Hi All,

I am new to this forum and before making this post I did some digging and was unable to find anything on this method of officer note taking.

A little back ground of my case:

charged with 25km/h over the posted limit.

After numerous disclosure requests, finally received a detailed disclosure including several pages of the lidar manual and typed officer notes describing the events of my infraction and testing procedures performed.

I've requested the officer's hand written notes, however was informed that Durham Region now uses "Transcribed Electronic Notes and tickets" and that handwritten notes are no longer available.

Court date mid march, only 10 months after ticket issued.

My question is, how are these notes made? My initial thought was that officers type their notes directly into the computer, however, when I hear "transcribed" I assume that the officer makes verbal notes/dictation into his onboard computer and then someone (the officer??) later types them out. In the disclosure, there was no indication as to who typed the notes out - only that they "generated" several days after my last disclosure request.

Any help or insight is much appreciated as to how or when these notes are made and how they come into a typed version.

Thanks in advance,

Toby

Simply put, if the officer uses his note pad and not the "electronic" notes you have a reason to question the accuracy of what you were given. Also, how much of the lidar manual did you request? If the pages you requested don't cover what you thought, ask for access to the whole thing and take your own notes. If you don't get access, you can argue improper disclosure and stay the charge.

I guess they've had a number of issues with people being unable to read officers' notes - hence the transcribed version. That way it nullifies the argument "I can't read the notes, therefore I didn't receive disclosure." As for accuracy, in court you could ask the officer if these are, indeed, a true and accurate representation of his notes. (He'll probably say "yes.")

Go through the notes and see if all of the required elements are there:

- Testing lidar before/after the start

- Visual observation of your vehicle speeding

- AFTER the visual observation, activate and use the device

- "Without sight lost" or words to that effect are included

- Identified driver (you)

- Things like weather, traffic, etc., are in there as well

Also review the testing and use procedure provided in the manual.

Thank you both for your replies. When I met with the Crown it was explained to me that hand written notes are no longer used and the only notes available are these transcribed ones. I'm still confused as to how these notes are generated and how they become a printed version. I guess what I'm getting at is, I was hoping to challenge the legitimacy of the notes (if someone other than officer) typed them out and is not present in court to testify. At this point I know that the officer is the only witness the crown intends to call. Perhaps I'm grasping at straws...

@Reflections

In my disclosure request I asked for the entire operators manual for the particular unit used on that day.

I was supplied with photocopies of the pages that outlined the maintenance, calibration/testing and proper operating procedures for the unit. However, it was stated in the disclosure (also followed up with a phone call) that the entire manual could be viewed in hardcopy at the prosecutor's office providing I gave them at least 15 minutes notice prior to my arrival.

@Radar Identified

Unfortunately, all those elements are contained in the notes. The only "inaccuracies" are, his notes state that he was at the intersection of x and y where he was actually situated several hundred meters east of that intersection and, the location where he stopped me, again, his notes indicate that he stopped at the the intersection of X and Y where he actually stopped me several hundred meters west of the intersection. All in all, the distance was approximately 700-800 meters from where his trap was set up. There is no indication in his notes as to how he pulled me over or how much time had elapsed, only that he "never" lost site of my vehicle.

In regards to the testing and calibration steps performed, the notes state that 3 different tests were performed (I believe 4 are listed in the manual) however, in the cases that I've sat in on, the JP ruled that 3 tests is enough to demonstrate that the unit was operating with manufacturer's specifications.

Thoughts?

Again, thank you for your responses and for any further insight.

Toby

They are typed on the computer into the note section of the ticketing software. Unless something goes awry there is no more hand written notes for most traffic stops.

They are generated by hitting the print function.

OPS copper

OPS Copper wrote:

They are typed on the computer into the note section of the ticketing software. Unless something goes awry there is no more hand written notes for most traffic stops.

They are generated by hitting the print function.

OPS copper

In court, as long as the notes used by the officer are the ones given to the defendant then all good.

tobymark wrote:

Unfortunately, all those elements are contained in the notes. The only "inaccuracies" are, his notes state that he was at the intersection of x and y where he was actually situated several hundred meters east of that intersection and, the location where he stopped me, again, his notes indicate that he stopped at the the intersection of X and Y where he actually stopped me several hundred meters west of the intersection. All in all, the distance was approximately 700-800 meters from where his trap was set up. There is no indication in his notes as to how he pulled me over or how much time had elapsed, only that he "never" lost site of my vehicle.

Well it looks like they've done their work for this charge. If the officer shows up for trial, I'd recommend trying to plea-bargain to a lesser speed.

Thanks all for the responses. I guess I'll go through the notes and manual again and see if i can find something/anything to challenge his evidence, if not I'll wait and see if he's a no-show.

Cheers!