Hello everyone, I have a traffic court date coming up and I'm deciding if I should fight the ticket or pay it. Here's what happened: I was driving between 110km/h and 115km/h on a 100km/hr limit highway (I know, I'm a rebel). The highway was busy but not congested and I was (unsurprisingly given my speed) basically within the flow of traffic. I was in the left lane. It was dusk and when I saw the officer's lights behind me I assumed the emergency vehicle (I thought it was an ambulance...I didn't realize how big OPP cruisers are) wanted to pass me as I was moving basically the same speed as the two vehicles (one in front of the other) in the right lane (so I was blocking any faster vehicles from passing as I was passing the two on the right quite slowly, not wanting to exceed 15 over as a general rule). So I changed lanes and that was when I realized that it was a) a police cruiser and not an ambulance and b) he wasn't charging ahead so I guess he wanted me to pull over. The officer didn't mention anything about the time it took me to pull over (I estimate at least 30 seconds to a minute from when his lights went on), so that's good. But he said his partner clocked me going at 129km/hr (there was no way I was going that fast), but served me a reduced ticket of only 110km/hr, without stating the reason why (possibly relevant: I have a completely clean record). It should go without saying that if I go to court and lose I eat the fine for the 129km/hr infraction (and points...though they don't matter because i won't get 6-12 more for hearing/suspension). I didn't argue with the officer about the speed at the time because I was pretty shell-shocked. I'm in a tricky spot because while I believe I could, on cross examining the officer, create sufficient doubt I was traveling at 129km/hr, there is really no way (even if I was willing to lie in court) that I could argue I wasn't going above the limit (since EVERYONE DOES). I'd just pay the $40 for 10 over but it'll kill my insurance (my current company will cancel, it's a company plan and they don't tolerate ANY convictions), and I'd be looking at my rates going up by about $50 a month with the cheapest provider I can find with a minor conviction...$1800 more over 3 years than my current rate. So other than the officer not showing up, I don't think I have a whole lot of hope with this one, except one possible defense: I requested disclosure, the first request was likely pre-prepared as it came very fast and ignored most of my requests. I sent a second request and most of what I requested was presented. Enough was sent that any omissions could be reasonably interpreted by me as indication of their non-existence (such as: are there any other witnesses, if so what will they stay, and does the crown have any other information that will incriminate or exonerate me). Here's my possible out: I have a copy of the police officer's notes, the page from the lidar manual describing the tests involved, and a typed copy of the officer's notes (from the second request). The lidar manual clearly indicates that the testing must be completed by the officer prior to enforcement and at the end of the officer's tour of duty. The notes provided by the officer show that the lidar was tested at the beginning of his shift, but no notes from the end of his shift are provided to show if it was tested at the end of shift or not. Further, the officer who served me the ticket was not the officer who actually used the lidar unit that night (this information is in the notes and the witness will stay statement from the officer who served my ticket). So my thought is I can mount a defense that the officer has no proof the device was tested after his shift, and without proof that the device was tested after the shift we have no way to know if the reading was accurate (which it wasn't, but that's my word against his). Here is my question: If the officer/prosecutor was to present evidence from the officer's notes showing the device was tested at the end of his shift, since this information is not in my disclosure, would I be able to then request a stay of charges based on incomplete disclosure, or is it too late once the trial has started? As an aside, I am aware that in the above scenario it's possible the prosecutor might request the JP just adjourn my case until a later date now that I have the full disclosure. I requested a trial (option 3) but was send a letter for option 2 (plea bargain). I took a day off of work and drove 1hr to the courthouse (and 1hr home afterwords) for the option 2, and the worst bit was the prosecutor didn't/couldn't offer me a deal because the officer had already reduced my ticket. So the prosecutor straight up cost me $25 in gas, an afternoon, and a day's worth of lost wages for no real reason. Assuming the JP was inclined to give the prosecution an adjournment I would