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
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…
