Researched many articles on here and am trying to decide the best course of action. I was pulled over for speeding. When the officer told me the speed he allegedly clocked me at I almost fell over he said he clocked me at 99 Km Ina community zone.Here's is where my anger sets in, I know with 100 percent certainty I was not going that speed, I have two family members who were in the car at the time who will attest to that. That's why I chose this name, I am being charged with something I know with 1000% certainty I did not do. Of course the officer does not let you see the radar of course their statement will be that it's unsafe to do so, but it wasn't unsafe for him to ask me to get out of the vehicle and tell me if I fight the ticket they will amend back in the community zone. I pondered my options and inquired with professionals who basically said they will try to plea deal out of it. So I decided I will take a shot at it myself. I have filed for disclosure. Received at best what I would call a poor reply consisted of maybe eight pages two or three of which I already had. Refilled for disclosure with more specific items requested. I have read numerous posts and at first was pretty confident with fighting it, now the more and more I read my confidence wavers. Perhaps I should backtrack alittle when I got pulled over immediately behimd me another vehicle pulled over also. The officer asked me is he with me I said no. The vehicle then pulled in front of my vehicle again and the other officer went to talk to them. My question is if I go to court can I enter a plea of not guilty, do my best to discredit the officer and equipment for errors. The greatest of which I think is that many have a misconception that the "test" button calibrates the system and therefore makes it accurate. This is so false it's not even funny, something can function but not measure accurately, home scales do it every day!. Now if I go through the trial do my best to discredit the aforementioned but throw in a twist what are the possibly/likely outcomes? My plan is to call two witnesses to attest to the fact that there was a second vehicle, but they will also state my speed! This is where the twist is! By stating my speed they my say that I was speeding but at no where near the rate as to what I am charged with. If I take to the stand and state the facts of the stop and I too state my speed thereby implicating myself but no where near the rate of speed what my be the outcome? To be honest it's not the amount of the fine more the demerit point aspect of it as well as the fact that I was going no where near what is implicated?
Researched many articles on here and am trying to decide the best course of action. I was pulled over for speeding. When the officer told me the speed he allegedly clocked me at I almost fell over he said he clocked me at 99 Km Ina community zone.Here's is where my anger sets in, I know with 100 percent certainty I was not going that speed, I have two family members who were in the car at the time who will attest to that. That's why I chose this name, I am being charged with something I know with 1000% certainty I did not do. Of course the officer does not let you see the radar of course their statement will be that it's unsafe to do so, but it wasn't unsafe for him to ask me to get out of the vehicle and tell me if I fight the ticket they will amend back in the community zone.
I pondered my options and inquired with professionals who basically said they will try to plea deal out of it. So I decided I will take a shot at it myself. I have filed for disclosure. Received at best what I would call a poor reply consisted of maybe eight pages two or three of which I already had. Refilled for disclosure with more specific items requested. I have read numerous posts and at first was pretty confident with fighting it, now the more and more I read my confidence wavers. Perhaps I should backtrack alittle when I got pulled over immediately behimd me another vehicle pulled over also. The officer asked me is he with me I said no. The vehicle then pulled in front of my vehicle again and the other officer went to talk to them. My question is if I go to court can I enter a plea of not guilty, do my best to discredit the officer and equipment for errors. The greatest of which I think is that many have a misconception that the "test" button calibrates the system and therefore makes it accurate. This is so false it's not even funny, something can function but not measure accurately, home scales do it every day!. Now if I go through the trial do my best to discredit the aforementioned but throw in a twist what are the possibly/likely outcomes? My plan is to call two witnesses to attest to the fact that there was a second vehicle, but they will also state my speed! This is where the twist is! By stating my speed they my say that I was speeding but at no where near the rate as to what I am charged with. If I take to the stand and state the facts of the stop and I too state my speed thereby implicating myself but no where near the rate of speed what my be the outcome? To be honest it's not the amount of the fine more the demerit point aspect of it as well as the fact that I was going no where near what is implicated?