leverage this previous prejudice and argue that for such a minor charge 2 days of lost wages and 2 days of time, not to mention 4 hours of commuting, is too much and the only reasonable response is a stay of the charge. So in summary: If I fight it and beat the conviction (one way or the other), then it costs me only 1 day's lost wages and close to a half tank of gas. If I just pay the $40 ticket now, I save the wages for the day and gas, but will pay $50/month extra for 3 years and have a conviction on my record. But if I fight it and lose, then not only do I have the extra $50/month on my insurance but my fine will be nearly $200 instead of $40, and I lose a day's wages and almost a half tank of gas. But the most likely scenario is that the officer shows up (it's Peterborough...), and says he's sure the other officer tested the device at the end of his shift. In that case my only argument is that information wasn't in my disclosure contrary to (I believe) case law. Is this argument likely to work? Thanks in advance :)
Objection: Yes, just interrupt and say "I object to that because..." Whatever the officer says on the stand is evidence unless you can either (i) get him to admit he said something that was in error, or (ii) have a witness that can testify something different. But what side of the road the officer pulled you over on is really irrelevent. If he answers "I don't remember" then this may help you in proving he does not have independent recollection. But if he says "left side" or "right side" then you could ask "are you sure?" but if he says "yes" then you might as well move on because that was his testimony so it is a fact in the case now and there is nothing you can really do to change it or correct it. All your reasons as to the reason you were speeding are irrelevant because it is an absolute liability charge. If you take the stand, all the prosecutor has to do is say "were you speeding?" and you say "yes" and you have incriminated yourself. It does not matter how busy the road was, it does not matter that you were not doing something unsafe and it does not matter that the other cars were going the same speed as you. I personally do not agree with absolute liability offences, however that is how they work. Either "yes you were speeding" or "no you were not speeding". The only reason that is acceptable for speeding is that your life was in danger which does not apply in your situation. Essential elements of a charge are found by actually reading the act and picking them out. http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08 So if you are charged under 128 I think this would be relevant sections: 128. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than, (d) the rate of speed prescribed for motor vehicles on a highway in accordance with subsection (2), (5), (6), (6.1) or (7); (7) The Minister may make regulations prescribing a rate of speed for, (b) any class or classes of motor vehicles driven on the Kings Highway or portion of the Kings Highway whether or not the Kings Highway is within a municipality, and the rate of speed may be different for any period or periods of the day or night or direction of travel; So elements they need to prove are: - a person (you) - was driving - a motor vehicle (as defined by the HTA) - on a highway (as defined by the HTA) - with a posted limit of 100 km/h - at a speed of XYZ km/h
Objection: Yes, just interrupt and say "I object to that because..."
Whatever the officer says on the stand is evidence unless you can either (i) get him to admit he said something that was in error, or (ii) have a witness that can testify something different. But what side of the road the officer pulled you over on is really irrelevent. If he answers "I don't remember" then this may help you in proving he does not have independent recollection. But if he says "left side" or "right side" then you could ask "are you sure?" but if he says "yes" then you might as well move on because that was his testimony so it is a fact in the case now and there is nothing you can really do to change it or correct it. All your reasons as to the reason you were speeding are irrelevant because it is an absolute liability charge. If you take the stand, all the prosecutor has to do is say "were you speeding?" and you say "yes" and you have incriminated yourself. It does not matter how busy the road was, it does not matter that you were not doing something unsafe and it does not matter that the other cars were going the same speed as you. I personally do not agree with absolute liability offences, however that is how they work. Either "yes you were speeding" or "no you were not speeding". The only reason that is acceptable for speeding is that your life was in danger which does not apply in your situation.
Essential elements of a charge are found by actually reading the act and picking them out.
