance and conduct some simple calculations to determine the targets speed. If there was some sort of trade secret it would already have leaked - one officer spilling the beans would have undermined these devices in court and set a precedent that paralegals and self represents would have dog piled.

They are undoubtedly NOT infallible, they are mechanical devices and as such may be subject to malfunction. This is why they have a diagnostic routine that is carried out before and after enforcement to ensure the machine is functioning reliably. Reasonable steps (this testing) are taken to ensure the device IS properly functioning.

tryingtoimprove wrote:

So had the trial what do you want me to do or say? ( I already had the early resolution meeting )

I will plead guilty, and then ?...

What happened at your early resolution meeting? Before you trial, they'll try to resolve it again. If there's something to offer, they'll offer it. At that point it'll be your choice whether or not to plead guilty to whatever they are offering. If you need more time to pay the fine, they'll give you more time.

bend wrote:

tryingtoimprove wrote:

So had the trial what do you want me to do or say? ( I already had the early resolution meeting )

I will plead guilty, and then ?...

What happened at your early resolution meeting? Before you trial, they'll try to resolve it again. If there's something to offer, they'll offer it. At that point it'll be your choice whether or not to plead guilty to whatever they are offering. If you need more time to pay the fine, they'll give you more time.

I took Jshersks advice and told them I need more time to develop a defence, and the Justice handed me my disclosure, and mentioned it would be sent to trial.

Now I see the officer's notes are good (unfortunately), I would like to plea to a lesser offence with no demerit points.

Thank You.

rank wrote:

it's obvious to me, that the real reason there was no replies to "infallible" is because folks are worried about giving up trade secrets or getting in trouble at work or some such thing.

There you go making those assumptions again