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 a speeding ticket on the 401 by Cornwall. The officer said I was going 140 initially then dropped it to 130 (for the record I don't believe for a second I was going 140, that's way faster than I would ever intentionally drive). I filled out the info on the back of the notice to request a…
I was recently charged with stunt driving on a 60kmh road. When I was pulled over, the officer told me I was going almost 100kmh (still 40kmh above the limit) but was charging me for stunt driving because I accelerated quickly from an intersection on an empty road (in a straight line). I know…
what to do about a an illegal right turn onto steeles from staines rd
got the ticket around october of last year
put it to trial
so there is a big mess of cars at this intersection and I see a cop outside standing directing traffic with a huge row of cars pulled over to the side, through…
Are any non-domestic vehicles "pursuit-rated" in North America? Also have the Michigan State Police (this is relevant because apparently they have the most accepted selection/testing process) tested any of them to see if they meet their criteria? Just curious...
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for…
A friend got a ticket Jan. 9th of this year for doing 110 kph in a 90 kph zone, so 20 over.
What should the set fine and total payable read?
It's confusing to me, as the prescribed fine under HTA s.128 is different than the set fine enumerated by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.
An OPP officer ticketed me claiming I was going 40km/h over the limit (140km/km) on my way home with a few friends on the 401. This is my first ever speeding offense. Although I am sure I was over the limit, I am almost certain that I was not going 40 over, more realistically closer to 30 over. The…
Yesterday night I was charged for stunt driving (excess over 50km/h) and I have a few inquiries. I'm sure you've all heard the same story, but the unmarked cop in an SUV was tailing me for a good 2-3 minutes as I was travelling 120~135 km/h. Then as he came close I decided to boot it up…
I had a speeding ticket in May 2013 which brought me to 9 demerit points out of 15. I received a letter and had to attend an interview. Due to a history of speeding tickets and a previous interview a few years prior, the interviewer decided to put me on zero tolerance for a year. Meaning if I…
