I received a ticket for driving 126 in a 90. I honestly didn't really realize I was travelling that fast, I was driving a rental car and it didn't feel like I was moving that fast and I was also coming down a hill at the time the officer got the speed.

The officer was travelling towards me on the opposite side behind two other cars. Can that affect the accuracy of the radar at all?

I am thinking that the best I will achieve is having the ticket reduced to 16-29 km/h over the speed limit which I would be happy with since my insurance company would consider this minor. My last tickets were in summer 2006 and early 2008 and are no longer on my insurance record. I was successful in having those tickets reduced by meeting with the prosecutor and pleading guilty with an explanation. I really cannot afford to pay even what the amount of my ticket is not to mention my insurance increase because I am in university and it is difficult to come by a good summer job where I live.

After reading through information online, it seems to suggest selecting option 3 on the ticket and get a court date to give myself some more time and to obtain access to the officer's notes. In my personal scenario is that my best option? If after getting the officer's notes I see no possible defense, can I still plead guilty and try to have the ticket reduced without any recourse from the fact that I already told them I would plea non-guilty?

Thanks for any advice.

You should be able to request disclosure and have a resolution meeting with the crown after you get it. If you're looking for a reduction from 36 over to 16-29 over I'd say that is probably doable, at least in my experience - 29 over being much more doable than 16 over. Also, you are unlikely to get a further reduction on the fine amount in addition to a reduction on the speed.

Thanks. I think I am going to go ahead and select option 3 then.

Would you suggest requesting the police officer be present? I can't really see a reason not to.

The presence of the office at a resolution meeting? They don't normally attend those. If you meant at the trial, then that depends on whether you intend on challenging the officers evidence if it does go to trial.

Sorry, yes I am referring to the trial (even though I do not expect/plan on it going to trial).

I am just not sure what to check off on my original ticket because for Option 3 there are 2 boxes. One stating that I intend to appear in court and another if I intend to challenge the officer's evidence. Without knowing the officer's evidence I am not sure if I would want to challenge it at trial so I am uncertain if I need to check off the second box at this point.

The last time I successfully got a ticket reduced (several years ago) I believe I just went in with my ticket and spoke with a prosecutor but I don't really remember all the details now. This is why I'm feeling a bit puzzled about selecting option 3.

If you check the box saying that you are going to challenge the officer's evidence that just means they will give you a court date that he is working. That's the way scheduling works so officers don't have to come in on their days off and get paid overtime for traffic tickets. It doesn't mean the officer HAS to attend, as you can resolve it before hand with the prosecutor or, you decide after seeing the disclosure that don't need to hear the officer's evidence (i.e. you will allow the prosecutor to submit a statement of facts and the just make legal submissions on that evidence).

If you're not certain that you DON'T want the officer there if it does go to trial, then just check the box.

Ah, that makes sense then. Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.