Hey everyone, first time offender here. So a couple of days ago I was pulled over on 401 for doing 130. It was pitch black and after I passed a couple of cars I was going to get into the right lane and slow down, but right that moment one of the cars I passed pop up behind me and flashed the lights. Officer told me I passed him doing 130. Now I don't know if he even used the radar, because as far as I know, they only use that when they're stationary and not while driving, so he judgement was probably based on intuition. I'm planning on going with the trial and request the presence of the officer, now as far as disclosure request goes, can I request the readings of the radar gun for that night? If no radar was used, would that mean the officer made the judgement himself and his claim would not be credible?
Hey everyone, first time offender here.
So a couple of days ago I was pulled over on 401 for doing 130. It was pitch black and after I passed a couple of cars I was going to get into the right lane and slow down, but right that moment one of the cars I passed pop up behind me and flashed the lights. Officer told me I passed him doing 130.
Now I don't know if he even used the radar, because as far as I know, they only use that when they're stationary and not while driving, so he judgement was probably based on intuition.
I'm planning on going with the trial and request the presence of the officer, now as far as disclosure request goes, can I request the readings of the radar gun for that night? If no radar was used, would that mean the officer made the judgement himself and his claim would not be credible?
The officer can testify that you were speeding and that he knows you were speeding because he paced you, visually estimated your speed, or used radar/laser. Any of these methods if done correctly will support a conviction. (The court will find you guilty if you admit to going 1 kilometer over the limit.) The disclosure you receive will indicate how he determined you were speeding. When you have this information you can begin to prepare a strategy.
The officer can testify that you were speeding and that he knows you were speeding because he paced you, visually estimated your speed, or used radar/laser. Any of these methods if done correctly will support a conviction. (The court will find you guilty if you admit to going 1 kilometer over the limit.) The disclosure you receive will indicate how he determined you were speeding. When you have this information you can begin to prepare a strategy.
I believe that the officer is trained to "bumper pace" other vehicles to determine their speed, which would require them to follow me for some distance, however in my case he immediately pulled in from the other lane and was catching up to me, I don't think there was enough time to for him to match pace with me to properly determine my speed before he started flashing. Would this claim help me in the trial? If the officer simply states that he matched my speed with his speedometer in the disclosure, can I even request any training material detailing exactly how they do the speed matching, to make sure he did it correctly?
ynotp wrote:
The officer can testify that you were speeding and that he knows you were speeding because he paced you, visually estimated your speed, or used radar/laser. Any of these methods if done correctly will support a conviction. (The court will find you guilty if you admit to going 1 kilometer over the limit.) The disclosure you receive will indicate how he determined you were speeding. When you have this information you can begin to prepare a strategy.
I believe that the officer is trained to "bumper pace" other vehicles to determine their speed, which would require them to follow me for some distance, however in my case he immediately pulled in from the other lane and was catching up to me, I don't think there was enough time to for him to match pace with me to properly determine my speed before he started flashing. Would this claim help me in the trial?
If the officer simply states that he matched my speed with his speedometer in the disclosure, can I even request any training material detailing exactly how they do the speed matching, to make sure he did it correctly?
Plead NOT GUILTY and request a trial with the officer present. Once you get your notice of trial, request disclosure (officers notes, make model serial number and manual for any speed measuring devices used, audio/video). Once you get disclosure post it here so we can review it.
Plead NOT GUILTY and request a trial with the officer present. Once you get your notice of trial, request disclosure (officers notes, make model serial number and manual for any speed measuring devices used, audio/video). Once you get disclosure post it here so we can review it.
"The officer can testify that you were speeding and that he knows you were speeding because he paced you, visually estimated your speed, or used radar/laser. Any of these methods if done correctly will support a conviction" No court in the land will convict on a visual estimation. Speed estimations use to be used as a part of tracking history only, which is no longer a part of tracking history. It would not have been laser as the cruiser was moving; Laser can only be used while stationary.