While the officer may not want to show you the speed listed on his device for safety reasons, it's not the only reason. Another reason is they do not need to prove their case on the side of the road. The road is not a courtroom. If you don't agree with the charge, plead not guilty, make a disclosure request, and get the evidence that way. I'm not sure what you feel your disclosure request is missing since you haven't gone into any details. I wouldn't call 8 pages worth of material a poor reply for a basic speeding charge. What exactly do you feel is missing? The officer tests the device according to the manual provided. The officer will check his notes for when he performed the required tests. If you're trying to argue the standards for which the device should be tested in your own opinion, I wish you luck. Speeding is an absolute liability offense. They only need to prove you were speeding. When you say you want to bring in witnesses to prove you were speeding, but "not that much speeding", your trial is already over. You're already guilty.
While the officer may not want to show you the speed listed on his device for safety reasons, it's not the only reason. Another reason is they do not need to prove their case on the side of the road. The road is not a courtroom. If you don't agree with the charge, plead not guilty, make a disclosure request, and get the evidence that way.
I'm not sure what you feel your disclosure request is missing since you haven't gone into any details. I wouldn't call 8 pages worth of material a poor reply for a basic speeding charge. What exactly do you feel is missing?
The officer tests the device according to the manual provided. The officer will check his notes for when he performed the required tests. If you're trying to argue the standards for which the device should be tested in your own opinion, I wish you luck.
Speeding is an absolute liability offense. They only need to prove you were speeding. When you say you want to bring in witnesses to prove you were speeding, but "not that much speeding", your trial is already over. You're already guilty.
A key component of the material of the disclosure is the operation of the unit, also due to the lack of the table of contents I am uncertain whether certain parts of the sections they did give me were missing. In the eight pages one was the fax cover sheet one was the court date one was the face of the ticket I already had all three of those. And eight pages we are talking photocopied pages. I understand the admission of guilt but there is a HUGE difference between fifteen over and 49 over! My main dislike about the whole situation is how could you possibly have gotten a reading of 107! Something is very suspect. My main mistake in the situation was that I was say 150ish meters from 80 km/h sign and on a downslope I was starting to bring my speed up to 80km to set my cruise. So yes I admit guilt in that I was doing 65km in a fifty but I was honestly unaware the speed change was exactly where the sign is. So was I speeding....yes. Was I stunt driving? Absolutely now. So this is what I would like explain how do you get such a erroneous reading and still claim the device is accurate? I don't wish to argue that it should be test to my standards but to the actual standards of the manufacturer. A test button does not ensure frequencies emitted by the radar are accurate at all. There has been a few reports not only on Cbc but many networks in the u.s on incorrect calibration, key word, of radar units. Many experts have testified by omitting certain procedures you are for certain not measuring with an accurate device. My situation is exactly that point.
A key component of the material of the disclosure is the operation of the unit, also due to the lack of the table of contents I am uncertain whether certain parts of the sections they did give me were missing. In the eight pages one was the fax cover sheet one was the court date one was the face of the ticket I already had all three of those. And eight pages we are talking photocopied pages. I understand the admission of guilt but there is a HUGE difference between fifteen over and 49 over! My main dislike about the whole situation is how could you possibly have gotten a reading of 107! Something is very suspect. My main mistake in the situation was that I was say 150ish meters from 80 km/h sign and on a downslope I was starting to bring my speed up to 80km to set my cruise. So yes I admit guilt in that I was doing 65km in a fifty but I was honestly unaware the speed change was exactly where the sign is. So was I speeding....yes. Was I stunt driving? Absolutely now. So this is what I would like explain how do you get such a erroneous reading and still claim the device is accurate? I don't wish to argue that it should be test to my standards but to the actual standards of the manufacturer. A test button does not ensure frequencies emitted by the radar are accurate at all. There has been a few reports not only on Cbc but many networks in the u.s on incorrect calibration, key word, of radar units. Many experts have testified by omitting certain procedures you are for certain not measuring with an accurate device. My situation is exactly that point.
Do his notes say you were doing 107 in a 50 (57 over) but he dropped it to 49 over? The key of course is to bring doubt to the accuracy of the radar device. Do you have the money to hire an expert witness to testify on your behalf? If you do, PM so we can talk more about it. If you do not, then your opinion (although correct) will not be sufficient to bring doubt to the reading. However, take a look at this post that I just finished: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7815.html Now of course your testimony and your witnesses testimony that you were speeding will get you a guilty conviction for sure, BUT they may help bring doubt to the speed you were actually doing. So if you show up to court with your witnesses and talk to the prosecutor ahead of time letting them know you have witnesses, then maybe (just maybe) you can convince them to drop it to a lower speed of 29 over or maybe even 15 over. If they will not give you a deal, then you need to go to trial and you and the witnesses take the stand and just say that there was no way you were going that fast and that you beleive you were going XYZ. In this scenario, it is up to the JP to decide if you and your witnesses were convincing enough to drop the speed. Worse case scenario is that the JP does not believe any of you and convicts you of full speed.
