Speeding 90 km/h in 70 km/h zone (Reduced)

Hi everyone.

I received a ticket on Hwy 6 North in Guelph going 90 km/h in a posted 70 km/h zone. I was clocked at 110 km/h and the officer reduced it to 90 km/h.

I requested for disclosure back in February 8th , after I received notice of trial for March 8th. The disclosure package did not get mailed, and when I went to the court on the day of trial, the clerk informed me that she had just received the disclosure package. I talked to the prosecutor, and he motioned for adjournment of the trial due to the inadequate preparation time given to me. The trial is going to be held on May 13th, and I'm wondering if I should just plead guilty, now that I have read the officer's notes.

Attached is scanned copy of the disclosure.

I did pull over before he put on the emergency lights, but I saw the officer pull out of his spot under the overpass and I thought I heard a siren so I proceeded to slow down and move to the right. I'm not sure if pulling over in itself would be treated as admitting guilt, but if it is, I would like the community's advice on how to proceed.

Thanks in advance!

schumacher wrote:

I did pull over before he put on the emergency lights, but I saw the officer pull out of his spot under the overpass and I thought I heard a siren so I proceeded to slow down and move to the right. I'm not sure if pulling over in itself would be treated as admitting guilt, but if it is, I would like the community's advice on how to proceed.

Thanks in advance!

It's not an admission of guilt, but it will certainly be used against you in a trial. It's hard to tell from the disclosure, but it reads like you were aware you were speeding. If the officer asked you "Do you know why I pulled you over?" and you actually answered with something related to speeding, then you'd be in a pretty big hole.

Whether or not you decide to plead guilty is really up to you. It doesn't seem like you have a defense prepared, so you might want to consider a plea deal. If you go all the way to trial, you will most likely find yourself battling a ticket for 110/70 instead of 90/70. It's another thing to consider.

bend wrote:

schumacher wrote:

I did pull over before he put on the emergency lights, but I saw the officer pull out of his spot under the overpass and I thought I heard a siren so I proceeded to slow down and move to the right. I'm not sure if pulling over in itself would be treated as admitting guilt, but if it is, I would like the community's advice on how to proceed.

Thanks in advance!

It's not an admission of guilt, but it will certainly be used against you in a trial. It's hard to tell from the disclosure, but it reads like you were aware you were speeding. If the officer asked you "Do you know why I pulled you over?" and you actually answered with something related to speeding, then you'd be in a pretty big hole.

Whether or not you decide to plead guilty is really up to you. It doesn't seem like you have a defense prepared, so you might want to consider a plea deal. If you go all the way to trial, you will most likely find yourself battling a ticket for 110/70 instead of 90/70. It's another thing to consider.

He didn't even ask me a question like that. He just assumed that I knew why I was pulled over. I said nothing about speeding.

My original defense was going to be the fact that the officer did not perform calibration / testing on the Genesis II unit AFTER the shift was over, and that I was not provided any documentation in disclosure regarding the officer's competencies and training for the radar unit, even though it was specifically asked for.

Another defense would have been the fact that the officer was parked directly under the overpass, and the highway curves where he was surveying the traffic. I remember reading an article that mentioned the radar unit has to be parallel or perpendicular to the roadway and vehicles and not set at an angle.

Failing that, I would have tried to introduce ambiguity to the officer's testimony by asking detail questions like if he remembers the weather / road conditions, what I was wearing, if there were any other people in the vehicle.

How would the prosecutor likely press on the "being aware" allegation? Simply go by the officer's notes?

"My original defense was going to be the fact that the officer did not perform calibration / testing on the Genesis II unit AFTER the shift was over, and that I was not provided any documentation in disclosure regarding the officer's competencies and training for the radar unit, even though it was specifically asked for."

It appears that they just haven't copied enough notes towards the end of shift to include the final test. Either ask for that page including the final teest or just ask the officer if it goes to trial. You won't get any documentation regarding the officers training or competencies as part of disclosure. He or she will be asked on the stand by the prosecutor.

"Another defense would have been the fact that the officer was parked directly under the overpass, and the highway curves where he was surveying the traffic. I remember reading an article that mentioned the radar unit has to be parallel or perpendicular to the roadway and vehicles and not set at an angle."

Radar does not have to be used parallel or perpendicular. In fact this give the radar a cosine effect and the displayed speed on the radar is actually less than the actual target speed.