"The officer can testify that you were speeding and that he knows you were speeding because he paced you, visually estimated your speed, or used radar/laser. Any of these methods if done correctly will support a conviction"
No court in the land will convict on a visual estimation. Speed estimations use to be used as a part of tracking history only, which is no longer a part of tracking history. It would not have been laser as the cruiser was moving; Laser can only be used while stationary.
The officer does not need to pull in behind to pace. The officer could be going a steady speed while in front and the target vehicle gained on his vehicle and passed. "Officer told me I passed him doing 130". So who was doing the 130? the cop or the target vehicle? If the target vehicle passed doing 130 you have a radar charge. If it was the officer who was doing the 130, the target vehicle was going faster than the 130 and officer charged the driver at the 130 the officer was driving and it was a pace charge.
The officer does not need to pull in behind to pace. The officer could be going a steady speed while in front and the target vehicle gained on his vehicle and passed.
"Officer told me I passed him doing 130". So who was doing the 130? the cop or the target vehicle? If the target vehicle passed doing 130 you have a radar charge. If it was the officer who was doing the 130, the target vehicle was going faster than the 130 and officer charged the driver at the 130 the officer was driving and it was a pace charge.
Sorry to dig up this old post, I've finally managed to get my disclosure package after all this time. http://imgur.com/a/mXQvW Court date is in mid June. I'm not exactly sure what to look for that can help me in the court here. I do have a fairly clean record for the last 10 years. The 2nd image I believe is the officer's notes that indicated that the radar test was passed. Now at the time he pulled me over it was pitch dark with minimal traffic, but on his notes it indicated it was light with heavy traffic. I'm not sure what "Requal date" means but my offense date is Nov 7th 2015, at 6:41pm. Anyway, was hoping I could get some insight on this, thanks!
Sorry to dig up this old post, I've finally managed to get my disclosure package after all this time.
Court date is in mid June. I'm not exactly sure what to look for that can help me in the court here. I do have a fairly clean record for the last 10 years. The 2nd image I believe is the officer's notes that indicated that the radar test was passed. Now at the time he pulled me over it was pitch dark with minimal traffic, but on his notes it indicated it was light with heavy traffic. I'm not sure what "Requal date" means but my offense date is Nov 7th 2015, at 6:41pm.
Anyway, was hoping I could get some insight on this, thanks!
Sunset was 5:01 pm that date but was the road lit by street lights ? Requal date is the date he was requalified on the operation of the radar unit. It's likely he clocked your speed when you were behind him before you even saw him as it was an unmarked cruiser. You disagree on the volume of traffic. 6:41 pm on a Tuesday evening on Highway 401. I wasn't there but I doubt it was light, but it certainly was light when that comes between dawn and dusk. Not likely anything that will get you an acquittal but not iron clad either.
Sunset was 5:01 pm that date but was the road lit by street lights ?
Requal date is the date he was requalified on the operation of the radar unit. It's likely he clocked your speed when you were behind him before you even saw him as it was an unmarked cruiser.
You disagree on the volume of traffic. 6:41 pm on a Tuesday evening on Highway 401. I wasn't there but I doubt it was light, but it certainly was light when that comes between dawn and dusk.
Not likely anything that will get you an acquittal but not iron clad either.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
So if you look at the pages of the radar manual they gave, the very last box says "Section 8.1 and 8.2 must be completed by the operator prior to enforcement and at the conclusion of the officer's tour of duty." Section 8.2 is the Road Test. Look at the notes you got and I see TESTED BEFORE @ 15:47 and TESTED AFTER @ 03:00 and then I see STARTUP CHECK PASSED. But then after that I see SELF-TEST blank for both before and after. And then I see SPEEDOMETER COMPARISON CHECK BEFORE 40/40 but AFTER is BLANK. When the officer testifies to anything that is in their notes, then it is very hard to bring reasonable doubt to it. However, when they testify to anything that is NOT in their notes, then it is much easier to bring reasonable doubt to what they said. Since their notes specifically have the AFTER ROAD TEST section left blank, this leaves a great opportunity to reasonable doubt as to whether they actually did it. Even if they actually say they did it, you can question them on the fact that it is specifically omitted from their notes. You will need to look up some case laws on "usual practice". These basically say that just because the officer said they did the road test afterwards and they say that is their usual practice, there is still reasonable doubt as to whether it was done or not, if it is not in their notes. And again, this disclsoure is even stronger because there an actual section to write the speeds in and it was left blank. Also, when the officer first gets on the stand, the prosecutor will ask a few questions about the officers notes and then ask the JP for permission for the officer to read from them. I would make sure you ask to quickly review what notes he has. If he has anything else besides what you got in disclosure, then you can object to the use of those things you did not get a copy of. So for example, if officer has his note book with hand written notes in it, but you did not get a copy of that notebook, then you can object and the officer should not be allowed to use it. I would also want to see the backside of the ticket where it says "ENFORECEMENT AGENCY NOTES". What you posted makes this page appear to be blank. But if there are notes on it, but your copy does not show those notes, then you could also object to the officer using them and show the JP your copy which appears to be blank.