Do his notes say you were doing 107 in a 50 (57 over) but he dropped it to 49 over?
The key of course is to bring doubt to the accuracy of the radar device. Do you have the money to hire an expert witness to testify on your behalf? If you do, PM so we can talk more about it. If you do not, then your opinion (although correct) will not be sufficient to bring doubt to the reading.
However, take a look at this post that I just finished:
Now of course your testimony and your witnesses testimony that you were speeding will get you a guilty conviction for sure, BUT they may help bring doubt to the speed you were actually doing. So if you show up to court with your witnesses and talk to the prosecutor ahead of time letting them know you have witnesses, then maybe (just maybe) you can convince them to drop it to a lower speed of 29 over or maybe even 15 over. If they will not give you a deal, then you need to go to trial and you and the witnesses take the stand and just say that there was no way you were going that fast and that you beleive you were going XYZ. In this scenario, it is up to the JP to decide if you and your witnesses were convincing enough to drop the speed. Worse case scenario is that the JP does not believe any of you and convicts you of full speed.
They are not going to copy the whole manual and send it to you. They will send you the few pages dealing with testing procedures and that's it. If you've made an additional disclosure request for additional pages, don't expect it. At your trial, you can try to convince the JP why you need to see more of the manual. You'll likely get an offer to book an appointment to view the manual at their offices. They adjourn your trial for another day. Which one is it? 49 or 57 over? If it's 57, 49 is irrelevant. You don't get to have a trial at 49. This is a whole new can of worms. The standards are printed out in the testing pages of the manual, provided by the manufacturer, which you should have already received. You are oversimplifying this whole argument. You don't get to show up to court with a print out from a CBC article and walk out convincing a JP all testing procedures in the Province are insufficient.
Milgarded wrote:
A key component of the material of the disclosure is the operation of the unit, also due to the lack of the table of contents I am uncertain whether certain parts of the sections they did give me were missing.
They are not going to copy the whole manual and send it to you. They will send you the few pages dealing with testing procedures and that's it. If you've made an additional disclosure request for additional pages, don't expect it. At your trial, you can try to convince the JP why you need to see more of the manual. You'll likely get an offer to book an appointment to view the manual at their offices. They adjourn your trial for another day.
Milgarded wrote:
I understand the admission of guilt but there is a HUGE difference between fifteen over and 49 over! My main dislike about the whole situation is how could you possibly have gotten a reading of 107!
Which one is it? 49 or 57 over? If it's 57, 49 is irrelevant. You don't get to have a trial at 49. This is a whole new can of worms.
Milgarded wrote:
I don't wish to argue that it should be test to my standards but to the actual standards of the manufacturer.
The standards are printed out in the testing pages of the manual, provided by the manufacturer, which you should have already received.
Milgarded wrote:
A test button does not ensure frequencies emitted by the radar are accurate at all. There has been a few reports not only on Cbc but many networks in the u.s on incorrect calibration, key word, of radar units. Many experts have testified by omitting certain procedures you are for certain not measuring with an accurate device. My situation is exactly that point.
You are oversimplifying this whole argument. You don't get to show up to court with a print out from a CBC article and walk out convincing a JP all testing procedures in the Province are insufficient.
The standards for configuration of the radar were also altered for the opp because they were finding too many officers were not carrying out the procedure or not doing it correctly. I find it humerus that we simply accept the face that the test makes everything Ok. All the test feature does is makes sure the display is working, that the unit sends a frequency and that it receives a frequency. It does not mean that the frequency emitted is correct or that it reads the frequency correctly on the return. If you got pulled over by themto for being over weight do you think they would need to certify that the scale was calibrated properly? I also tried to decider his notes as far as hei think it says observed over posted speed. Honestly if it's on a fifty k zone ya laaymqn would have a fifty chance off estimating if speed was over the posted limit or not. I am simply simplifying for sake of this forum I could go int o great detail how the entire process is flawed. This is part of the reason I want to go to trial to get the various facts on record so attention can be brought forward of the errors. Why should the charge dictate that we assume certain evidence. If this was say a murder charge would we naturally accept the fact that someone said the gun wasn't working or would we ask for proof of such? The government could be making millions off of us for incorrectly measuring devices and they know this. Such a small percentage fight tickets it's like a money printing machine.
