I've been reading a lot of threads on here and so far they are helpful, but I haven't seen anything on this specific question before:
I'm dealing with a 34 km/h over ticket from Hamilton. It was marked down 10 km/h over.
The disclosure package came a couple of weeks ago, and I found it very strange...
They have classified the front of the ticket as 'irrelevant' and did not provide it. Only the backside with the cop's hand written notes were provided. The handwriting is good.
The ticket is not an electronically printed ticket.
What the heck! Has anyone else ever heard of this? Why don't they provide the front? Is it an error, or an indication some mistake was made on their side (such as a filing error, etc.)?
Thank you for any insight.
Yes I do have my copy of the ticket.
The larger issue here is that the front of the ticket is an important document that the JP must review. And the prosecution is saying it's irrelevant?!
Why is that? Do they know something is wrong with it? Was it modified in some way and they don't want me to see it?
I saw the list of possible fatal errors on TicketCombat and there's error that I can see.
Or is not disclosing the front just the typical procedure?
If those issues you are worrying about they will also be present on your copy.
and there's no error that I can see.
Even if there’s a slight difference between the original and your copy it’s likely immaterial.
Check out York v Wadood on Canlii.
Alleged: Doing 104 km/h in a 70 zone, reduced to 10 km/h over.
It's a handwritten ticket, not computer generated. I have seen the list of fatal ticket errors on TicketCombat and I did not see any such errors in my case.
Can the disclosure geniuses on here please analyze my info and suggest the next course of action?
Here is my disclosure information.
Manual: They gave me a bit of the Stalker DSR 2x manual. It took seconds to find the full manual online, and it is obvious they have even altered the photocopy to remove some data from the page.
There is nothing else. They claimed that all the other stuff about training, calibration, serial number, and all of those details are irrelevant and/or not in their possession.Stalker Dual
Tested before & after
Vehicle Southbound on 'Road 1' approaching 'Road 2'.
I am Northbound on 'Road 1'.
Vehicle speed 104 km/h.
One person in vehicle
Year / Make / Model / Colour of my car
Roads dry & clear
As an aside... I had only a photocopy of both sides of my ownership. The cop didn't complain about that.
- The written notes say "Stalker Dual" and the manual I received is for "Stalker DSR 2x". They're different...
- The colour of my car in the notes is wrong. It matches my ownership, but isn't actually the colour of my car. My ownership has always had the wrong colour for some reason...
Thank you for any feedback.
Be very careful with manuals you find online as these could be the US version and not applicable for use in Ontario.
A 10 over ticket is a gift. I’d pay that and walk away, unless you want the court experience.
Thanks for the info. At this point I'm not just going to pay it because the trial has a scheduling error. I don't want to get into how I found out about this, but I know with absolute certainty that the trial date is not the cop's court date. So it's a good guess the cop could be a no-show.
The trial is in late October so they do have some time to figure it out. Maybe they'll come up with a BS reason to adjourn it. Maybe not.
The financial difference between the original charge and reduced charge is not a big deal to me, and points go away in 2 years. I don't plan to get any more points. But I'd prefer not to have the thing on my record.
1. Is it better to 'lie low' so their attention won't be on this case, and the hope for a police no-show at the trial?
2. I'm not sophisticated enough to know everything about the court process. I have the money so does it even make sense to get a paralegal to try to get it dismissed before the trial? Or will this just draw more attention to the whole thing and then they might see the scheduling error?
Last edited by winston301 on Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
From what you’ve posted so far I don’t see any grounds to have this dismissed outright.
Haha... I have no idea if the officer has a flight .
I understand that the officer almost always attends, but isn't that because cases are normally scheduled for that particular officer's court date, and it's the officer's job to be there?
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I thought officers have scheduled shifts, places to patrol, specific activities to attend. Are you saying that it's pretty common for officers to get out of other scheduled activities and go to court on a day that's not their normal day?
Cops get supeonaed just like every other witness. Even for their work days. If they ignore they could always issue a witness (not common for POA court) warrant.
But you miss court even on days off there is a Penalty.
Here 4 hrs first time, 8 the second and then a PSS chiefs complaint for each further case.
Thanks, this is helpful feedback.
I don't know if the officer is actually 'on duty' or has a 'day off' on the day of the trial. All I can say is that it's definitely not the officer's scheduled court day.
But it sounds like you two are saying the distinction of 'day off' or 'on duty, but not a court day' doesn't matter, the officer will probably show up anyway.
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests