Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

My Details:

24 years old.

Driving for 8 years.

1st speeding ticket.

Never convicted of anything.

Ticket Details:

September 2009

89 in a 60 = 29 over.

Ticket was not reduced.

Trial date: First week of August.

Situation:

To my suprise disclosure is incredibly detailed.

The officer has 2 seperate notes of calibrating the radar at the start and end of his shift. The first note is mich more detailed than the second. The second simply states that the unit was functioning properly.

He has another note that specified where he was standing while he radared. The exact direction. He describes the road..... the weather.... visibility. He even describes the exact distance that the speed limit sign was posted in front and behind him.

On another note, he speciifies my vehicle, make, model, color and that there was 2 vehicles in site. he raraded my vehicle by trageting the front license plate. Clocked me at 29 over.

The Lidar Radar Manual was also included.

To this day, I don't believe I was going 29 over. I'm not a speeder. I want to argue that the cop radared the wrong vehicle but I don't know if I even have a chance. Considering how detailed his notes are, I can tell this officer goes by the book and will most likely be there at the trial.

This is what I plan on doing on trial day:

Ask the prosecuter if the officer will be attending my trial. If not, plead not guilty in the hopes of it being thrown out. If the cop is there, plead Guilty for 15 over - no points.

15 over means my insurance will still get a hike... which is really my main issue. But I think these are my only options. Am I going about this right?

I've read the entire Ticket Combat site like 10 times. Scanned for flaws in the ticket and disclosure and can't find anything.

You have mentioned both radar and lidar in your post so I'm not sure which one it was, but I'm guessing lidar because you said he targeted your vehicle specifically on the front plate. You can only do this with a lidar because it has a scope with a crosshair. If this is the case, I don't see how you're going to successfully argue that he targeted the wrong vehicle.

Pleading to 15 over seems like a pretty good choice, it will certainly be less of an insurance hike than 29 over.

it was actually a speedlaser.... not sure if that the same as lidar.

Same thing.

My Details:

24 years old.

Driving for 10 years.

You started driving when you were 14?

lol, sorry, 8 years.

Your strategy seems like a good one, given the circumstances. The officer had some extremely detailed notes, the Crown fulfilled their disclosure obligation... I'd say what you're planning to do is your best bet. Let us know what the outcome is, though!

Lets say that the prosector is not willing to lower the speed to 15 before trial. Would it be best for me to go to trial, and plead to the JP for a lower sentencing in hopes that they would lower it to 15?

The JP won't hear your plea for a reduced charge. All they will hear is your guilty plea to the offence you are charged with, which you are able to make submissions as to penalty to. You can ask for a reduction in the dollar amount of the fine, but the speed will be what is on the ticket and the points are non negotiable and are for the amount on the ticket.

Wow, didn't know that. I thought I could work with the JP during the sentencing part. I could care less about the fine amount. Im more concerned with the noted speed.

So I pretty much have to take whatever the prosecutor offers then... correct?

Either that or go to trial.

How lenient are the prosecutors? Is 15 over a reasonable deal?

Is there any strategy in place to get to that number - 15 over?

Depends a lot on the individual prosecutor in your region. 29 over to 15 over might be a bit of a stretch, but not inconceivable.

Hi guys, my court date was actually on Thursday. Got the dates mixed up but regardless, I was still prepared. This is what happened.

1. Went to court, name was on a list.

2. Waited outside the court room until we were allowed in.

3. Walked up to the prosecuter and made a deal with him. Reduced to 15 over. He actually made the deal. I didn't do anything. He asked me what my name was in a matter of 2 seconds said he would reduce it to 15.

4. The cop still hadn't arrived. The prosecuter said that cases where the cop doesn't show up are automatically thrown out. So you don't even have to enter a plea or not guilty or guilty.

5. The cop eventually arrived. Turns out that they schedule trials based on one officer. That way the cop has to show up. So all the trials that day involve that officer. Makes sense. Therefore, I think people should really abandon the thought of an officer not showing up to court. Unless he is sick or on vacation is the only way you will get lucky.

6. The judge called me up to the stand. I plead guilty and told him I can pay the fine today.

7. My trial was at 9 AM, I was out of the court by 9:30.

So for everyone who is stressed out over a speeding ticket. Don't be.

^^ Thanks for the update!

Yes, this seems to be what happens on a regular basis...what I have yet to see is a recollection of a case that actually "went to trial" without a "deal" and was stayed/not guilty.

woodensoldier wrote:

Hi guys, my court date was actually on Thursday. Got the dates mixed up but regardless, I was still prepared. This is what happened.

1. Went to court, name was on a list.

2. Waited outside the court room until we were allowed in.

3. Walked up to the prosecuter and made a deal with him. Reduced to 15 over. He actually made the deal. I didn't do anything. He asked me what my name was in a matter of 2 seconds said he would reduce it to 15.