"Failing that, I would have tried to introduce ambiguity to the officer's testimony by asking detail questions like if he remembers the weather / road conditions, what I was wearing, if there were any other people in the vehicle."

Weather is already mentioned in the officers notes. What you are wearing and whether there was anyone in the vehicle may or may not be known by the officer, but it won't affect the speeding evidencce.

Decatur wrote:

"My original defense was going to be the fact that the officer did not perform calibration / testing on the Genesis II unit AFTER the shift was over, and that I was not provided any documentation in disclosure regarding the officer's competencies and training for the radar unit, even though it was specifically asked for."

It appears that they just haven't copied enough notes towards the end of shift to include the final test. Either ask for that page including the final teest or just ask the officer if it goes to trial. You won't get any documentation regarding the officers training or competencies as part of disclosure. He or she will be asked on the stand by the prosecutor.

"Another defense would have been the fact that the officer was parked directly under the overpass, and the highway curves where he was surveying the traffic. I remember reading an article that mentioned the radar unit has to be parallel or perpendicular to the roadway and vehicles and not set at an angle."

Radar does not have to be used parallel or perpendicular. In fact this give the radar a cosine effect and the displayed speed on the radar is actually less than the actual target speed.

"Failing that, I would have tried to introduce ambiguity to the officer's testimony by asking detail questions like if he remembers the weather / road conditions, what I was wearing, if there were any other people in the vehicle."

Weather is already mentioned in the officers notes. What you are wearing and whether there was anyone in the vehicle may or may not be known by the officer, but it won't affect the speeding evidencce.

Thanks for your response. I guess the cosine error only becomes in my favour if the officer's vehicle was also moving. How about the fact that he was parked close to a large metal / concrete structure? Would that not affect the readings?

schumacher wrote:

Thanks for your response. I guess the cosine error only becomes in my favour if the officer's vehicle was also moving. How about the fact that he was parked close to a large metal / concrete structure? Would that not affect the readings?

Does not matter if the radar is stationary or moving. Cosine error is always in favour of the defendant such as Decatur already mentioned.

example: a vehicle speed is 104, if the cosine is 5%, the radar might have a reading of 103km/hr. The greater the cosine error, a lower speed will always be displayed on the radar.

Obviously a true 0 cosine would be the radar being directly in front of a vehicle and at the same height, which obviously is almost impossible.

metal/concrete would not affect readings

The red is the officer's car, green is my car, and the blue is another vehicle. In that situation, since the radar beam only travels in a straight line away from the source (the radar mounted on the patrol vehicle), would the vehicle exiting on the off-ramp not introduce ambiguity to the radar readings? In other words, it was not my vehicle that caused the reading, but the other vehicle?

The officer was using a handheld radar and would have had it pointed down the roadway at your vehicle and not at the vehicles exiting the highway. It's not likey the radar beam would be wide enough to pick up the other vehicle.

All I have to say is those are great notes. I've had convictions with a third as much evidence.

Thanks for your inputs. I think I will bite the bullet and just pay for the ticket as written, rather than risk having it bumped back up to 110 / 70.

Hey there, I was stopped exactly at the same location this weekend. Officer wrote that the zone is a 60 km/h, but you're saying it's a 70. Is there anyway I can check this?

I'm familiar with the area and can confirm it's normally a 70 zone. The only problem is there has been lots of construction in the area lately with some lane closures and the limit may have been temporarily lowered to 60. You should request disclosure and see if the officer's notes confirm this.

Just drove through Guelph again today. I can confirm they've covered up the old "70 km/hr" speed limit signs with new "60 km/hr" ones, from at least College to Paisley along the Hanlon Parkway. The signs appear to be proper. They're regular white speed limit signs, not the temporary orange ones.

Stanton wrote:

Just drove through Guelph again today. I can confirm they've covered up the old "70 km/hr" speed limit signs with new "60 km/hr" ones, from at least College to Paisley along the Hanlon Parkway. The signs appear to be proper. They're regular white speed limit signs, not the temporary orange ones.

Thanks Stanton for updating me on this. It's been about 10 days since I got the ticket, would it be smart to go out there and take some pictures? I mailed my ticket + disclosure request today so I'll have to wait to see what happens. Figure there's not much I can do in the mean time.