I was driving north on highway 27, the cop pulled me over and said i was driving 101 KM/H when the MAX is 70KM/H, but charged me for 86 KM/H.Based on the disclosure they sent, they have a video from the cruise, and I have a my dash-cam file as well.
My questions are:1. Does the fact that the cop reduced my speed and fine means that he wasn't sure that I was driving that fast?
2. Can I play MY dash cam in court, and how do I do it?3. In the COP notes, he made a mistake on his location where he was standing, he wrote that he was at an address A 1/2 KM from a intersection B, but based on google maps he was 1 KM from intersection B, can it help me in any way?
4. The cop wrote in his notes that I was driving alone N/B, however, based on my dash cam video (link attached), the COP (who was on the S/B side, facing E/B) there is a car driving S/B, and the cruise lights are turned on, about 3-4 seconds later, another car drives S/B.Can I argue that he couldn't get me with the laser beam in those two seconds, based on his testimony that I was driving 100 KM/H?
Is there anyway for me to win this case that I could think of?
No. Reduced charges are quite normal.Bonjoby777 wrote:My questions are:1. Does the fact that the cop reduced my speed and fine means that he wasn't sure that I was driving that fast?
Your dash cam shows you speeding. I'm not sure why you'd want to show that to anybody.Bonjoby777 wrote:2. Can I play MY dash cam in court, and how do I do it?3. In the COP notes, he made a mistake on his location where he was standing, he wrote that he was at an address A 1/2 KM from a intersection B, but based on google maps he was 1 KM from intersection B, can it help me in any way?
62.6m and it took you 2.44s, this has a lot of error because the distance was measured using Google Earth and a stop watch along with your video playing.
It wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility your instantaneous speed at some point could've been 101km/hr. Your speed was definitely in excess of the posted limit.
1. They reduce speeds all the time, if he's using LIDAR then there shouldn't be any confusion; the speed would be displayed on the LIDAR device along with the distance it was measured from.
2. The location being 0.5km or 1km doesn't mean anything. Importantly, the Google Maps information would not be accepted in court. You may even need to get a ON Land Surveyor or road surveying documents from the City of Vaughan to show distances. This would not help you.
3. In your disclosure, does he write at what distance he got the speed of 101km/hr? Their LIDAR devices have a range of up to 9km.
You're going about fighting this the completely wrong way. You need to focus on the essential elements required to get a conviction for Speeding in Ontario: R. v. Vancrey, 2000 CanLII 26961 (ON CA)
1. Officer is qualified, received training in the use of the speed measuring device; he's also "current", which means some forces require that they're re-trained every year or 2 years... he has "currency" and is within the re-training period.
- if you choose trial, you can also question the officer about his training.
2. Officer tested the device as per the manufacturer's specification (before and after for radar, possibly only before for lidar); it's in good working order.
3. Officer stopped the correct vehicle
In order to fight speeding tickets, you generally go about fighting 1 & 2; making sure the officer tested it properly on the day the alleged offence took place. That he followed the manufacturer's specs and his training.
Request for the manual/testing-pages for the officer's speed measuring device.
You'll also have an opportunity to speak to the officer to clear up questions. If the crown has the essential elements to get a conviction; it's in your best interest to plea-bargain the best deal possible. In this case try to get something with no points.
It's difficult to fight speeding tickets in ON, because the essential elements to get a conviction are super easy to prove. In some instances, the officer isn't present at trial, or his notes are incomplete and in those cases you have a hope & prayer.
For LIDAR (does not apply to RADAR, only LIDAR), there will be a testing section where they need to measure a fixed object from specific distances. For example it may say they need to measure the object from 30metres away and the distance reading on LIDAR the should be +/- 0.3metres. So the question to find out is who measured out the original 30metres to know that it was accurate? Did the officer himself measure out the distance with a tape measure, or is the officer relying on sombody else telling him where the 30m mark is? If the officer did not measure it himself, then the distances are hearsay evidence and there is no proof as to the actual distance that the unit was trying to measure and therefore there is no proof the manufacturers testing procedure was followed and that should bring the reading on the device into question. Even if the officer did measure the distances himself, then all that he has proved here is that the unit can acurately measure the distance of a non-moving object.
For both handheld LIDAR and handheld RADAR (by handheld I mean that it is either held in an officers hands or mounted on a stand), there is a TEST button on the unit that will test the internal circuits and normally the officer will testify that the unit PASSed this test. But this only tests the internal workings of the unit and does NOT test the actual transmission and reception of the beam that is sent out. So essentially, how do you know that these units can actually measure a moving vehicle accurately if there is no test of the beam against a vehicle of known speed?
On a seperate note, if you have to deal with moving radar (a RADAR unit that is mounted in a vehicle as opposed to handheld version) there is usually an additional test where they compare the patrol speed shown on the radar unit to the speedometer of the vehicle. When they do this test as well, then it becomes harder to prove the unit was not tested properly as you have to convince the JP that the speedometer needs to be certified/calibrated as well. Even if the patrol speed on radar unit matched the speed on the speedometer, this does not prove that either of them is accurate/correct. It only proves that they are both equally inaccurate. Only if the speedometer is certified/calibrated can we then say that the radar must also be accurate.
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++
- Similar Topics
New post Video evidence in court
Last post by rankreplies: 7
Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:29 am
Posted in Failing to obey a stop sign, traffic control stop/slow sign, traffic light or railway crossing signalby Buck Hunter in Failing to obey a stop sign, traffic control stop/slow sign, traffic light or railway crossing signalLast post by rank Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:29 am
New post Analyzing video evidence
Last post by jsherkreplies: 10
Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:39 am
Posted in Failing to obey a stop sign, traffic control stop/slow sign, traffic light or railway crossing signalby Thinker in Failing to obey a stop sign, traffic control stop/slow sign, traffic light or railway crossing signalLast post by jsherk Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:39 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests