Getting a stay based on incomplete disclosure

Flyview
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:34 pm

Getting a stay based on incomplete disclosure

by: Flyview on
Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:44 pm

Hey guys,

Charged end of June, 80 in a 60 (500m before 80 zone begins...but that's besides the point)

Requested trial beginning of July, in person.

Received a court date (October) at the end of July.

Requested disclosure beginning of August (delivered in person), including a request for the radar manual the officer used. They made a photocopy of my request, and stamped my original and gave it back to me.

A week later I receive the officer's written notes and a sheet with the time of the testing of the device, before, and after, and a list of all the other people they caught, which they tried to scratch out but failed to terribly. This was dated mid July meaning they drew up this "disclosure" even before they received my actual detailed request.

What do I do now? Wait and file for a stay? Ask for complete disclosure again, wait, and file for a stay?

I'd appreciate some detailed steps to take next in order to get a stay of proceedings.

P.S. they are not required to show you the radar reading if you ask, right?

Thank you


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:57 pm

If I read your post correctly, the radar manual was not provided, correct? If so, they do need to provide that (plus officer's notes, which you did get). Try asking again for the manual, and keep a record of it. If that fails, file for a stay.

They are not required to show you the radar reading even if you ask. Some will, some won't, but there is no requirement to show it to you.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca


Flyview
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:34 pm

by: Flyview on
Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:23 pm

^^ Ok, that clarifies the radar reading.

Should I ask again so that they see I am persistent? I could just wait and never get it.

Also, perhaps they are processing my actual disclosure request as we speak? Like I said, the disclosure I got was stamped with a mid-July date, before I actually asked for disclosure. Seems like the officer provided disclosure on his own once I asked for a trial date and then when I went to request it, they just sent that out. In fact, when I went to leave my disclosure request, the lady said "One sec, let me see if I have the disclosure here," as if it were normal for the disclosure (or as they like to call it, "officer's notes") to be prepared even before you request it.


Flyview
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:34 pm

by: Flyview on
Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:51 pm

-Mid August I wrote a follow up request specifically asking for the manual

-Drew up stay documents today and went to file them in person, as well as a third disclosure request (second followup). Being a smaller municipality, the prosecutor was there and she came out when the clerks were all wide-eyed at the stay papers. She quickly came out with a copy of the lidar testing procedures. I said this was sufficient but later thought maybe I also need the operating instructions...I didn't finish filling the stay.

The prosecutor offered to lower it but I told her it makes no difference to me if it's lowered or not, since it will affect insurance. She seemed very kind and understanding and said that the onus is on them to prove it in court and that there are "a bunch of things" they need to say and that if they miss anything, it is dismissed.

So now for the hard questions:

1) Now that I've drawn attention to the testing procedures, I figure they will be very thorough and say they did everything it says to do in the few-pages-of-instructions for testing that I was given.

2) If after the officer says what they have to say, there is something that I notice he didn't do, will it be enough to dismiss the case if I mention it after his testimony, or can he simply add, "Oh yes, we did that too." ?

3) I'm trying to draw up a list of what the prosecution needs to establish based on what I've read and what the prosecution just told me:

i) The device was tested properly before and after. [prosecutor said]

ii) The device was in good working order. [prosecutor said]

iii) The officer was properly trained to use it. [prosecutor said]

iv) The offence was committed with a motor vehicle.

Please add to the list so I know what I have to work with!


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:10 am

Some others (and, including the points you brought up, they cover a lot of territory if you know where to dig):

- Offence occurred on a highway
- Officer visually estimated speed of vehicle
- Officer visually identified vehicle as speeding PRIOR to using device to confirm same ("tracking history")
- Device properly used by officer to obtain speed (see manual)
- Vehicle stopped without sight lost
- Identified the driver (not likely an issue with this case)
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca


OPS Copper
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:06 pm

by: OPS Copper on
Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:48 pm

We send notes at arrival of supeona. So in some cases disclosure will be ready before a person requests it.

That will show why the disclosure was stamped mid July even though you requested it at the end of July.

OPS copper


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Exceeding the speed limit by 16 to 29 km/h”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests