Hi all I am new to this forum, and have a couple of questions. I have noticed in speeding trials that police officers always testify that they visually observed the vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed (sometimes they state what their estimate was) and then they turned on the radar and confirmed this high rate of speed...(funny, its almost always the same as the radar speed - but I digresss) So my first question is: Why do they have to testify that they "observed" the vehicle first....before they activated the radar. Can't they have the radar on all the time? Or is this tantamount to an illegal search by operating it all the time without reasonable or probable grounds??? My second question is: Can an officer really testify that while driving in the opposite direction of a vehicle with closing speeds of equal to or greater than 160km/h that they can visually pick out a "speeding" vehicle? Thanks for your thoughts. Paul
Hi all
I am new to this forum, and have a couple of questions.
I have noticed in speeding trials that police officers always testify that they visually observed the vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed (sometimes they state what their estimate was) and then they turned on the radar and confirmed this high rate of speed...(funny, its almost always the same as the radar speed - but I digresss)
So my first question is: Why do they have to testify that they "observed" the vehicle first....before they activated the radar. Can't they have the radar on all the time? Or is this tantamount to an illegal search by operating it all the time without reasonable or probable grounds???
My second question is: Can an officer really testify that while driving in the opposite direction of a vehicle with closing speeds of equal to or greater than 160km/h that they can visually pick out a "speeding" vehicle?
Nothing magical there PaulinCanada. Courts have recognized that when you do this daily over the course of years you get good at estimating and really anybody can develop the skill... After 2-3 months on the job I was almost always bang on...I'd estimate 100 km/h and activate the radar 103km/h. The reason courts prefer officers make their observations before activating the radar is so that the observation is considered independent, the radar merely confirms the speeding and gives the accurate reading. The observation you've made re: How can they do this with car speeds differentials being 160km/h...simply put, they do it 100 times a day, it's a skill you could develop if you had a radar to confirm your estimates, eventually you'd get better at it...in fact after 22 years I am usually on with 1 or 2 kilometres...
Nothing magical there PaulinCanada.
Courts have recognized that when you do this daily over the course of years you get good at estimating and really anybody can develop the skill...
After 2-3 months on the job I was almost always bang on...I'd estimate 100 km/h and activate the radar 103km/h.
The reason courts prefer officers make their observations before activating the radar is so that the observation is considered independent, the radar merely confirms the speeding and gives the accurate reading.
The observation you've made re: How can they do this with car speeds differentials being 160km/h...simply put, they do it 100 times a day, it's a skill you could develop if you had a radar to confirm your estimates, eventually you'd get better at it...in fact after 22 years I am usually on with 1 or 2 kilometres...
Actually if they were to solely rely on the radar it would not carry much weight. Simply because a machine can be WRONG. They have the officer state that he 'believed' that the vehicle was going at a high speed to have an actual witness to the alleged 'crime'. Only a man or woman can bring a complaint into court, A piece of radar equipment is unable to speak or calculate and can only relay as much as it is programmed to relay. Therefore it is not without premeditated thought that they approached the alleged 'crime' of speeding this way.
Actually if they were to solely rely on the radar it would not carry much weight. Simply because a machine can be WRONG. They have the officer state that he 'believed' that the vehicle was going at a high speed to have an actual witness to the alleged 'crime'. Only a man or woman can bring a complaint into court, A piece of radar equipment is unable to speak or calculate and can only relay as much as it is programmed to relay.
Therefore it is not without premeditated thought that they approached the alleged 'crime' of speeding this way.
- the "machine" you speak of is not wrong - speeding is NOT part of the Criminal Code - radar does make calculations
siriusone wrote:
Actually if they were to solely rely on the radar it would not carry much weight. Simply because a machine can be WRONG. They have the officer state that he 'believed' that the vehicle was going at a high speed to have an actual witness to the alleged 'crime'. Only a man or woman can bring a complaint into court, A piece of radar equipment is unable to speak or calculate and can only relay as much as it is programmed to relay. .
- the "machine" you speak of is not wrong
- speeding is NOT part of the Criminal Code
- radar does make calculations
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
- the "machine" you speak of is not wrong - speeding is NOT part of the Criminal Code - radar does make calculations You cannot guarantee that radar is infallible ! Commercial courts ie traffic courts are quasi courts apparently. This would mean that they are either quasi civil or quasi criminal as there are no other types of case. Civil courts are based on contracts and Criminal courts are based on harm loss injury. Therefore which quasi court do you think speeding falls into? FYI Quasi means 'almost' Radar may show its readings of speed but courts are there for people not radar machines, as I said earlier a radar machine cannot bring a claim to court it is an inanimate object.
hwybear wrote:
siriusone wrote:
Actually if they were to solely rely on the radar it would not carry much weight. Simply because a machine can be WRONG. They have the officer state that he 'believed' that the vehicle was going at a high speed to have an actual witness to the alleged 'crime'. Only a man or woman can bring a complaint into court, A piece of radar equipment is unable to speak or calculate and can only relay as much as it is programmed to relay. .