The standards for configuration of the radar were also altered for the opp because they were finding too many officers were not carrying out the procedure or not doing it correctly. I find it humerus that we simply accept the face that the test makes everything
Ok. All the test feature does is makes sure the display is working, that the unit sends a frequency and that it receives a frequency. It does not mean that the frequency emitted is correct or that it reads the frequency correctly on the return. If you got pulled over by themto for being over weight do you think they would need to certify that the scale was calibrated properly? I also tried to decider his notes as far as hei think it says observed over posted speed. Honestly if it's on a fifty k zone ya laaymqn would have a fifty chance off estimating if speed was over the posted limit or not. I am simply simplifying for sake of this forum I could go int o great detail how the entire process is flawed. This is part of the reason I want to go to trial to get the various facts on record so attention can be brought forward of the errors. Why should the charge dictate that we assume certain evidence. If this was say a murder charge would we naturally accept the fact that someone said the gun wasn't working or would we ask for proof of such? The government could be making millions off of us for incorrectly measuring devices and they know this. Such a small percentage fight tickets it's like a money printing machine.
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. The test button on the radar does NOT send or receive a beam form the antenna. It only verifies the internal electronics. So really it does not actually test that the unit is functioning properly at all. I have a Diploma in Electronics Engineering Technology so I think I am going to start some studies on radar and lidar so that I can become an expert witness.
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying.
The test button on the radar does NOT send or receive a beam form the antenna. It only verifies the internal electronics. So really it does not actually test that the unit is functioning properly at all.
I have a Diploma in Electronics Engineering Technology so I think I am going to start some studies on radar and lidar so that I can become an expert witness.
Correct me if I'm wrong, does a lidar not have to occasionally be checked against a radar? But a radar we don't have to check against anything? Does that not seem odd? But back to my question again should I take the route of taking the stand my self. The Oder of process would be the persecution calls the officer first, once done I get to cross examine. Then I get to call witnesses? Is that correct? Also if I do testify to doing 65 in a fifty (with witnesses and speedometer certification on my vehicle, am I more likely to get charged for the speed I was in fact travelling or will the prosecution try to push for the trumped up,charge of 49 over?
Correct me if I'm wrong, does a lidar not have to occasionally be checked against a radar? But a radar we don't have to check against anything? Does that not seem odd? But back to my question again should I take the route of taking the stand my self. The Oder of process would be the persecution calls the officer first, once done I get to cross examine. Then I get to call witnesses? Is that correct? Also if I do testify to doing 65 in a fifty (with witnesses and speedometer certification on my vehicle, am I more likely to get charged for the speed I was in fact travelling or will the prosecution try to push for the trumped up,charge of 49 over?
You are wrong, lidar does not have to be checked against radar. Unless you have documentation to say your speedometer was calibrated at the time of the offence I doubt the court would let you tender evidence after the fact...If you take the stand and say you were speeding, by any amount, you will be convicted. Yes, prosecution witnesses go first, you get to cross examine them. Once the prosecution does not intend to call any more witnesses, you have your witnesses testify. The prosecution will have a chance to cross examine your witnesses, as well as you, should you take the stand.
You are wrong, lidar does not have to be checked against radar. Unless you have documentation to say your speedometer was calibrated at the time of the offence I doubt the court would let you tender evidence after the fact...If you take the stand and say you were speeding, by any amount, you will be convicted. Yes, prosecution witnesses go first, you get to cross examine them. Once the prosecution does not intend to call any more witnesses, you have your witnesses testify. The prosecution will have a chance to cross examine your witnesses, as well as you, should you take the stand.