So if you are charged under 128 I think this would be relevant sections:
128. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than,
(d) the rate of speed prescribed for motor vehicles on a highway in accordance with subsection (2), (5), (6), (6.1) or (7);
(7) The Minister may make regulations prescribing a rate of speed for,
(b) any class or classes of motor vehicles driven on the Kings Highway or portion of the Kings Highway whether or not the Kings Highway is within a municipality, and the rate of speed may be different for any period or periods of the day or night or direction of travel;
Just to clarify, I want to establish the road was busy to suggest that the RADAR operator may have measured the speed of the wrong vehicle, since RADAR ordinarily picks up the largest vehicle and I drive a small vehicle. I would not attempt to justify speeding because "everyone else was doing it."
Just to clarify, I want to establish the road was busy to suggest that the RADAR operator may have measured the speed of the wrong vehicle, since RADAR ordinarily picks up the largest vehicle and I drive a small vehicle. I would not attempt to justify speeding because "everyone else was doing it."
Okay so you can probably ask the officer about the amount of traffic on the road, but if the officer says something like "very few vehicles" or "yours was the only one" then there is really nothing else you can do. Officer said it, so that is a fact now unless you have other evidence to prove it is not a fact. You could testify that there was a lot of other traffic but now it is your word against officers word and unfortuntately the JP will usually take officers word over your word (so don't testify).
Okay so you can probably ask the officer about the amount of traffic on the road, but if the officer says something like "very few vehicles" or "yours was the only one" then there is really nothing else you can do. Officer said it, so that is a fact now unless you have other evidence to prove it is not a fact. You could testify that there was a lot of other traffic but now it is your word against officers word and unfortuntately the JP will usually take officers word over your word (so don't testify).
Although you drive a small vehicle, it becomes a stronger reflected signal the closer it gets to the radar unit. Yes, if your little car is beside a pickup truck at 200m, at the same rate of speed, the radar will produce the pickup trucks speed. However, if the truck is at 200 m, and you are at 100m, you now may become the stronger reflected signal as you are closer and are taking up more signal.
Although you drive a small vehicle, it becomes a stronger reflected signal the closer it gets to the radar unit. Yes, if your little car is beside a pickup truck at 200m, at the same rate of speed, the radar will produce the pickup trucks speed. However, if the truck is at 200 m, and you are at 100m, you now may become the stronger reflected signal as you are closer and are taking up more signal.
Also keep in mind that most radar units can be set to measure the speed of the fastest vehicle even if it's not the strongest signal (i.e. so it would give the speed of the fast motorcycle overtaking the large, slower transport truck). Regardless though, the officer is saying your speed was measured with a laser, not a radar, so it's kind of irrelevant. I'm guessing the Crown simply saw the officer mentioned he tested a radar at the start of shift in his notes and incorrectly assumed that's how your speed was measured.
Also keep in mind that most radar units can be set to measure the speed of the fastest vehicle even if it's not the strongest signal (i.e. so it would give the speed of the fast motorcycle overtaking the large, slower transport truck).
Regardless though, the officer is saying your speed was measured with a laser, not a radar, so it's kind of irrelevant. I'm guessing the Crown simply saw the officer mentioned he tested a radar at the start of shift in his notes and incorrectly assumed that's how your speed was measured.
If you testify that you weren't speeding and the officers contradict one another your chances are good. At trial you can exploit that ticketing officers testimony will be that he believes a laser was used to measure your speed. If he testifies otherwise then you start to have reasonable doubt. Ask him why he believes it was a laser. Answer will be because the other officer told him (very good) or he made an assumption (that's not very professional or accurate is it?) or that they always call it Lidar enforcement regardless of how the speed is measured (which would seem like a crock). If the other officer says he used radar as are indicated in his notes you can say that obviously there was a significant miscommunication between the officers and infer that they weren't on the same page that day...what else got missed. You can also suggest that it is possible that he was in fact using laser as the other officers notes indicate this. You can ask why his notes don't mention him test his laser. He can say "That's because I was using radar." but you can say, "That's not what the other officers observations are in his notes." One says laser, the other says radar, I think the JP should say NOT Guilty. Bottom line is this was a pre-planned, well rehearsed, regular and routine activity there should be absolutely no tolerance for any discrepancy between the officers. The reason it's important is that if the speed measuring device is called into question how can we be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he tested the right one.
