Thanks for the OP clarification. It doesn't make the whole answer much clearer however, unless you mean because you unable to represent me, not to worry.

Does the Prosecutors office have the various radar operating manuals on hand? or would I have to go to the Police to request a copy or at least be given the opportunity to read it on site?

Thanks again

Ok ....sorry

joepenoso

Sped wrote:

Thanks for the OP clarification. It doesn't make the whole answer much clearer however, unless you mean because you unable to represent me, not to worry.

Does the Prosecutors office have the various radar operating manuals on hand? or would I have to go to the Police to request a copy or at least be given the opportunity to read it on site?

Thanks again

You arrange to have the pertinant information forwarded to you through the Crown. I believe you will get the pages on testing and proper use of the device.

In the end it is the police that have the "user's" manual tough.

Any updates on this case would be great.

The update: It was a long and winding road.

Firstly, thanks to the information I gleaned from this site and Ticket Combat, I learned enough about the court system to fumble my way through this.

On April 6, 2011, I proceeded to the Ontario Court of Justice, at 5 Ray Lawson Blvd., Brampton, where I applied for a trial hearing and received a Notice Of Trial to appear at the Brampton Courthouse on December 15, 2011.

I applied for disclosure on August 22, 2011, and was told Id receive a phone call for pick up. I never received a phone call so returned to the Courthouse October 7. A disclosure package was waiting, date stamped September 14.

The disclosure package was incomplete. Sections of the Police Officers hand written notes were illegible and there was no information pertaining to the Radar Device used. I submitted a second request at this time, on October 7.

I returned to the Courthouse on November 22 and was told there was no disclosure package for me. I got into a "minor" altercation with the clerk and ended up dealing with her supervisor - I'd requested that she date stamp a copy of my disclosure request to prove I was attempting to obtain such, she refused stating "she hadn't provided any service (an understatement!) therefore couldn't stamp anything". Her supervisor wasn't much better but did indeed give me a stamp! I received a phone call at home later that same day to advise me there was now a disclosure package to pick up. I collected this disclosure package on November 24, it was date stamped November 18. Contained in this package were 2 pages photocopied from a Genesis Handheld Directional (GHD) Users Manual as well as 1 page photocopied from a Genesis VP Directional Users Manual. Also the cops notes all neatly typed up with more info on them than the original copies - interesting.

On this same day, November 24, I attempted to submit another disclosure request for a copy of the full Users Manual for the Radar Device used by the Police Officer but the attending clerk refused to accept my submission stating "We do not release copies of the user manuals". I was told I may view the manual at the counter, which I did. It contains approximately 40 pages.

In preparing my defense it became obvious I needed a copy of the Radar device user manual, as an exhibit and reference, if I intended to question settings, procedures and specifications, as well as target acquisition, false readings, multiple readings, tracking and targeting limitations, interference test procedures or any matter relating to interference contained in the manual, in an effort to make full answer and defense.

On December 5, I submitted another disclosure request for a copy of the full user manual. This time the request was accepted.

I received a phone call on December 8, to pick up my disclosure request. On December 9, I was given a disclosure package containing 2 photocopied pages from a Genesis II Select Directional. To date then, I had received 5 photocopied pages from 3 quite different Radar User Manuals.

On December 15, I attended court , and attempted to present a pre-trial motion requesting a Stay of the charge for incomplete disclosure. The Justice "humoured" me as I rambled on citing from Stinchcombe, Chaplin http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/199 ... ii126.html and Carosella http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/199 ... ii402.html The prosecution huffed and puffed that these were old cases, I countered they are as relevant today as they were then. The prosecution argued that the matter had not been properly brought before the court (i.e. in writing, 15 days beforehand, statements, affidavits, etc.) I cited Vellone http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj150.html which at the time was a valid argument, although under appeal, I believe it has since been overturned. Then the Crown argued it was only applicable to 11b's, I argued it was a procedural issue not limited to 11b's. The justice had to retire to his chamber for a while to consider the issues. While we're waiting the smarmy prosecutor starts suggesting resources I could subscribe to for more recent rulings - yeah okay thanks! Then when the Justice returns tells him how he's trying to help me!!! What a tool.

Anyway, all things considered I got an adjournment so I could make a proper application.

On March 1, 2012, I made a final disclosure request for a full copy of the Radar device user manual. I never received this disclosure.

I'd also spent many hours trawling through Canlii searches and radar gun sites trying to establish cross examination questions and arguments in case I had to go to trial. Reading the radar user manual opens up a lot of information and possibilities to question the cop - specifications, procedures, etc. I downloaded a Genesis VP Directional manual from one of the torrent sites, and read the one at the prosecutors office, and contrary to what others might suggest, they are virtually identical, the only differences I recall being metric and imperial units.

I submitted my "Notice of application for stay of proceedings" using the tried and tested runaround method. Attached submissions were once again Stinchcombe and a ruling against the Peel Police Services Board by the Information and Privacy Commissioner http://canlii.ca/en/on/onipc/doc/2008/2 ... i1829.html As an aside, when I attempted to get my statement sworn at the court house I was astounded to learn they had nobody on staff, available, to swear an oath for an 11b or any other such challenge I'm sure. It will be a test of your patience. You might have to get a paralegal or a City clerk to swear the oath.

I went to court on May 14, ready to make my constitutional challenge and I got as far as "state your name for the record" then the prosecution (a different prosecutor to my first court appearance) said the officer doesn't appear to be in court so I withdraw the charge. What a merry-go-round. I can't say I'm complaining as I got the result I wanted, but I'd done so much reading and preparing it was a bit of an anti-climax. I'll just file everything for the next time. There'll always be a next time, right?

The manuals dont get released....

"There will always be a next time"... not if you don't break the law, I'm just saying.

HollowPoint wrote:

The manuals dont get released....

Actually, they do.

The full manual doesn't have to be disclosed, but if relevant parts aren't given to the defendant, it is grounds for staying the charge.

good work bro.

Cheers

Stripe

Radar Identified wrote:

HollowPoint wrote:

The manuals dont get released....

Actually, they do.

The full manual doesn't have to be disclosed, but if relevant parts aren't given to the defendant, it is grounds for staying the charge.

I have yet to send a manual to anyone requesting disclosure. I have, however, had to photocopy 3 pages from the manual from time to time. To me, 3 pages does not equate to someone having the manual, but that's just my view.

Semantics.