So if you look at the pages of the radar manual they gave, the very last box says "Section 8.1 and 8.2 must be completed by the operator prior to enforcement and at the conclusion of the officer's tour of duty." Section 8.2 is the Road Test.
Look at the notes you got and I see TESTED BEFORE @ 15:47 and TESTED AFTER @ 03:00 and then I see STARTUP CHECK PASSED. But then after that I see SELF-TEST blank for both before and after. And then I see SPEEDOMETER COMPARISON CHECK BEFORE 40/40 but AFTER is BLANK.
When the officer testifies to anything that is in their notes, then it is very hard to bring reasonable doubt to it.
However, when they testify to anything that is NOT in their notes, then it is much easier to bring reasonable doubt to what they said. Since their notes specifically have the AFTER ROAD TEST section left blank, this leaves a great opportunity to reasonable doubt as to whether they actually did it. Even if they actually say they did it, you can question them on the fact that it is specifically omitted from their notes. You will need to look up some case laws on "usual practice". These basically say that just because the officer said they did the road test afterwards and they say that is their usual practice, there is still reasonable doubt as to whether it was done or not, if it is not in their notes. And again, this disclsoure is even stronger because there an actual section to write the speeds in and it was left blank.
Also, when the officer first gets on the stand, the prosecutor will ask a few questions about the officers notes and then ask the JP for permission for the officer to read from them. I would make sure you ask to quickly review what notes he has. If he has anything else besides what you got in disclosure, then you can object to the use of those things you did not get a copy of. So for example, if officer has his note book with hand written notes in it, but you did not get a copy of that notebook, then you can object and the officer should not be allowed to use it.
I would also want to see the backside of the ticket where it says "ENFORECEMENT AGENCY NOTES". What you posted makes this page appear to be blank. But if there are notes on it, but your copy does not show those notes, then you could also object to the officer using them and show the JP your copy which appears to be blank.
jsherk - first of all, thank you so much, that's some really helpful information! It definitely sheds some new light in my case and I feel a bit more confident about this now. One thing though, I'm a bit confused on how the officer testifies to what's in and not in their notes. It's going to be my 1st court appearance so I'm not sure of the proceedings, but why is it difficult to bring reasonable doubt to his notes if the after-test was clearly not indicated in his notes although he claims he did it, if I can object the usage of undisclosed notes? I mean, does he simply testifying to anything in their notes just empowers his claim, so that it kind of bypasses the whole reasonable doubt thing? Or is it more dependent on how the judge feels about it that's really not in my control?
jsherk - first of all, thank you so much, that's some really helpful information! It definitely sheds some new light in my case and I feel a bit more confident about this now.
One thing though, I'm a bit confused on how the officer testifies to what's in and not in their notes. It's going to be my 1st court appearance so I'm not sure of the proceedings, but why is it difficult to bring reasonable doubt to his notes if the after-test was clearly not indicated in his notes although he claims he did it, if I can object the usage of undisclosed notes? I mean, does he simply testifying to anything in their notes just empowers his claim, so that it kind of bypasses the whole reasonable doubt thing? Or is it more dependent on how the judge feels about it that's really not in my control?