If you testify that you weren't speeding and the officers contradict one another your chances are good.
At trial you can exploit that ticketing officers testimony will be that he believes a laser was used to measure your speed. If he testifies otherwise then you start to have reasonable doubt. Ask him why he believes it was a laser. Answer will be because the other officer told him (very good) or he made an assumption (that's not very professional or accurate is it?) or that they always call it Lidar enforcement regardless of how the speed is measured (which would seem like a crock).
If the other officer says he used radar as are indicated in his notes you can say that obviously there was a significant miscommunication between the officers and infer that they weren't on the same page that day...what else got missed. You can also suggest that it is possible that he was in fact using laser as the other officers notes indicate this. You can ask why his notes don't mention him test his laser. He can say "That's because I was using radar." but you can say, "That's not what the other officers observations are in his notes."
One says laser, the other says radar, I think the JP should say NOT Guilty.
Bottom line is this was a pre-planned, well rehearsed, regular and routine activity there should be absolutely no tolerance for any discrepancy between the officers. The reason it's important is that if the speed measuring device is called into question how can we be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he tested the right one.
Just another thought... you can ask for an Order Excluding Witnesses: "At the beginning of the trial, you or the Crown may ask the trial judge to order all witnesses in the case to remain outside the courtroom until they testify. This is to make sure that witnesses do not change their evidence based on what they hear other witnesses say in the courtroom. Accused persons are entitled to hear all of the evidence, and you will not have to leave the courtroom when other witnesses testify even if you intend to be a witness yourself. However, you must not tell any witnesses what evidence was given in the courtroom or the questions that were asked." This will make sure one officer does not know exactly what the other officer said or was asked which could work to your advantage.
Just another thought... you can ask for an Order Excluding Witnesses:
"At the beginning of the trial, you or the Crown may ask the trial judge to order all witnesses in the case to remain outside the courtroom until they testify. This is to make sure that witnesses do not change their evidence based on what they hear other witnesses say in the courtroom. Accused persons are entitled to hear all of the evidence, and you will not have to leave the courtroom when other witnesses testify even if you intend to be a witness yourself. However, you must not tell any witnesses what evidence was given in the courtroom or the questions that were asked."
This will make sure one officer does not know exactly what the other officer said or was asked which could work to your advantage.
Yes. This is pretty standard. I had an impaired case where I testified that I was riding double with my partner and he testified we were in separate cruisers. Oops. The accused was still convicted as the rest of the testimony was solid. Just shows that you can't pin your hopes on one small discrepancy being enough to toss the whole case.
Yes. This is pretty standard. I had an impaired case where I testified that I was riding double with my partner and he testified we were in separate cruisers. Oops. The accused was still convicted as the rest of the testimony was solid. Just shows that you can't pin your hopes on one small discrepancy being enough to toss the whole case.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
In a couple of the early posts of this thread, it was stated that both the ticketing officer and the officer who measured the speed need to be in attendance. Does anyone have a reference for this so I can correctly argue this point in court?
In a couple of the early posts of this thread, it was stated that both the ticketing officer and the officer who measured the speed need to be in attendance. Does anyone have a reference for this so I can correctly argue this point in court?
The testimony of both officers are needed to secure a conviction. Each plays a critical role in establishing elements of the offence. You will not need case law to back this up.
The testimony of both officers are needed to secure a conviction. Each plays a critical role in establishing elements of the offence. You will not need case law to back this up.
