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 got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
