Hey all. I've just received my disclosure today. My trial is next thursday. I've already submitted a notice of constitutional question, etc, but I'm expecting this to go to trial as I have received full disclosure. For the sake of this thread let's assume it's going to trial. By the looks of it, I don't see anything that I can use to my advantage during the trial. What is my strategy for getting off on this ticket that I am clearly guilty of? Can anyone with experience chime in? The link below is my received disclosure (with my sensitive information blanked out). Perhaps some trained eyes can catch something I have missed that I can use to my advantage. What should I be asking the officer? I assume I should focus on the testing procedure given in the manual. I notice it's only tested up to 100 km/h, can I use this in my favour? http://www.docdroid.net/ddsv/disclosure ... d.pdf.html
Hey all.
I've just received my disclosure today. My trial is next thursday. I've already submitted a notice of constitutional question, etc, but I'm expecting this to go to trial as I have received full disclosure. For the sake of this thread let's assume it's going to trial.
By the looks of it, I don't see anything that I can use to my advantage during the trial. What is my strategy for getting off on this ticket that I am clearly guilty of?
Can anyone with experience chime in? The link below is my received disclosure (with my sensitive information blanked out). Perhaps some trained eyes can catch something I have missed that I can use to my advantage.
What should I be asking the officer? I assume I should focus on the testing procedure given in the manual. I notice it's only tested up to 100 km/h, can I use this in my favour?
Looks like the officer used a template to ensure everything is covered off. I dont see anything critical missing from his notes. Thats part of the speed simulation test. Part of what the radar needs to do is convert the signals it receives into actual speed readings. To verify it can do so accurately, the speed simulation test generates four synthesized signals at 25, 50, 75 & 100 km/hr. The operator needs to verify that the correct speed is shown for each reading. The fact that the test doesnt go past 100 km/hr doesnt invalidate readings above that speed. The test simply shows it can accurately convert readings, whatever speed they may be. Maybe someone else will have an idea but I don't really have any ideas at the moment other then just trying your luck at trial (assuming you're not open to taking a plea deal for a reduced fine).
Looks like the officer used a template to ensure everything is covered off. I dont see anything critical missing from his notes.
Kurt_ wrote:
What should I be asking the officer? I assume I should focus on the testing procedure given in the manual. I notice it's only tested up to 100 km/h, can I use this in my favour?
Thats part of the speed simulation test. Part of what the radar needs to do is convert the signals it receives into actual speed readings. To verify it can do so accurately, the speed simulation test generates four synthesized signals at 25, 50, 75 & 100 km/hr. The operator needs to verify that the correct speed is shown for each reading. The fact that the test doesnt go past 100 km/hr doesnt invalidate readings above that speed. The test simply shows it can accurately convert readings, whatever speed they may be.
Maybe someone else will have an idea but I don't really have any ideas at the moment other then just trying your luck at trial (assuming you're not open to taking a plea deal for a reduced fine).
Looks like you're in for some points (3 demerit points) for speeding. It will be reported to your insurance and your insurance premiums will likely go up. If this is your first offense, or only moving violation in the past 3-years, meet with the prosecutor before the trial, explain you will accept the fine but you cannot afford for your insurance rates to go up. Ask for the charge to be reduced to something like disobey a sign in exchange for a guilty plea - it's under $100 for the fine and victim's fee (I think $55+$20) but it's not traffic offense that goes on your record and you don't receive points. It's not considered a moving violation. It does not get reported to your insurance company. There is nothing more here that can help you. You are/will be found guilty. Unless you have real, irrefutable proof, there is nothing you can say in a court of law that supersedes the word of a police officer and that is because they are bonded. In short, their word is fact. Your word is moot. The system still gets paid and that's all they really want, so pay it and get the heck out of there. If you have other moving violations in the past 3-years, chances are the prosecutor will hit you for the original charge. Either way, meeting with the prosecutor first to reduce the charge is the best bet at this stage.
Looks like you're in for some points (3 demerit points) for speeding. It will be reported to your insurance and your insurance premiums will likely go up.
