Hi guys,

I have my trial date coming up next week. I got a ticket in North Bay, ON for driving 139km/h on a 90km/h. He was using a Genesis II directional radar. Tested it before and after the stop according to the notes. In his notes, he mentions the speeds that were displayed on the radar which were 140, 141, and 139. In his notes, he also mentions that the color of my car was blue when it is actually grey:

In the same notes, he also mentions that the radar was tested and that it was "working properly". From my assumption, he will be using the notes to recall what took place on the day of the event. Can I use the error in his notes regarding the color of the car to say that there is not enough evidence to confirm whether the device was tested or not? Mainly because he is using the notes to recall and if there is something wrong with some part of the notes we are unsure what else is wrong and therefore unsure if device was actually tested. Would this strategy work or can the officer come up with another claim or testify on the stand that he did test it without actually having to prove it?

Also, prosecutor recently sent me an email saying that during trial they will be appealing to have the charge increased to what the max is in the officers notes which is 141km/h in this case which will make my speed >50km/h than the speed limit. Again, would I use the above error to say that notes are inaccurate or just because there is one error doesn't mean everything else is wrong as well?

If I do not have a case here then I should just take whatever deal the prosecutor offers me on the day of the trial? Let me know what you guys think any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks!

There are many shades of blue and the spectrum of light blue comes very close to grey. This will not assist you. The officer will presumably testify that the vehicle he pulled over was the vehicle that the radar clocked.

argyll wrote:

There are many shades of blue and the spectrum of light blue comes very close to grey. This will not assist you. The officer will presumably testify that the vehicle he pulled over was the vehicle that the radar clocked.

Alright makes sense. What is the requirements for officer being allowed to "testify that the vehicle he pulled over was the vehicle that the radar clocked"? He was on oncoming traffic and turned around once I passed him and took some time for him to catch up to me. In his notes if I am reading it correctly he does mention on line 4 of notes 2 "lone veh" meaning lone vehicle I am assuming. Is this enough? He does not mention whether he lost sight of the vehicle or not.

Also just wondering if the officer does not have notes can he still testify that the device was tested?

The officer's notes are not meant to be a novel including every single detail. They are HIS notes and are supposed to be brief. They are made to simply refresh the officer's memory. The officer will ultimately testify to the specifics of how he tested the radar and that is something you could ask him to elaborate on during cross examination. Obviously you'll need a copy of the testing procedure for that device to know if he did it right. The test times before and after the stop are sufficient for officer notes.

I'm not surprised that the prosecutor would be seeking to amend the charge to the original speed at trial. This is a common practice and only fair - if you want a trial, it will be for the speed you were actually measured at. I'd also be surprised if the prosecutor offers any further reduction. If he does, take it and run! Don't forget, you already received an AMAZING reduction at the roadside from the officer not proceeding with the stunt driving offence - tow bill, impound/storage fees, alternate transport from North Bay, licence reinstatement, and insurance implications.

I highly doubt you're going to convince anyone in a courtroom that the officer lost track of you while he made a u-turn and that 2 cars made a switcharoo. You are the lone vehicle on a straight road travelling 51km over the limit in a Honda Odyssey minivan. An officer doesn't need to maintain 100% visual. He didn't lose you behind some back alleys.

The Blue/Grey thing is a not going anywhere. An officer doesn't need to know the exact color code of your vehicle. Some greys might look blue. There are endless amounts of colour codes (pearls, metallics, etc.). If you want to get oddly specific, you can say it's not grey , it's "Smokey Topaz Metallic" or whatever it might be. It's grasping.

This is one of those deals that you should just take and feel good about it. The difference on insurance between 49km and 51km is astronomical. One gets you lumped with the guy who got convicted of doing 10km over, the other gets you put with the guy who is drunk behind a wheel. One might get you a 0-15% surcharge, the other is an automatic 100% and the possibility they dump you altogether. Sometimes you just got to pick your battles.

Sound advice.

Great! Thanks for the help guys.