4. The cop still hadn't arrived. The prosecuter said that cases where the cop doesn't show up are automatically thrown out. So you don't even have to enter a plea or not guilty or guilty.

5. The cop eventually arrived. Turns out that they schedule trials based on one officer. That way the cop has to show up. So all the trials that day involve that officer. Makes sense. Therefore, I think people should really abandon the thought of an officer not showing up to court. Unless he is sick or on vacation is the only way you will get lucky.

6. The judge called me up to the stand. I plead guilty and told him I can pay the fine today.

7. My trial was at 9 AM, I was out of the court by 9:30.

So for everyone who is stressed out over a speeding ticket. Don't be.

Hey, thanks for a detailed overview! I just got myself into the same situation and was just curious to see by how much your insurance premiums went up?

Flyview wrote:

^^ Thanks for the update!

Yes, this seems to be what happens on a regular basis...what I have yet to see is a recollection of a case that actually "went to trial" without a "deal" and was stayed/not guilty.

I'll give you one of those (not to hijack the thread).

Defendant was over and ticketed at 30-ish over. No reduction on the ticket. (this was about a year and 8 months ago probably).

Officer's notes were accurate and detailed, very standard. Went to trial, defendant was not offered a deal due to driving record. Upon trial, officer neglected to establish concrete that a motor vehicle was involved, neglected to mention license plate, colour and type of vehicle... basically skipped that whole section of his notes.

The officer did focus very carefully on how his radar was tested and re-tested and the specifics of visually estimating the speed and verifying it with radar, etc. etc.

Upon cross-exam, no questions were asked about the vehicle, disallowing the officer to correct his mistake. Instead cross-exam was focused on "how the radar works" and "when it was last calibrated".

Motion made for non-suit based on fact that the crown failed to establish more than simply circumstantial evidence of a motor vehicle being involved, which is a key component in establishing guilt.

Motion sustained. Charges withdrawn. Looks of utter surprise from the Crown, JP and Officer.

In this example, the officer made a simple mistake, which all of us are prone to do at some point or other. There was no worthwhile deal offered, so the worst that could happen was that the defendant would end up with what they were ticketed for. Might as well go see what happens, and keep an eye on what's being said and what isn't being said on examination-in-chief. Sometimes you get lucky.

Slyk wrote:

Flyview wrote:

^^ Thanks for the update!

Yes, this seems to be what happens on a regular basis...what I have yet to see is a recollection of a case that actually "went to trial" without a "deal" and was stayed/not guilty.

I'll give you one of those (not to hijack the thread).

Defendant was over and ticketed at 30-ish over. No reduction on the ticket. (this was about a year and 8 months ago probably).

Officer's notes were accurate and detailed, very standard. Went to trial, defendant was not offered a deal due to driving record. Upon trial, officer neglected to establish concrete that a motor vehicle was involved, neglected to mention license plate, colour and type of vehicle... basically skipped that whole section of his notes.

The officer did focus very carefully on how his radar was tested and re-tested and the specifics of visually estimating the speed and verifying it with radar, etc. etc.

Upon cross-exam, no questions were asked about the vehicle, disallowing the officer to correct his mistake. Instead cross-exam was focused on "how the radar works" and "when it was last calibrated".

Motion made for non-suit based on fact that the crown failed to establish more than simply circumstantial evidence of a motor vehicle being involved, which is a key component in establishing guilt.

Motion sustained. Charges withdrawn. Looks of utter surprise from the Crown, JP and Officer.

In this example, the officer made a simple mistake, which all of us are prone to do at some point or other. There was no worthwhile deal offered, so the worst that could happen was that the defendant would end up with what they were ticketed for. Might as well go see what happens, and keep an eye on what's being said and what isn't being said on examination-in-chief. Sometimes you get lucky.

Cool, but why would the JP be surprised? Isn't the JP the one making that decision?

Sure, but they're not really used to seeing people successfully defending themselves... The same way the officer doesn't realize he's missed something, the JP and crown often don't realize it either until someone points it out. I'm pretty sure in this case the JP was ready to find against the accused, until he brought the court's attention to that issue.

Speeding Ticket trials are won on the legal technicalities.

Like the above post, the officer has to prove that the offense was committed with a "Motor Vehicle".

If you don't know the legal technicalities then you miss many opportunities to win your case.

Here are a few of the legal technicalities to win speeding tickets

Has the case taken too long to come to court? - 11b Argument

Is the ticket correct on its face? - Motion to Quash

Was the radar "properly tested"? - There are rules that the officer has to follow

Is the officer properly qualified? - Motion for non-suit

Has the ticket been properly filed at the court? - Motion to Quash