If this is your first offense, or only moving violation in the past 3-years, meet with the prosecutor before the trial, explain you will accept the fine but you cannot afford for your insurance rates to go up. Ask for the charge to be reduced to something like disobey a sign in exchange for a guilty plea - it's under $100 for the fine and victim's fee (I think $55+$20) but it's not traffic offense that goes on your record and you don't receive points. It's not considered a moving violation. It does not get reported to your insurance company.
There is nothing more here that can help you. You are/will be found guilty. Unless you have real, irrefutable proof, there is nothing you can say in a court of law that supersedes the word of a police officer and that is because they are bonded. In short, their word is fact. Your word is moot. The system still gets paid and that's all they really want, so pay it and get the heck out of there.
If you have other moving violations in the past 3-years, chances are the prosecutor will hit you for the original charge. Either way, meeting with the prosecutor first to reduce the charge is the best bet at this stage.
That's incorrect. Any offence, regardless of demerit points, can impact your insurance. Both speeding and disobey sign would likely be considered minor offences by an insurance provider. That's also incorrect. Case law states that a police officers testimony should not be given any more weight simply by virtue of their position.
ShockDiamond wrote:
Ask for the charge to be reduced to something like disobey a sign in exchange for a guilty plea - it's under $100 for the fine and victim's fee (I think $55+$20) but it's not traffic offense that goes on your record and you don't receive points. It's not considered a moving violation. It does not get reported to your insurance company.
That's incorrect. Any offence, regardless of demerit points, can impact your insurance. Both speeding and disobey sign would likely be considered minor offences by an insurance provider.
ShockDiamond wrote:
there is nothing you can say in a court of law that supersedes the word of a police officer and that is because they are bonded. In short, their word is fact. Your word is moot.
That's also incorrect. Case law states that a police officers testimony should not be given any more weight simply by virtue of their position.
That's incorrect. Any offence, regardless of demerit points, can impact your insurance. Both speeding and disobey sign would likely be considered minor offences by an insurance provider. That's also incorrect. Case law states that a police officers testimony should not be given any more weight simply by virtue of their position. Disobey sign is a very generic offense for doing something other than what any road sign says. If it's a serious violation, running a red light or a stop sign, it can carry demerit points and is reported because it's a moving violation. Disobey sign could be cited for stopping in a no stopping area - it is not necessarily a moving violation and that is what this person should be looking for. The officer is bonded with a surety. When they say you broke that law, it's a legal bond as soon as they sign it and it is entered into evidence as fact. Unless you actually have proof to the contrary, what the officer has will trump any words that come out of your mouth. "Case law states".. Yah, it states but it doesn't work that way. And if you do prove the officer is lying, you should be going after their bond. A person (read that as "corporation") cannot create a bond for themselves without witness or notary, and for that the statement still has to be true. Unless you have filed an affidavit by a witness or some other means of actually proving you're not guilty, the officer's observations are irrefutable facts taken as evidence. Truth is, even if you're completely innocent and don't have proof, if you've been charged by an officer of the law, you will almost certainly be found guilty. It has nothing to do with morality; not what is right or wrong - it's about who's paying. The situation this person appears to face is they clearly broke the law and want to get out of it. If you have any other suggestion for their blatant disregard for the speed limit, by all means, provide them a theory of defense. =) I've read your replies and you have sound advice - you know this guy is screwed unless he pleas a lesser charge. He has been slammed by radar and the officer's paperwork has nothing wrong with it. Plead disobey sign, non-moving violation and pay the fine. Otherwise, take the full brunt of the charge and lose a day of work or whatever you might do during the time you're waiting for your case on the docketed. ;)
Stanton wrote:
ShockDiamond wrote:
Ask for the charge to be reduced to something like disobey a sign in exchange for a guilty plea - it's under $100 for the fine and victim's fee (I think $55+$20) but it's not traffic offense that goes on your record and you don't receive points. It's not considered a moving violation. It does not get reported to your insurance company.
That's incorrect. Any offence, regardless of demerit points, can impact your insurance. Both speeding and disobey sign would likely be considered minor offences by an insurance provider.
ShockDiamond wrote:
there is nothing you can say in a court of law that supersedes the word of a police officer and that is because they are bonded. In short, their word is fact. Your word is moot.
