Hi all,

I received a speeding ticket traveling westbound on the 401 near Port Hope. The interesting thing about this incident is the I was maked while travelling behind the police cruser.

My position will be that, whereas I acknowledge the skill and training of the police officer, I believe that the task of safely driving and operating a vehicle at highway speeds, monitoring the in-dash radar equipment AND having to keep a visual of the car in question through the rear view mirror, places the whole issue in doubt..

I will argue that it is not possible to effectively do all these tasks and clearly identify and keep a constant visual of the accused's car.

My question please is, would the office have been required to keep a " constant" view of the car?

the rear radar enforcement is one of the easiest to do, the JP's love this mode the best as vehicles "catch" the patrol vehicle. The officer will never lose sight of the target vehicle either.

Hey hwybear.

I'm not sure what to infer from your reply. is sarcasm included ? .

camper66 wrote:

Hey hwybear.

I'm not sure what to infer from your reply. is sarcasm included ? .

not sarcasm, I will rephrase. Everytime I have seen a JP give a closing summation in a trial, the JP usually says something similiar to: the officer observed a vehicle at a high speed, confirmed with radar and further confirmed with the vehicle catching up and/or passing the police cruiser

At least this has been my experience in our area.

camper, he's our resident officer.....if your explaination sound funny to him you might not want to use it in court...

Hi Reflections,

Just for the record I very much appreciate your opinion and I'm always prepared to learn from it. I was presenting an argument that, given the hundreds of vehicles on a section of highway and further given the argument that the office was multitasking and tracking a vehicle behind him, that a reasonable doubt is introduced.

If you are suggestion that the JP will refuse to let the facts get in the way :0 well that is another kettle of fish.

Is it reasonable to suggest that given all the factors, that the officer could have lost track of the vehicle and if so would that not be reasonable doubt?

camper66 wrote:

Is it reasonable to suggest that given all the factors, that the officer could have lost track of the vehicle and if so would that not be reasonable doubt?

How would an officer lose track of a vehicle if it catches up to the cruiser and pulls in behind, pulls in behind 2 vehicles back or passes the cruiser?

camper66 wrote:

Hi Reflections,

Just for the record I very much appreciate your opinion and I'm always prepared to learn from it. I was presenting an argument that, given the hundreds of vehicles on a section of highway and further given the argument that the office was multitasking and tracking a vehicle behind him, that a reasonable doubt is introduced.

If you are suggestion that the JP will refuse to let the facts get in the way :0 well that is another kettle of fish.

Is it reasonable to suggest that given all the factors, that the officer could have lost track of the vehicle and if so would that not be reasonable doubt?

From what you are describing, unless there were 3 or 4 cars all the same make and model and colour, driving in a intricate pattern designed to confuse an officer trying to track one of them and then that would considered interfering with police..... I have no specific training and have no problem tracking cars in my rear view/side mirrors night or day. You need a better arguement, this won't fly.

Reflections wrote:

From what you are describing, unless there were 3 or 4 cars all the same make and model and colour, driving in a intricate pattern designed to confuse an officer trying to track one of them and then that would considered interfering with police.....

Kinda like a "highway shell game"??

Yup.

Hi again,

On a small tangent please; what is the effective range that a radar unit can read the speed of a vehicle "behind" the police cruiser ?

Depends on the make/model and weather conditions, the specifics should be in the radar manual. You can bet that it would be at least 1 kilometre, if not well above that.

I appologize for the seemingly random question, but would I be allowed to post the hand written noted of the police office I received as part of the disclosure.

I ask, because some short hand is hard to read and understand and I am hoping for your assistance in understanding them.

thank you

camper66 wrote:

I appologize for the seemingly random question, but would I be allowed to post the hand written noted of the police office I received as part of the disclosure.

I ask, because some short hand is hard to read and understand and I am hoping for your assistance in understanding them.

thank you

you can do that provided no officer name or badge is listed

camper66 wrote:

I appologize for the seemingly random question, but would I be allowed to post the hand written noted of the police office I received as part of the disclosure.

I ask, because some short hand is hard to read and understand and I am hoping for your assistance in understanding them.

thank you

hwybear made a good point that you can post the info. You can either re-type it, or scan it and upload to an image-hosting site and link to it (if it is legible after scan). Let me know if you are having any problems.

You can also visit our "slang and abbreviations" topic that deals with these types of shorthand: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1111.html