If you and your witnesses take the stand and testify you were only going 65 in a 50, I honestly do not know how it will turn out for you. It is up to the JP... with three of you testifying the same thing, the JP might believe you all over the officer. But the JP might also say she thinks the three of you are all colluding and go with the officers testimony. I think it is about a 50/50 chance of whether or not the JP believes you and your witnesses over officer. Very important point here is this... Do the officers notes say that you were going 50+ over and they dropped it to 49 over? 50+ over is a SERIOUS offence for insurance purposes and your rates will more than double versus 49 over which is usually a MINOR offence for insurance purposes and will only cause a small increase. So if the officers notes say you were doing 50+ over, and the JP does not believe you and your witnesses, then you will be charged with the higher rate of speed that the officer testifies about.
If you and your witnesses take the stand and testify you were only going 65 in a 50, I honestly do not know how it will turn out for you. It is up to the JP... with three of you testifying the same thing, the JP might believe you all over the officer. But the JP might also say she thinks the three of you are all colluding and go with the officers testimony. I think it is about a 50/50 chance of whether or not the JP believes you and your witnesses over officer.
Very important point here is this... Do the officers notes say that you were going 50+ over and they dropped it to 49 over? 50+ over is a SERIOUS offence for insurance purposes and your rates will more than double versus 49 over which is usually a MINOR offence for insurance purposes and will only cause a small increase. So if the officers notes say you were doing 50+ over, and the JP does not believe you and your witnesses, then you will be charged with the higher rate of speed that the officer testifies about.
>jsherk, how are 3 people going to testify that the car was doing 65 or any speed for that point. Wouldn't all 3 need to be looking at the speedo? That's not likly ? Is the driver at some point going to tel his passengers, hey guyz I'm doing 65 now in case anyone asks. Not trying to be a smarta$$, but... seriously?
>jsherk,
how are 3 people going to testify that the car was doing 65 or any speed for that point.
Wouldn't all 3 need to be looking at the speedo? That's not likly ? Is the driver at some point going to tel his passengers, hey guyz I'm doing 65 now in case anyone asks.
Not trying to be a smarta$$, but... seriously?
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
and if the admit to the driver doing 65 in a 50, then they are admitting to speeding......... <confused>
and if the admit to the driver doing 65 in a 50, then they are admitting to speeding......... <confused>
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
Yes there are going to be issues with three people testifying about speed which is why I suggested a 50/50 chance of it working. What they say and how they say it will be important to the JP's decision. If it was just the driver testifying himself then the chances are pretty much 0 that JP will believe driver over officer. Add a couple more witnesses though, and maybe (MAYBE) JP will believe them. The op agreed he was speeding about 15 over but was not speeding at 49 over so that was the issue was trying to bring the speed down.
Yes there are going to be issues with three people testifying about speed which is why I suggested a 50/50 chance of it working. What they say and how they say it will be important to the JP's decision. If it was just the driver testifying himself then the chances are pretty much 0 that JP will believe driver over officer. Add a couple more witnesses though, and maybe (MAYBE) JP will believe them.
The op agreed he was speeding about 15 over but was not speeding at 49 over so that was the issue was trying to bring the speed down.
Sorry yes it was knocked down to 49 over. I get I would be convicted of speeding but a fine for the speed I was actually going as opposed to the 49 over is significant! Any if an officer can "estimate the speed of a vehicle generally +/- 5kms" would one not think that some one simply sitting in the passenger seat with any sort of driving experience could tell when they are going 65 or 99? I also read on here a post about getting an officer to read a passage about the necessity to calibrate radars, and someone said that you can't do that because you need the author present for cross examination. Yet I just read case law that states the author of radar manuals do not need to be present if references are made from said manual. And perhaps we are all missing the fact here that there is a HUGE! Difference between 65 and 99 and The fact that the system accepts certain things such lack or non existence of calibration to be accepted. Basically you get wrongly accused of a crime and have not real grounds to fight it. It is also easy for three people to see the speedo at one time especially when one is in the back seat. And trust me when the flashing lights go on, the first thing everyone checks is speed cmon!