That's also incorrect. Case law states that a police officers testimony should not be given any more weight simply by virtue of their position.
Disobey sign is a very generic offense for doing something other than what any road sign says. If it's a serious violation, running a red light or a stop sign, it can carry demerit points and is reported because it's a moving violation. Disobey sign could be cited for stopping in a no stopping area - it is not necessarily a moving violation and that is what this person should be looking for.
The officer is bonded with a surety. When they say you broke that law, it's a legal bond as soon as they sign it and it is entered into evidence as fact. Unless you actually have proof to the contrary, what the officer has will trump any words that come out of your mouth. "Case law states".. Yah, it states but it doesn't work that way. And if you do prove the officer is lying, you should be going after their bond.
A person (read that as "corporation") cannot create a bond for themselves without witness or notary, and for that the statement still has to be true. Unless you have filed an affidavit by a witness or some other means of actually proving you're not guilty, the officer's observations are irrefutable facts taken as evidence. Truth is, even if you're completely innocent and don't have proof, if you've been charged by an officer of the law, you will almost certainly be found guilty. It has nothing to do with morality; not what is right or wrong - it's about who's paying.
The situation this person appears to face is they clearly broke the law and want to get out of it. If you have any other suggestion for their blatant disregard for the speed limit, by all means, provide them a theory of defense. =) I've read your replies and you have sound advice - you know this guy is screwed unless he pleas a lesser charge. He has been slammed by radar and the officer's paperwork has nothing wrong with it. Plead disobey sign, non-moving violation and pay the fine. Otherwise, take the full brunt of the charge and lose a day of work or whatever you might do during the time you're waiting for your case on the docketed.
Umm we are not bonded. I am not sure where you got that information from. Most municipalities have a dis obey sign bylaw that is like getting a parking ticket. That is a lot of kmh's to have knocked off though. Ops
Umm we are not bonded. I am not sure where you got that information from.
Most municipalities have a dis obey sign bylaw that is like getting a parking ticket. That is a lot of kmh's to have knocked off though.
When it comes to court the officer is just a witness. The prosecutor will ask them pointed questions that if left unchecked will prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They are trained to collect evidence and testify making it an unfair fight for the unrepresented average citizen. It all boils down to credibility and your ability to present evidence to cast doubt on whether you violated the law. Case law states that when it is found that 2 people give equally credible evidence about the same thing and the evidence conflicts the judge must believe the person who is in the best position to know the facts. The prosecutor knows this and if you have a good recollection of events, they will try to poke holes in your testimony to diminish your credibility. (You can use the same trick on the officer on cross-examination) The officer will be testifying that the radar indicated to him you were speeding and based on that he ticketed you. Because of this people typically go after the the radar unit itself or how it was operated. If the officer is credible to the JP that the unit was in good working order and used properly and that the driver was identified as the speeder then, yes, it is not enough to say: "I was not speeding." In this case, you would have better luck trying to prove that that though the officer probably did clock someone speeding but that since you have been driving 40 years without getting a ticket and that traffic was heavy perhaps they may have identified the wrong car. If you really didn't do it, your story will be full of idiosyncrasies that will tend to make you sound more credible than a police officer who is just trolling through their notes. For those of you that did do it you may have to rely the technicalities of the process and home they come out in your favor.
When it comes to court the officer is just a witness. The prosecutor will ask them pointed questions that if left unchecked will prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They are trained to collect evidence and testify making it an unfair fight for the unrepresented average citizen. It all boils down to credibility and your ability to present evidence to cast doubt on whether you violated the law. Case law states that when it is found that 2 people give equally credible evidence about the same thing and the evidence conflicts the judge must believe the person who is in the best position to know the facts. The prosecutor knows this and if you have a good recollection of events, they will try to poke holes in your testimony to diminish your credibility. (You can use the same trick on the officer on cross-examination) The officer will be testifying that the radar indicated to him you were speeding and based on that he ticketed you. Because of this people typically go after the the radar unit itself or how it was operated. If the officer is credible to the JP that the unit was in good working order and used properly and that the driver was identified as the speeder then, yes, it is not enough to say: "I was not speeding." In this case, you would have better luck trying to prove that that though the officer probably did clock someone speeding but that since you have been driving 40 years without getting a ticket and that traffic was heavy perhaps they may have identified the wrong car.
