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
We all know that numerous police agencies around Ontario (and world for that matter) set up speed traps in inconspicuous locations to catch motorists who are speeding.
If you know of any speed traps that are in regular use please post them here for all to know and avoid speeding fines.
Format: Town, Location, Direction, known days of operation (if known).
I received a speeding ticket this past weekend, and although the officer was nice and gave my 6yo a coupon for a free slushy, I want to fight the ticket.
The officer wrote the offence as "95km/h in a posted E0 km/h zone" the "E" being what looks like a written backwards 3. Now I know and you can probably guess he intended to write an 8 but that is not what is there it is an incomplete 8 and…
Need some help as i was given a old version yellow ticket(Form4) with improper left turn by an officer last week, which is old version printed by 2009. Then two days later, the officer found me giving a new version ticket with color green(Form4), printed by 2012. The details on face pages for two tickets are similar, but back sides are different. My question is first yellow ticket is effective or…
I was charged of speeding, but I don't know what the radar Decatur Genesis II Select Directional VIP is? please let me know what kind device is this and if any one have the manual can you give it to please pleaseeeee.
Recently I got a ticket for disobey sign under the HTA. From where I turned on to the street, the sign was visible for less than 10 metres, during which time I was performing safety checks for upcoming turn. ( I'll post full details after I first get some advise. )
What is the best defense for this? I took some digital pictures but my camera does not do .raw photos and at that time I had not…
I was turning left from Creditview into the left lane of Argentia Road (in Missisauga), while a police cruiser driving the opposite direction turning right into the right lane of Argentia Road. As I saw the cruiser turning right into the right lane of Argentia Road, I also turned left into the left lane of Argentia Road. The officer stopped me and told me that I was wrong, I had to wait until…
So I was on my way home, going a solid 120 as usual in the fast lane. Someone decides to cut me off going less than 100. I do a quick double lane change and speed up unknowingly hitting apparently 150. After speeding for a mere 20 seconds, I am pulled over. Cop says he reduced the ticket to 49 over, I was charged $359 for that. Of course, my insurance isn't in my car... I had to take it out…
After doing quite a bit of research, I stumbled across this forum and thought it would be a good idea to get some opinions about the situation that I currently find myself in. Hopefully some of you may have experienced this in the past and can provide me with some guidance for the best course of action. Thank you in advance for all your help. I greatly appreciate it.
I was driving on a two-lane Trans-Canada route where the indicated speed limit was 90 km/h and following a car for about 15 minutes. That car was going between 70 to 80 whenever there was a curve or a hill going up ahead. Passing was either not permitted or not safe in those sections. However, whenever there was an opportunity to pass that car, the driver would increase its speed to about 115…
My elderly mother received a city bylaw ticket (Ottawa) for parking on private property. A tow trunk was at the scene to tow the vehicle, and they charged a "drop fee" to unhook the vehicle right away. The bylaw officer who issued the ticket was present and said that the ticket would get dismissed in court (as it was issued in error), and that there should be a way to apply to get the tow…
I went to Huntsville for buying a horse trailer in Thursday.
Got 1 ticket of careless driving nearby east gate of Algonquin Park. They police said he received a complaint that my pickup truck hit the road shoulder and disturbed some gravel dust.
I found a police car traced me, so I turn to a roadside motel. After I parked my vehicle, and heading to motel office, the police car arrived gently…
My trial for a speeding ticket is coming up. I have followed recommendations off ticketcombat website and have sent 3 disclosure requests (without phone number) and have received nothing. At the day of trial it will be about 10 months since the ticket was issued.
I guess the first step will be to ask the court for an adjournment during the Motions, "Your Worship, I would like to ask for an…
Last week I was driving though downtown and because of the slippery / wet conditions could not stop when the light was turning yellow to red and slid in to the intersection. I was hit by another car (near the headlamp). None of us were injured, there was significat damge to the cars. The air bags did not deploy.
I was given a ticket that reads : Red Light - fail to stop - H.T.A sect 144 (18) Fine…
a few years ago, I posted about getting a 19+over ticket and said it was a ridiculous ticket since it was down a hill and everyone drives that 10-20 over.
Everyone here claimed I was outrageous to be driving over the limit by ANY amount and I was driving wildly for doing so. Since those two years have passed, I've stuck to the speed limit...guess what happens?
About a month ago, I got a funny situation where a cop made a u-turn to stop in a very showy fashion (that scared and surprised me) because he almost hit me while doing that.
Anyhow, he claimed that he metered me while he was driving towards me so he said his car is equipped to meter opposite coming cars as he drives. I filed the ticket and I was convicted within few days - an…
My wife got a speeding ticket on a construction zone on Hwy 400 and I went to court to try to defend her.
I ordered the disclosure request and got it on the first trial.
The first trial my strategy was to say there was conflict and misunderstanding of road signs. The prosecutor told me I could not confirm that since I personally wasnt there the day of the offence, and my wife has to…
So I had a guy turn across my lane into his driveway and I hit him. I'm going to court solo so I need any information at all regarding proceedings.
I clearly saw two police officers on scene and got disclosure from only one of their black-books even though they both took notes, one from me and one from him. He got a ticket which I will explain in the next paragraph. I don't see any driving history…
So Again, I really don't know how I'm attracting attention to myself, but I am.
Saturday at 1:30 in the morning I was pulled over on the 400 for 142 in a posted 100 Zone. Honestly, I know I was speeding, but I thought maybe 110-120 (I'm trying to clean up my act.) Anyways, Pulled over, Ticketed, Explained 3 options on the back, and we departed on our way.
Hey everyone. Back last summer I got a parking ticket for being within 3m of a fire hydrant. Funny thing is, I parked (in my estimation) at least far enough away from it, deliberately. There were no markings on the pavement but I can't believe I was within 10 feet of that thing (sorry I suck at metric.)
It's only $20 but I was ticked off 'cause I don't park in front of fire hydrants and don't…
I have been charged with driving under suspension due to medical reasons, It was suspended in Mar and In apr I got a new car put it on the road and the License Breau said nothing to me to let me know it was still suspended. I have been to court 2x for this matter first time I asked for adjurnment to seek a resoultion, 2x I went I ask for another adjurnment to seek a resolution because the CA had…
