Charge: Speeding 139 km/h on Hwy407 EB on January 17, 2009 by OPP
Sent fax for disclosure on March12 asking for the following:
1. both sides of the officer's copy of the ticket;
2. the make, model, and serial number of the radar unit, and its owner's manual;
3. the officer's training record specific to the said radar unit;
4. the calibration record, service record and repair history of the said radar unit;
5. the records of any calibration equipment such as tuning forks;
6. the officer's notes and log on the alleged offence day, including all tickets he/he had written on that day,
and any document the Crown may rely on at trial.
Disclosure received on April 15:
officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s hand written notes
- notes from beginning of shift (5am) say that heÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s in a fully marked vehicle, clear/snow -18C
- cruiser check: ok, Alcotest:yes, Radar:yes / the rest is blocked out
- at 9am: shows stationary speed enforcement at hwy407 EB at Keele ramp
- hand held Radar Genesis VP Directional Decatur
- at 9:05am: tested radar ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€œ working properly ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€œ pass
- rest is blocked out until 10:58
- at 10:58am shows: observed m/v going at high rate of speed, confirmed with radar at 148 in lane1
- followed and stopped at bull nose of Bathurst
- was going to pickup his son from skiing lesson
- -charged speeding 139 km/h Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â® sec:128 HTA
- Vehicle: Huyn Son 2003 4D grey RO=NO then my licence plate number
- Rest of notes blocked out
note that the officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s notes do not show that he tested the radar AFTER the incident (he may have, but it does not appear in the notes disclosed to me).
Also received 2 pages of radar manual for Genesis Handheld Directional (GHD) which show details of testing the device
- note that this is not the radar he used (he used Genesis VP Directional)
End of Disclosure.
On April29, I faxed another disclosure request asking for the rest of the details that were not addressed in the first disclosure plus additional disclosure of the following:
1. ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“will sayÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â statement from the officer.
2. Any oral evidence to be presented by Crown witnesses that are not contained in the notes provided.
3. Copies of any written instructions/procedures/guidelines/policies held by any division of The Regional Municipality of York regarding the use of radar units
4. Copies of any written instructions/procedures/guidelines/policies held by any division of the Ontario Provincial Police regarding the use of radar units
and any other documents the Crown may rely on at trial.
I received nothing in response. On the day of the trial (May25), the following transpired:
Officer was present. Checked in with prosecution in the courtroom and told them I did not receive full disclosure, plus did not get response on 2nd disclosure request. Prosecutor said, yes they DID send letter that disclosure was ready for pickup on May13. I did not receive this, but he allowed me to quickly view the 2nd disclosure package. He also offered me a deal to reduce the charge to a 2pt demerit (failure to obey sign). I turned down the deal and proceeded with trial. I told the judge that I did not receive full disclosure. Prosecutor offered me to view the 2nd disclosure again and proceed. I refused as this was not enough time and because disclosure was still deficient. Judge adjourned the case. They tried to give me December date, I refused asking for speedy trial (hoping they would not be able to give me an earlier day). Prosecutor comes back from the court scheduler and surprisingly gives me an earlier day: June10 and hand delivers a copy of 2nd disclosure.
Next case is called (speeding charge with same police officer) and is VERY INTERESTING. Prosecutor calls same officer. Officer is asked about using notes to refresh memory. Judge asks defense if they have questions about officer using notes. Defence asks officer, ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“Do you have a independent recollection of the events of the day and this particular eventÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â. Officer says ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“NOÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â, this is why he needs his notes. Defence objects to officer using notes as he has no independent recollection of the events. Judge agrees. Prosecutor withdraws charges. (I WONDER IF I CAN SOMEHOW USE THIS WHEN I GO TO COURT??)
I reviewed 2nd disclosure package which contained
Front and back copy of ticket
Letter states, ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“We do not supply the radar manualÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“Officer training was in Orillia at OPP GHQ in August 2008
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“The unit has an internal testing procedure, so there is no calibration record. ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“There has been no service on that unitÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â.
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“This radar unit does not use calibration forks.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“We do not disclose the information in regard to the tickets he wrote that date. This is against the privacy of the other people that he may have charged that date.
There is also a document of typed notes that I assume are the officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s will say statement:
- observation of m/v travelling at a high rate of speed.
- m/v was in lane 1
- m/v was passing other vehicles (note that this was not in the officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s handwritten notes)
- confirmed speed with radar at 148
- hwy 407 EB at Keele St.
- driver on his way to way to pick up his son from skiing lesson and drive was in a hurry (note that I did not say I was in a hurry and the hurry part was not in the officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s notes)
- speed was reduced to 139
Statement that there is no other evidence (in reply to any other oral evidence by witnesses that are not contained in the officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s notes)
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“None that I know ofÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â (in response to procedure policies of York region)
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“The only guideline is that the speed measuring device must be used by a qualified operator of the equipmentÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â (in response to procedures, policies of OPP)
End of disclosure.
