An experienced traffic officer probably would have tested the radar before and after your stop, but they still need to record the fact in their notes. In my experience Courts will not simply accept an officers testimony about testing if its not also in their notes (in short, not in the notes, didnt happen). This may be an oversight and notes relating to testing were left out of disclosure package, or maybe the officer did forget to record the tests.

Stanton wrote:

An experienced traffic officer probably would have tested the radar before and after your stop, but they still need to record the fact in their notes. In my experience Courts will not simply accept an officers testimony about testing if its not also in their notes (in short, not in the notes, didnt happen). This may be an oversight and notes relating to testing were left out of disclosure package, or maybe the officer did forget to record the tests.

so how do i find out whether the notes relating to testing were left out of disclosure or not? I sent a disclosure form to the prosecutors office that cited R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CANLII 45 (S.C.C.), and requested all disclosure. i've attached a copy of the disclosure requestion i sent.

so in what direction do i go now? do i have to ask specifically for notes relating to the radar testing? and who exactly do I have to ask for this? also if this is a reason that could get me off the ticket what steps do i have to take if I try to use the fact the radar wasn't tested prior to my traffic stop at 8:48am saturday morning as a defense.

If you bring that to court and there is still something missing, IMO you are good for a stay. Something being testing notes or other info you would require to mount a full defense.

Reflections wrote:

If you bring that to court and there is still something missing, IMO you are good for a stay. Something being testing notes or other info you would require to mount a full defense.

but what i'm still unsure of is how can i find out if any of the information such as the officers radar test has been left out of the disclosure.

i don't want to walk into court with this idea of his radar testing notes not being disclosed to me and they make me look stupid by the officer just saying yes it was tested verbally and maybe even producing some notes that weren't disclosed to me.

also how exactly do i go about trying to get a stay? what do i say to the justice and when? if the stay is dismissed or denied what happens next? i really want to be a close to 100% sure as possible the stay will be granted before I go in trying to get this.

my court date is December 9, 2011. thanks in advance

i found this case R. v. Zack, [1999] O.J. No. 5747 (Ont. C.J.)

Justice Duncan stated "In this day of full disclosure it cannot be an acceptable explanation for a police officer to say 'I did not note it because I would remember it. It is necessary for the officer to at least somewhere…put the significant observation he made…the absence of the questioned observations in his notebook lead to the conclusion that those observations were not, in fact, made at the time but are perhaps something that over the course of time the officer has come to believe that he saw"

if in the officers notes there is no recording of radar being tested before and after my traffic stop, this would mean if i ask the officer if the radar device was tested according to the manual before and after my traffic stop occurred and his answer is yes, i could then reference this case in which a justice states an officer can't not note things because he would remember it.

also i can't find on CanLII a document of this case. Many of the cases on the site reference this case but I can't find it. If anyone has a link or can direct me to it I would appreciate it .

would referencing this case make the decision binding in my trial because its a lower court?

thanks

well today i had my trial, which wasn't really a trial because I was expecting to agree to 65km/h in a 50km/h zone.

this is what happened. prosecutor called my name and started by directly telling the justice that the officer who gave me the ticket was not able to make it to court today due to illness, and he wanted to have the trial re-scheduled.

the justice asked me if I have anything to say about that, basically I said I took time off work to go to court today and its not easy for me to take time off. He said because it was illness it's enough reason for the him to grant the prosecutors request to have the trial re-scheduled. At that point I was pissed, officer doesn't show and there going to re-schedule on me...B.S.

I had the paper that the prosecutor wrote the 65/50 lesser charge on, so I showed it to him, and the prosecutor then told the justice we have made an agreement for 65 in a 50, went through the whole thing, guilty yes, da da da da da, charge was entered as a guilty plea to 65km/h in a 50km/h zone.

I'm sure in most cases the justice would grant the new trial due to illness, but would there have been a way to try to convince him otherwise? Or is officer illness 99.9% of the time a legitimate reason to reschedule a trial?

In my experience JPs typically will allow the requests, since illnesses are considered something unforeseen.

Stanton wrote:

In my experience JPs typically will allow the requests, since illnesses are considered something unforeseen.

just out of curiosity...how do you think most JP's would react if I would have asked that since the officer was ill and could not make the scheduled court date, if I can request he provide a doctors note upon re-scheduling of the trial to ensure his illness was sever enough to miss a trial. Since the officer gets paid to goto trial and I have to take more time off work thus costing me more money all the while i'm still the innocent party.

Would such a request be granted to me?

gabe wrote:

Would such a request be granted to me?

Wouldn't be granted.