If you really didn't do it, your story will be full of idiosyncrasies that will tend to make you sound more credible than a police officer who is just trolling through their notes.
For those of you that did do it you may have to rely the technicalities of the process and home they come out in your favor.
Its a bit of a myth that an offence with no demerit points wont impact your insurance. A disobey sign charge under the Highway Traffic Act can increase your insurance rates the same as any other charge. There is NO requirement that it be a so called moving offence. Being convicted for an expired licence plate sticker is just as bad as running a red light when it comes to insurance providers. Demerit points are only of interest to the MTO. The only time a disobey sign charge might be overlooked is if you were charged under a local bylaw versus the HTA. Even then, some bylaw offences (like making prohibited turns) can still carry demerit points and appear on your driving abstract. While the OP might be offered a plea deal to a different HTA offence, dropping it to a bylaw is unlikely.
ShockDiamond wrote:
Disobey sign is a very generic offense for doing something other than what any road sign says. If it's a serious violation, running a red light or a stop sign, it can carry demerit points and is reported because it's a moving violation. Disobey sign could be cited for stopping in a no stopping area - it is not necessarily a moving violation and that is what this person should be looking for.
Its a bit of a myth that an offence with no demerit points wont impact your insurance. A disobey sign charge under the Highway Traffic Act can increase your insurance rates the same as any other charge. There is NO requirement that it be a so called moving offence. Being convicted for an expired licence plate sticker is just as bad as running a red light when it comes to insurance providers. Demerit points are only of interest to the MTO.
The only time a disobey sign charge might be overlooked is if you were charged under a local bylaw versus the HTA. Even then, some bylaw offences (like making prohibited turns) can still carry demerit points and appear on your driving abstract. While the OP might be offered a plea deal to a different HTA offence, dropping it to a bylaw is unlikely.
OP here. I have a plethora of traffic violations. My three-year record search shows an unsafe move in 2010 and a "no validation on plate" from 2011. More or less, I'm fighting this ticket because if I don't, I will be considered a high-risk driver. I accept that I may be charged the full 4demerits, $300 or so fine for doing 41 over. That's nothing compared to the addition $2500 a year I will have to pay for car insurance. If I don't TRY to beat it, I will FAIL. A chance of success is better than guaranteed failure. To the topic at-hand: 1) I first requested disclosure in March, and received it yesterday. With the trial less than a week away, and a notice of constitutional question already filed (minimum 15 days), is there a possibility I can still motion for a stay based on the grounds of unreasonably delayed disclosure? 2) The radar will have picked me up before the officer could have seen me. Can I use this to cast doubt on whether he first visually observed me speeding and then verified it with the radar? 3) I can't plea-bargain, due to insurance implications. I'm in this all-or-nothing. Is there anything else I can do to increase my chances of getting off? Is it too late to call a paralegal? Would they even help?
OP here.
I have a plethora of traffic violations. My three-year record search shows an unsafe move in 2010 and a "no validation on plate" from 2011.
More or less, I'm fighting this ticket because if I don't, I will be considered a high-risk driver. I accept that I may be charged the full 4demerits, $300 or so fine for doing 41 over. That's nothing compared to the addition $2500 a year I will have to pay for car insurance. If I don't TRY to beat it, I will FAIL. A chance of success is better than guaranteed failure.
To the topic at-hand:
1) I first requested disclosure in March, and received it yesterday. With the trial less than a week away, and a notice of constitutional question already filed (minimum 15 days), is there a possibility I can still motion for a stay based on the grounds of unreasonably delayed disclosure?
2) The radar will have picked me up before the officer could have seen me. Can I use this to cast doubt on whether he first visually observed me speeding and then verified it with the radar?
3) I can't plea-bargain, due to insurance implications. I'm in this all-or-nothing. Is there anything else I can do to increase my chances of getting off? Is it too late to call a paralegal? Would they even help?
