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 lost my license in an accident i had to due my exceeding amount of demerit points. i went to jail and made bail i was put on a curfew of 9am to 9pm stupidly enough i did not follow and i got pulled over for driving with a different cars license plates, no insurance, and violating my curfew... i…
I was charged for disobey sign (no left turn) in a winter noon time around Bay/Edward (the prosecutor/judge said it to be a Absolute liability offences but disobey sign is actually a strict liability offence, right? And I found this: For example, if you made an illegal left-turn where there were…
so got fined with 69km in a 50km, at bottom of hill...didn't even have foot on the gas. first ticket ever in over 10 years of driving. fine was 62$ and 3 points.
cop says take to court and get demerit points reduced. didn't even let me speak and walks away.
On my way to work today I got a 110 dollar ticket + 2 demerit points.
I was driving north on Bathurst and turned left onto a side street into a residential area before hitting the lights at Eglinton and Bathurst. I normally do this to avoid the big line up to turn left onto Eglinton.
On the 400 extension EB towards Barrie cops like to hide out under an over pass that is Ski Trails Rd. They tag people as the come over the crest of the hill and that is 900m from where this officer was standing.
I'm confused because I knew this, saw the cop, and checked my…
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…
Today i got caught doing 115 in a 90 at Mayfield and 410 and what I have been reading is that this offence is 3 points. Seeing this is my first offence I'm unsure if the ticket is supposed to I lost 3 points or is that just automatic. Also should I go to fight it to drop the points and just pay the…
I was (recently) involved in a traffic accident where, due to icy road conditions, I slid into oncoming traffic while making a right turn, while they were coming towards me and stopping at a stop sign. This was a residential area and there's no way I was exceeding anything over 20KM/h on…