For anyone who was wondering how this wrapped up: At the 11th hour I punched a nice (theoretical) hole in my theory... On the back of the PON the ticketing officer noted "129km/hr - confirmed directly behind same." I was worried that once I pulled the hearsay argument to disallow the RADAR/LIDAR reading, he would say he confirmed my rate of speed independently, at which point my only defense besides discrediting the method used to verify my speed. Worse, it's at least possible in theory that the officer who ticketed me was using RADAR to verify the LIDAR reading of the other officer (which would explain the discrepancy in LIDAR/RADAR). So when I went to court, the ticketing officer showed but not the officer who operated the "LIDAR". The officer recognized me immediately which surprises me because I had no facial hair (did at time he pulled me over), was wearing completely different clothes, and was wearing my contacts (had glasses at time he pulled me over). But apparently once the officer realized his partner wasn't coming he went and spoke to the prosecutor, then came and told me his partner "who was using the LIDAR" wasn't coming and I'd get off. In earshot, one of his colleagues asked him why his partner didn't show and he responded "Because nobody told him" "Why didn't anyone tell him?" "I don't know...*points to ticket* It's here on the ticket, and in my notes." So it sounds like it was the prosecutor's error, and I was worrying over nothing :)
For anyone who was wondering how this wrapped up:
At the 11th hour I punched a nice (theoretical) hole in my theory...
On the back of the PON the ticketing officer noted "129km/hr - confirmed directly behind same." I was worried that once I pulled the hearsay argument to disallow the RADAR/LIDAR reading, he would say he confirmed my rate of speed independently, at which point my only defense besides discrediting the method used to verify my speed. Worse, it's at least possible in theory that the officer who ticketed me was using RADAR to verify the LIDAR reading of the other officer (which would explain the discrepancy in LIDAR/RADAR).
So when I went to court, the ticketing officer showed but not the officer who operated the "LIDAR". The officer recognized me immediately which surprises me because I had no facial hair (did at time he pulled me over), was wearing completely different clothes, and was wearing my contacts (had glasses at time he pulled me over). But apparently once the officer realized his partner wasn't coming he went and spoke to the prosecutor, then came and told me his partner "who was using the LIDAR" wasn't coming and I'd get off. In earshot, one of his colleagues asked him why his partner didn't show and he responded "Because nobody told him" "Why didn't anyone tell him?" "I don't know...*points to ticket* It's here on the ticket, and in my notes."
So it sounds like it was the prosecutor's error, and I was worrying over nothing
I got a speeding ticket on the 401 by Cornwall. The officer said I was going 140 initially then dropped it to 130 (for the record I don't believe for a second I was going 140, that's way faster than I would ever intentionally drive). I filled out the info on the back of the notice to request a…
I was recently charged with stunt driving on a 60kmh road. When I was pulled over, the officer told me I was going almost 100kmh (still 40kmh above the limit) but was charging me for stunt driving because I accelerated quickly from an intersection on an empty road (in a straight line). I know…
what to do about a an illegal right turn onto steeles from staines rd
got the ticket around october of last year
put it to trial
so there is a big mess of cars at this intersection and I see a cop outside standing directing traffic with a huge row of cars pulled over to the side, through…
Are any non-domestic vehicles "pursuit-rated" in North America? Also have the Michigan State Police (this is relevant because apparently they have the most accepted selection/testing process) tested any of them to see if they meet their criteria? Just curious...
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for…
A friend got a ticket Jan. 9th of this year for doing 110 kph in a 90 kph zone, so 20 over.
What should the set fine and total payable read?
It's confusing to me, as the prescribed fine under HTA s.128 is different than the set fine enumerated by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.
An OPP officer ticketed me claiming I was going 40km/h over the limit (140km/km) on my way home with a few friends on the 401. This is my first ever speeding offense. Although I am sure I was over the limit, I am almost certain that I was not going 40 over, more realistically closer to 30 over. The…
Yesterday night I was charged for stunt driving (excess over 50km/h) and I have a few inquiries. I'm sure you've all heard the same story, but the unmarked cop in an SUV was tailing me for a good 2-3 minutes as I was travelling 120~135 km/h. Then as he came close I decided to boot it up…
I had a speeding ticket in May 2013 which brought me to 9 demerit points out of 15. I received a letter and had to attend an interview. Due to a history of speeding tickets and a previous interview a few years prior, the interviewer decided to put me on zero tolerance for a year. Meaning if I…