I couldn't help but notice that in the notes, it states "Radar Trained: 2010-10-21". This falls outside the 3 year window for recertification. Is this the first date that the officer was trained, or do I have a case based on the fact that the officer has not been properly trained for use of the radar device?
I couldn't help but notice that in the notes, it states "Radar Trained: 2010-10-21".
This falls outside the 3 year window for recertification. Is this the first date that the officer was trained, or do I have a case based on the fact that the officer has not been properly trained for use of the radar device?
In addition, could someone he'll me produce training procedures for Oxford county police/ woodstock/ opp? I'm unsure who the cop belongs to. but if I'm going to challenge his training, he'll just day he's trained and that'll be that. I need something to show with regard to the two or three year recertification for radar
In addition, could someone he'll me produce training procedures for Oxford county police/ woodstock/ opp? I'm unsure who the cop belongs to. but if I'm going to challenge his training, he'll just day he's trained and that'll be that. I need something to show with regard to the two or three year recertification for radar
Was going to pint out that there is a 'R' code in the code box indicating that it was 'R'educed at the roadside and that the notes indicate a clocked speed of 141km/h but you got ticket for 120km/h and that it's possible the prosecutor would seek to amend the ticket up to the full speed. But I also see that your court date was last Thursday so how did it go?
Was going to pint out that there is a 'R' code in the code box indicating that it was 'R'educed at the roadside and that the notes indicate a clocked speed of 141km/h but you got ticket for 120km/h and that it's possible the prosecutor would seek to amend the ticket up to the full speed. But I also see that your court date was last Thursday so how did it go?
I followed the procedures mentioned in the previous threads regarding the disclosure and received it today. My court date is November 5 2009 in Whitby. After going through the notes I realized 2 things:
1- the notes are horribly illegible and difficult to read
2- I have notes from two different officers.
Now I am not sure if this means that both the officers will be at court for the hearing or…
I hope I can paint the picture with the accuracy that the truth deserves. I have no intention of just beating a ticket.. but more like beating a really unfair ticket. You decide!
I had entered Canada after a short trip downsouth through Detroit on my way to Toronto. Not being equipped with a GPS unit I had to rely on the printable poorman's version from Mapquest. I followed Huron Church Rd.,…
Need an expert advice here. 10 days ago I got a speeding ticket. Ticket has a fatal error on its face-offense not known to law. It says speeding 75km/hr in posted 60km/hr zone. What is the best way to proceed?
1. Should I completely ignore this ticket and let the JP to quash it?
2. Should I go with option 3 - request a trial and force the fatal error by not showing up at court?
My name is Brian. I am in my late 20s and live in Toronto. I do not own a car but half a dozen times a year I rent one with my Visa. (To get out of the city and go to a beach or ski for example.)
I have never drunk and drive but I face a problem and Im wondering if anyone can tell me what to do. Several months ago I was at a weekend party and had quit a bit to consume. When I stopped…
I was travelling east bound on ellesmere road and approached markham road attempting to make a right turn. All signal lights were red and cars traveling down markham road south were given the green arrow. I slowed down and attempted to make the right turn. I got ticketed by a cop who was parked in a gas station facing the intersection in a (no parking zone). I…
Crested a hill, officer coming at me, pulled a u turn and pulled me over.
I will go back and look again but I thought I was in an 80 not a 70 and I am positive I wasn't doing more than 120. My speedo read 110-115. I have aftermarket tires and rims so I assume this would be the difference.
It was around 7pm, already dark, nobody on the road but myself,…
I am looking for the case law that is commonly used when the prosecution says they only need to disclose the testing pages of a radar manual or laser manual.
I am only interested in the binding decisions (appeals court or higher?), and not in the non-binding Justice of the Peace decisions.
I was pulled over two nights ago and charged with failing to stop a stop sign. On the ticket, it says 'disobey stop sign - foil to stop' and does not say 'fail' -- something I think may be a fatal flaw? I have been driving for 12 years with no tickets, yet I live in Brampton where insurance prices are high so I do not want to be convicted as my insurance rates will spike significantly and…
A friend of mine (who is from China and with no knowledge of English at all) asked me to interpret for him on court.