Sorry yes it was knocked down to 49 over. I get I would be convicted of speeding but a fine for the speed I was actually going as opposed to the 49 over is significant! Any if an officer can "estimate the speed of a vehicle generally +/- 5kms" would one not think that some one simply sitting in the passenger seat with any sort of driving experience could tell when they are going 65 or 99? I also read on here a post about getting an officer to read a passage about the necessity to calibrate radars, and someone said that you can't do that because you need the author present for cross examination. Yet I just read case law that states the author of radar manuals do not need to be present if references are made from said manual. And perhaps we are all missing the fact here that there is a HUGE! Difference between 65 and 99 and The fact that the system accepts certain things such lack or non existence of calibration to be accepted. Basically you get wrongly accused of a crime and have not real grounds to fight it. It is also easy for three people to see the speedo at one time especially when one is in the back seat. And trust me when the flashing lights go on, the first thing everyone checks is speed cmon!
R v depoe 2012 oncj 374.....third last section...." Rules in favour of case law which supports the use of relevant portions of the manual for the purpose of full answer supersedes both arguments in favour of copyright and in favour of having the author of the manual document present for cross examination" Guess its not case law but a ruling on the subject. Man my typing is unbelievably bad lol
R v depoe 2012 oncj 374.....third last section...." Rules in favour of case law which supports the use of relevant portions of the manual for the purpose of full answer supersedes both arguments in favour of copyright and in favour of having the author of the manual document present for cross examination" Guess its not case law but a ruling on the subject. Man my typing is unbelievably bad lol
The case deals only with the disclosure of the testing portion of the manual. That is disclosed routinely. There is no new information here: Courts decision with regard to legal arguments 42. The court rules the portion of the radar manual with regard to testing procedures on the Atlanta laser is relevant to full answer and defence with regard to a speeding charge, and therefore should be produced without reservation to copyright or the need to cross-examine the author of the document. The bar for the test to establish relevance is set reasonably low and that bar has been met in this instance. 43. The court finds itself in favour of the case law which supports the use of the relevant portion of the radar manual for the purposes of full answer and defence supersedes both arguments in favour of copyright, and in favour of having the author of the radar manual document present for cross examination purposes. 44. Finally, the court, cognizant of the case law as it pertains to manufacturers recommendations, finds in favour of the premise that these are simply that: recommendations to be followed as to intent, if not to the exact letter. It would appear in this case that Const. Tomlinson followed the intent of laser manufacturers recommendations by measuring distances from the rear of her cruiser – using a tape measure to establish accuracy. That she did not use the manufacturers recommended distance of 45 metres does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the laser was not working properly on the date in question.
The case deals only with the disclosure of the testing portion of the manual. That is disclosed routinely. There is no new information here:
Courts decision with regard to legal arguments
42. The court rules the portion of the radar manual with regard to testing procedures on the Atlanta laser is relevant to full answer and defence with regard to a speeding charge, and therefore should be produced without reservation to copyright or the need to cross-examine the author of the document. The bar for the test to establish relevance is set reasonably low and that bar has been met in this instance.
43. The court finds itself in favour of the case law which supports the use of the relevant portion of the radar manual for the purposes of full answer and defence supersedes both arguments in favour of copyright, and in favour of having the author of the radar manual document present for cross examination purposes.
44. Finally, the court, cognizant of the case law as it pertains to manufacturers recommendations, finds in favour of the premise that these are simply that: recommendations to be followed as to intent, if not to the exact letter. It would appear in this case that Const. Tomlinson followed the intent of laser manufacturers recommendations by measuring distances from the rear of her cruiser – using a tape measure to establish accuracy. That she did not use the manufacturers recommended distance of 45 metres does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the laser was not working properly on the date in question.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
It's a Justice of the Peace decision which means it is NOT binding on any other Justice of the Peace. Most ONCJ level cases are Justice of the Peace. Sometimes you will come across an ONCJ level case that is an appeal with a Judge. These cases ARE binding on all Justice of the Piece.
It's a Justice of the Peace decision which means it is NOT binding on any other Justice of the Peace.
Most ONCJ level cases are Justice of the Peace.
Sometimes you will come across an ONCJ level case that is an appeal with a Judge. These cases ARE binding on all Justice of the Piece.
Yes there are going to be issues with three people testifying about speed which is why I suggested a 50/50 chance of it working. What they say and how they say it will be important to the JP's decision. If it was just the driver testifying himself then the chances are pretty much 0 that JP will believe driver over officer. Add a couple more witnesses though, and maybe (MAYBE) JP will believe them.
The op agreed he was speeding about 15 over but was not speeding at 49 over so that was the issue was trying to bring the speed down.
gotcha
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
Hi, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
