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?
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