- the "machine" you speak of is not wrong
- speeding is NOT part of the Criminal Code
- radar does make calculations
You cannot guarantee that radar is infallible !
Commercial courts ie traffic courts are quasi courts apparently. This would mean that they are either quasi civil or quasi criminal as there are no other types of case. Civil courts are based on contracts and Criminal courts are based on harm loss injury. Therefore which quasi court do you think speeding falls into?
FYI Quasi means 'almost'
Radar may show its readings of speed but courts are there for people not radar machines, as I said earlier a radar machine cannot bring a claim to court it is an inanimate object.
Of the readings I've had on the radar unit 200 a day, 200 shifts a year, 22 years on the road...I've never once had a single reading that didn't match my observations. If a radar fails, it doesn't operate, it doesn't register a reading or shows error. It's like if your hearing starts to fails, you don't start hearing in another language, you just stop hearing...read up on the theory of the radar, it's very educational.
Of the readings I've had on the radar unit 200 a day, 200 shifts a year, 22 years on the road...I've never once had a single reading that didn't match my observations.
If a radar fails, it doesn't operate, it doesn't register a reading or shows error.
It's like if your hearing starts to fails, you don't start hearing in another language, you just stop hearing...read up on the theory of the radar, it's very educational.
There are cases where stationary objects, bridges come to mind, that will register a speed on radar equipment. I'll see if I can dig that up.... I think what the OP is suggesting is that radar theory is sound but the situation may fool the officer. I.E. multiple vehicles, multiple readings....etc.
There are cases where stationary objects, bridges come to mind, that will register a speed on radar equipment. I'll see if I can dig that up....
I think what the OP is suggesting is that radar theory is sound but the situation may fool the officer. I.E. multiple vehicles, multiple readings....etc.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
No need to dig anything up Reflections, you obviously know the difference. Those that want to question, should learn what they are talking about, prior to grasping at straws.
No need to dig anything up Reflections, you obviously know the difference. Those that want to question, should learn what they are talking about, prior to grasping at straws.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Maybe a swinging bridge over a canal, with the wind causing too much wake on the water? Now would we catch that one with a vessel or cruiser...hmmm :lol:
FyreStorm wrote:
I've never seen a speeding bridge, but if I do, it's getting a ticket!
Maybe a swinging bridge over a canal, with the wind causing too much wake on the water? Now would we catch that one with a vessel or cruiser...hmmm
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I use some fairly sophisticated radar equipment and I've never seen it fail or produce erroneous readings. I've seen plenty of people misread it or not use the controls properly, but the radar doesn't lie. This business of traffic courts and traffic being "commerce" and "contracts" is completely fictitious and it does not apply in real life. I've seen people try these sorts of stunts in court (or even trying to "ignore" the court), just like FyreStorm has seen, and they lose every time. Many of them are currently in jail, because they lost, then got their licence suspended, then got caught driving with a suspended licence, etc., and insisted the courts don't have jurisdiction or that they didn't have to get a licence because of some legal argument they made up... then they found out the hard way that the world doesn't work the way they'd believed it did.
I use some fairly sophisticated radar equipment and I've never seen it fail or produce erroneous readings. I've seen plenty of people misread it or not use the controls properly, but the radar doesn't lie.
siriusone wrote:
Commercial courts ie traffic courts are quasi courts apparently. This would mean that they are either quasi civil or quasi criminal as there are no other types of case. Civil courts are based on contracts and Criminal courts are based on harm loss injury. Therefore which quasi court do you think speeding falls into?
This business of traffic courts and traffic being "commerce" and "contracts" is completely fictitious and it does not apply in real life. I've seen people try these sorts of stunts in court (or even trying to "ignore" the court), just like FyreStorm has seen, and they lose every time. Many of them are currently in jail, because they lost, then got their licence suspended, then got caught driving with a suspended licence, etc., and insisted the courts don't have jurisdiction or that they didn't have to get a licence because of some legal argument they made up... then they found out the hard way that the world doesn't work the way they'd believed it did.
* 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
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
