22 km over (72 in 50 zone)

Hey all,

I have recently received a ticket for going 22km/h over. The first ticket that I ever gotten.

I have been doing some reading on this site as well as ticketcombat, great site by the way. I decided to go the court route, and once i get my trial date in the mail I will fax a disclosure form. I am going to used the sample one from ticketcombat. From reading the forum I think i am going to ask for the following on the disclosure:

• copy of the police officers notes

  copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket

  typed version of any hand written notes

  statements made by the defendant

  calibration record of the unit

  training record of the officer for the unit

  and a manual

I was wondering if anyone could indicate if this is sufficient and what else i could ask for?

Thanks,

b0b

I would exclude "Statements made by defendant", but otherwise looks fine. Paralegals or 'Bear might comment better though.

Thanks, i will remove that from the disclosure.

b0b wrote:

Hey all,

for the following on the disclosure:

copy of the police officers notes: Will get

copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket with some tickets there is nothing on the back. With our e-ticketing there is no back

typed version of any hand written notes: will only get if you cannot read officers notes

statements made by the defendant: see officer notes

calibration record of the unit: won't get just get that officer verified calibration

training record of the officer for the unit :Won't get. Officer will just testify that they are qualified or not

and a manual:seems this is dependant on prosecutor. some give manual some only give relevant parts

b0b

OPS

and a manual:seems this is dependant on prosecutor. some give manual some only give relevant parts

All parts are relevant

Reflections wrote:

and a manual:seems this is dependant on prosecutor. some give manual some only give relevant parts

All parts are relevant

Perhaps but Seems that prosecutors are all doing different things when it comes to this....

OPS

OPS Copper wrote:

Perhaps but Seems that prosecutors are all doing different things when it comes to this....

No kidding.

Radar Identified wrote:

OPS Copper wrote:

Perhaps but Seems that prosecutors are all doing different things when it comes to this....

No kidding.

different courts+different rules+same provence=WTF

Wondering if anyone can help.

I have a court date this friday, November 19th, I asked for a disclosure packages back in August when i got my court date. I have not received the disclosure package and was wondering if anyone can tell me how I should proceed during the trial. I didn't file f4 and don't have enough time to do it now. Any help would be appreciated.

If you requested disclosure and the crown has had ample time to produce it and doesn't and the trial dates comes, you should be able to request an adjournment. The delay between that date and the next one counts against the crown for an 11(b) motion.

if you file F4, is it necessary to order the transcript too? what if the Crown ask you to order transcipt? is that means they are ready to jinx you on your 11B motion?

Should I request the adjournment before making a plea? or how does it work?

Yes. Disclosure, motions, etc., are preliminary matters and must be dealt with before the trial starts. Show up early, check in with the Prosecutor. Do NOT accept the disclosure package if they have it and want to give it to you before trial. Tell them that you are going to have to speak to the JP first. Instead, when the trial is about to start, and they ask you "how do you plead," mention that before you are making any pleas, the Prosecutor has not provided disclosure which was requested in August. That should force an adjournment. If they say "okay, well we will give it to you now, so go review it and come back in five minutes," object and point out that the Prosecutor needs at least 15 days notice just for a Notice of Constitutional Question, and also could not produce disclosure even after three months, so how could you possibly be expected to do so in five minutes? That would be prejudicial and completely unfair.

Once the adjournment has been forced, you should then be able to file an 11B. If you're not comfortable with the process, you can get a paralegal to do it for you. Usually in Toronto the Prosecutors simply withdraw the charges if an 11B is filed rather than fight it out. They're way too busy to argue Constitutional Questions on a daily basis with the clogged court system.

Thanks for the help, I'll let you know how it goes on Friday.

Radar Identified wrote:

Yes. Disclosure, motions, etc., are preliminary matters and must be dealt with before the trial starts. Show up early, check in with the Prosecutor. Do NOT accept the disclosure package if they have it and want to give it to you before trial. Tell them that you are going to have to speak to the JP first. Instead, when the trial is about to start, and they ask you "how do you plead," mention that before you are making any pleas, the Prosecutor has not provided disclosure which was requested in August. That should force an adjournment. .

I would suggest this is border line making a false statement in court as disclosure (no matter how late) was provided/available by the crown. Can do the same thing with a little more tact and will look a lot more positive on your part by accepting disclosure from the prosecution. Then explain to JP only received disclosure this AM, when your request was made etc..

hwybear wrote:

I would suggest this is border line making a false statement in court as disclosure (no matter how late) was provided/available by the crown.

Yes, the defendant should say exactly what happened: "Crown attempted to give me disclosure this morning." No argument there.

Respectfully, though, I'd say that the defendant needs to make a case that the adjournment was caused by the Crown, not him. Unless the Prosecutor agrees to an adjournment pre-emptory on them for failure to provide disclosure prior to the trial, I'd complain to the Justice of the Peace, and let the Crown explain why it took them so long to get the disclosure package to the defendant. The JP likely won't order a stay since no paperwork was filed, but would probably order an adjournment.

That's just me, though.

Radar Identified wrote:

Yes, the defendant should say exactly what happened: "Crown attempted to give me disclosure this morning." No argument there.

Respectfully, though, I'd say that the defendant needs to make a case that the adjournment was caused by the Crown, not him. .

Agreed, the defendant needs to make the case caused by the crown, but refusing disclosure that day looks really bad.