Just a couple other points to mention (I know I am not answering your questions above yet)... Officer checked HEAVY TRAFFIC but then checked LONE TARGET. If he used radar, then this is useful in cross-examination. Now looking at the notes, maybe he did not use the radar at all and paced you instead (or maybe used radar AND paced you, but it is unclear to me). He circled PACE with the two arrows pointing the same direction, so does that mean that he used radar in MOVING/SAME-DIRECTION mode, or just followed behind you and paced you? It says LENGTH 3 SECONDS, so does this mean that he was 3 seconds behind your vehicle or that he turned the radar on for 3 seconds. If the officer paced you then all the radar stuff is really irrelevent, and the charge is much harder to beat. One thing you can question on pacing is "how far away were you" and "how long did you follow at that fixed distance"... basically if the officer was "catching up" the whole time then they can only prove they were going faster than you , but not how fast you were going. The thing you can question the accuracy of the speedometer, but they will say it matched the radar. I personally have an issue with that logic, because how can you say "the speedometer is accurate because it matched the radar, and the radar was accurate because it matched the speedometer" ... you can not compare them both to each other without one of them being verified by another outside "proven" source. But I digress, because you would need a very experienced cross-examiner to win this argument. Anyways, I would send a second disclosure request asking for: - Proof of speedometer calibration/accuracy. - Clarification of whether the speed was determined by radar only or by pacing only.
Just a couple other points to mention (I know I am not answering your questions above yet)...
Officer checked HEAVY TRAFFIC but then checked LONE TARGET. If he used radar, then this is useful in cross-examination.
Now looking at the notes, maybe he did not use the radar at all and paced you instead (or maybe used radar AND paced you, but it is unclear to me). He circled PACE with the two arrows pointing the same direction, so does that mean that he used radar in MOVING/SAME-DIRECTION mode, or just followed behind you and paced you? It says LENGTH 3 SECONDS, so does this mean that he was 3 seconds behind your vehicle or that he turned the radar on for 3 seconds.
If the officer paced you then all the radar stuff is really irrelevent, and the charge is much harder to beat. One thing you can question on pacing is "how far away were you" and "how long did you follow at that fixed distance"... basically if the officer was "catching up" the whole time then they can only prove they were going faster than you , but not how fast you were going. The thing you can question the accuracy of the speedometer, but they will say it matched the radar. I personally have an issue with that logic, because how can you say "the speedometer is accurate because it matched the radar, and the radar was accurate because it matched the speedometer" ... you can not compare them both to each other without one of them being verified by another outside "proven" source. But I digress, because you would need a very experienced cross-examiner to win this argument.
Anyways, I would send a second disclosure request asking for:
- Proof of speedometer calibration/accuracy.
- Clarification of whether the speed was determined by radar only or by pacing only.
Let's say if the officer has indeed paced me and the whole radar thing does not play any part in this, does the brightness have anything to do with his judgement? I mean he checked "light" but the fact of the matter is that it was actually completely dark out(with no highway street lights), there's an official site for nation research council Canada where it shows what time it got dark on what date, and nautical twilight end was at 18:07 on Nov 6 2015, so by 18:41 it would've been completely dark. As for the pacing distance I do remember him catching up to me from behind and stayed fix for maybe 3 seconds until he started flashing, question I guess would be does he himself remember only pacing me or actually used radar. Also, how does the heavy traffic/lone target combo play into my favor?
Let's say if the officer has indeed paced me and the whole radar thing does not play any part in this, does the brightness have anything to do with his judgement? I mean he checked "light" but the fact of the matter is that it was actually completely dark out(with no highway street lights), there's an official site for nation research council Canada where it shows what time it got dark on what date, and nautical twilight end was at 18:07 on Nov 6 2015, so by 18:41 it would've been completely dark.
As for the pacing distance I do remember him catching up to me from behind and stayed fix for maybe 3 seconds until he started flashing, question I guess would be does he himself remember only pacing me or actually used radar. Also, how does the heavy traffic/lone target combo play into my favor?
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…