He got pulled over by a stealth patrol car last october, got 3 tickets (fail to show insurance card, using cell phones and fail to stop on right for emergency vehicle) , court date is next week. He told me his insurance expired for less than a month and other charges are false…
I understand the severity of my offences, and I can't stress how much I regret it. I know I endangered the lives of myself and more importantly others. I usually do not speed and I know running late for work is an unacceptable excuse. I will be a man and accept the consequences of my actions although I would appreciate any advice for my situation.
Guys back in january i got a speeding ticket on dvp, but i am 90% sure he did not caught me on radar, i asked for disclosure request and i just received today, I have asked for: a full copy of the police officers notes, a copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket, witness will say statements, speed gun manual, calibration record, repair history and officer's training certificate but…
I need some help here. So today I was on my way to get my tires changed from my winter tires to my regular summer staggered set of tires. I was driving in mississauga on my way to my destination, I got pulled over by an officer where I was given a ticket for having improper mudguards. For some context, I drive a stock 2013 C63 AMG with winter tires at the time. I was never…
I'd like to start this off by saying for the last two weeks I have been browsing the forums. I'm trying to prepare myself for an early resolution meeting with a prosecutor (in Brampton, if that matters). I have a clean record and as a teacher, I always do my best to follow rules (trying to practice what I preach!)
On December 4, 2014 I was preparing to turn right at a very busy intersection.…
I have question, today I was going to work in my normal route there is a triangle intersection with my side being the only one with a stop sign.
There's a car in front me who stopped at the stop sign, and the third-side there's a incoming car with their hazard-light flashing but they don't have stop sign, yet coming in at a slow speed.
Right after the car in front me went through the stop sign,…
On my way to work this morning I received a ticket for disobey sign. I was on Hwy 10 Mississauga in the right lane. The right lane leads to the 401 and there is a sign saying Right Lane Exits. I Tried to merge left before the on ramp as did 3 other people. We all got a ticket for doing that. Is there anything I can do? I did not realize I was breaking any law it was a dotted line where I tried to…
This is my first post, before I jump right in I would like to thank the forum, members, posters and moderators for all the information posted. I feel like I have been able to learn a lot from others experiences, so thank you all.
This will be a lengthy post. But if you are dealing with a Disobey Sign HTA 182(2) - No Straight Through Intersection you may find this extremely…
Let me start this with saying that this isn't in regards to a ticket, more a discussion surrounding front license plates and learning about the rules behind them. (Most of the quote stuff is using colloquial terms, mostly because I couldn't really find a better way to describe it; it's not meant to be offensive.)
I know Ontario law/HTA mandates having a front license plate unlike some States in…
Hi Guys! I've just had my trial day yesterday. I was not at fault but was convicted anyways.
It is such a travesty! There is no justice at the traffic court. It is just a no mercy machine to part someone with his money, no common sense applies and no reasonable argument being considered. Such a shame! The justice, the policeman and the prosecutor ganged up against me. The justice kept interrupting…
Well first of all ... glad to have found the forum - hoping to find answers to 'alot' of questions
I was unfortunate in July 2010 in that I ended up rolling my 2009 Ranger three times, through a fence and landing on the roof on a rained-out road that was/is in need of proper repair in Eastern Ontario.
I was assisted out of the vehicle by the driver who was behind me.
I was traveling down the 401, noticed a speed trap, and started flashing my lights -- in order to warn oncoming drivers.
Within a 30 seconds, a car slowed, crossed the grass, and approached me from behind. Lights appeared, and I then realised that this was an officer in an undercover car.
The officer pulled me over, and while he was polite, clearly his motivation was to…
Does anyone know the specific law, statute, Charter right to refer to when a prosecutor or justice attempts to change the charge on a ticket after a trial has begun? I assume I'd object immediately (without interrupting anyone, of course) but what would be the specific legal basis of my objection?
I was right behind a school bus that looked like it was pulling over to the side in order to turn down a side street, I saw no lights so decided to go around (wide street). Was still moving as I was passing, then as I did pass I heard horn and looked back and in fact it was pulling over to p/u school kids (was a block away from my son's school, so just assumed it wouldn't be picking up kids...it…