Use your above statement above with a mild twist " Your worship, Crown provided me with disclosure 1 hour ago, I took these steps (....) to obtain disclosure.

Thanks for the help. I think I am ready to go to court. I'll try to get an adjournment based on what you guys said and than file an 11B.

I got an adjournment and the next trial date is in March, which is over a year since the ticket was given to me.

The trial went like this. I entered the court room, approached the prosecutor she asked me if I wanted to plead guilty to a lesser charge I answered "no". She warned me about if we go to court and I am found guilty I will get the 3 points and the full fine. I said yes, and she told me to go sit down until my name is read. I was one of the last people to remain in court, when my name was finally called I got up to the stand. I stated my name and then the JP asked if I wanted to go to trial. I replied "Your worship, before we go to trial I just want to state that I have request disclosure in July and August and still have not received it." The JP turns to the prosecutor and asks if she has anything to say. The prosecutor starts looking through her papers and finds my disclosure request and states that my request was incomplete and thats why her office didnt prepare it. She also states that she can provide me with the disclosure today; the JP turns to me and asks if I want the disclosure. I reply "yes", the prosecutor asks the cop to go make the photocopies of his notes and come back. In the meantime I ask the prosecutor to repeat why the disclosure was incomplete. She states that it didnt have the officer number on it. I reply by saying from my understanding that all the information could be found through the offence number. The JP asks me to read her the offence number. She then turns to the prosecutor and asks if the offence number is sufficient to provide the disclosure. The prosecutor states that they have a lot of request and that they may or may not be able to provide the disclosure without the officers number. The JP asks again if the offence number is sufficient to provide the disclosure. The prosecutor again replies it may or may not be. The JP then states that she is going to note that the disclosure was not provided prior to today. Once the cop comes back with the photocopies the JP asks me if I want to proceed today or at another day. I state that I will need some time to look of the package. She says thats fine and then we set a new trial date. Before I left I stated that I want to state that the delay was caused by the prosecution and not me. The JP replies yes thats what I noted. I thank the JP and leave.

Excellent! 11B it is. Nicely done, you handled that situation perfectly. I'd start putting together the 11B paperwork ASAP. The Crown caused all of these delays and you should be able to get the charge stayed.

Should I file for the 11B as soon as possible or wait until January so its past 12 months since I have gotten my ticket?

I'd file it now. The delay is apparent now, so you may as well get the paperwork in. That said, as long as you have it filed at least 20 calendar days before the next trial, you'll be okay.

Thanks for the help so far guys. I have been really busy lately and only had an opportunity to start working on the motion for a stay recently. I am looking at 11b Precedent cases and so far found R. v. Pusic, and R. v. Askov. Do you think these are appropriate for my situation, and are there any other that i could use?

Radar Identified wrote:

I'd file it now. The delay is apparent now, so you may as well get the paperwork in. That said, as long as you have it filed at least 20 calendar days before the next trial, you'll be okay.

When I filed an 11B, I then received a request from the prosecutor for the transcript of the court proceedings where the adjournment was given. It was stated that if this was not provided they would ask for my 11B request to be dismissed. I did it, just in case, and was successful with the 11b but I am assuming it was just a way for the prosecutor to get me to spend more money by ordering the transcript. Would the JP have dismissed my 11B request for stay if I hadn't done this?

fredfred wrote:

Would the JP have dismissed my 11B request for stay if I hadn't done this?

Probably. If the adjournment was due to the fault of the Crown (e.g. no disclosure), the JP presiding would have needed evidence (the transcript) that it was the Crown's fault in order to rule in your favour. I'd get it, even if it costs more. The more paperwork you can throw at them, the better.

Separate note:

Other cases to look at for the 11B include R. v. Morin and R. v. Rowan.

I have the trial in a couple of days, I am getting ready for the defense. I have also filed for an 11b, hopefully the JP will grant a stay. However I am preparing my defense as well. I had a question regarding the test/retesting of the laser.

From reading the forums I know that the officer must test the laser before and after using it. On the notes that were supplied to me in the disclosure package, all it says is "ATL ##### OK M+T" It does not specify the time it was done and if a retest was performed after I was pulled over.

Based on the manual the daily tests are Internal Circuit Check, Light Segment Test, Range Accuracy Test, Horizontal Alignment Test, and Vertical Alignment test.

Can I use the fact that it doesn't state in his notes that he completed all the test for my defense?

b0b wrote:

From reading the forums I know that the officer must test the laser before and after using it. On the notes that were supplied to me in the disclosure package, all it says is "ATL ##### OK M+T" It does not specify the time it was done and if a retest was performed after I was pulled over.

Just to be clear, laser does NOT need to be tested immediately after every stop, just sometime before the end of the officer's shift. If the officer failed to retest the laser or make note of it, that could grounds for reasonable doubt. There's also a chance though that the officer simply forgot the photocopy the page with the retest since it's rarely at the same time/date as the stop itself. .

b0b wrote:

Can I use the fact that it doesn't state in his notes that he completed all the test for my defense?

No, unless you're talking about the lack of retest. Most officers don't list every single step of testing a radar or laser in their notes, they'll simply make note of the time that the test was done. During trial you can question the officer as to how the device was tested, but listing the steps in their notes isn't a requirement.

I don't think you're hurting your case by accepting disclosure in the morning. It's no more reasonable for the court to expect you to review it before court than it is for them to expect you to do it during a court recess. If the disclosure is only available the day of, you can likely expect to get an adjournment (at the crown's expense) out of it.