As I was at the court, I immediately filed my 3rd disclosure request and got a stamped copy. I write that I have still not received full disclosure of items requested in my 1st request of March12. I asked for:
1. ENTIRE ownerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s manual.
2. OfficerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s TRAINING RECORD and certification for operation of said radar unit. Stating the place of training is not sufficient. Copies and records are requested.
3. Calibration Record of Radar Unit, or Certificate of Accuracy, please provide copies
4. Copies of written instructions, procedures, guidelines, policies held by any division of York region or OPP regarding the use of radar units.
I receive phone call from prosecutorÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s office on May27 saying they will email me copy of radar manual to save me at trip to pick up. I agree and receive pdf copy of Genesis VP Directional UserÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s Manual (53 pages).
I replied to the email on the same day with the following (which constitutes my 4th disclosure request):
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“I confirm receipt of your email with the attached radar manual. However, Please confirm that I in fact received the entire manual from front to back. The attachment you sent has 53 pages. Does the original manual have 53 pages or are there more pages?
Also, my disclosure request is still incomplete. I still require the following for disclosure such that I may make a full answer and defense to the charge:
1. The officer's training record and certification related to use of radar units. May13 disclosure revealed that "training was in Orillia at OPP GHQ, in August 2008.". However no copies or records of training was disclosed as requested. This is required to assess the officer's qualification and training to operate radar units.
2. Calibration record of radar unit/certificate of accuracy for radar unit used. Please also indicate when this unit was purchased. This is required to assess that the radar unit was functioning properly and accurately during its use.
3. Copies of written instructions/procedures/guidelines/policies held by any division of the Regional Municipality of York or Ontario Provincial Police regarding the use of radar. One guideline was disclosed on May13, 2009 as "The only guideline is that the speed measuring device must be used by a qualified operator of the equipment". Obviously, guidelines, operating procedures, etc exist, but no copies or records have been disclosed. Please provide copies. This is required to assess if the officer followed guidelines, policies, and procedures mandated by the OPP and/or Regional Municipality of York.
I look forward to your response.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
end of email.
Prosecution clerk replies to me via email on May28 with this:
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“Yes, there are 53 pages in the original manual. You will find the answer to your other questions in the officer's reply. This can be found in the additional notes (May 13) which the prosecutor provided to you in court on May 25.
end of email.
I immediately reply back to them with this (which constitutes my 5th disclosure request)::
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“Thank you for your reply. However, the officer's reply in the additional notes (May13) do not answer my questions and do not satisfy disclosure. In my email earlier today, I outlined what I received from the May13 disclosure and why it was still deficient. I will paste it below for you convenience. If for any reason, you are not providing disclosure for any of the above items, please provide an explanation or reason for the non-disclosure.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
The reason I sent this email is because I am after the officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s training record (copies or records) and some kind of certificate attesting to the accuracy of the radar unit. I am also wanting policies, procedures or guidelines of York region or OPP. They did disclose in a written statement that ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“The only guideline is that the speed measuring device must be used by a qualified operator of the equipmentÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â So obviously they have policies, but they did not disclose copies of those policies or procedures. I believe the OPP MUST a have a policy, procedure, and or standard for the use of radar.
No response on my last email.
So this is where I stand on the disclosure front.
The question is, Do I have a case for charter stay of proceedings based on non-disclosure?
I have made 5 timely disclosure requests (3 ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“officialÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â by letters and in person, 2 by email). They have not disclosed officer training record or policies and procedures for use of radar in York region and/or OPP. They have also not disclosed proof of accuracy of the radar unit in terms of calibration records or certificates.
I believe case law is on my side for these 3 items. The basic principles of disclosure are covered by The Queen v. Stinchcombe, The Queen v. Egger, The Queen v. Chaplin, and The Queen v. Dixon.
In terms of training, qualification on radar use, D'Astous v. Baie-Comeau requires that ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“The operator was qualified: he followed a course, he passed an exam, he has several months' experienceÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â. Thus training record and certification on radar use is relevant.
In terms of obtaining policies, procedures, guidelines from York region and OPP, this is needed to determine if the officer followed those guidelines or polices/procedures during the enforcement action. The following case law is relevant:
R. v. Lorna bourget, 2007 NWTTC 13
http://www.canlii.org/en/nt/nttc/doc/20 ... ttc13.html
Here is a quote for the decision: ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“The third item requested is ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“Copies of any written instructions/guidelines/policies held by any division of the City of Yellowknife regarding the use of radar units by the City of Yellowknife Personnel.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â If such guidelines existed, they would in my view be relevant and ought to be disclosed. However, the prosecution has already previously advised Ms. Bourget that there are no policies or guidelines. The prosecution has already adequately responded to the request for the third item.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
R. v. Wheeler, 2007 CanLII 14854
http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlpc/doc/20 ... 14854.html
Here is a quote from that decision:
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“if the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary have operation standards which its officers are expected to follow when using a radar device, then these are sufficiently relevant to be disclosed. Therefore, the Crown is hereby ordered to determine if operational standards exist and if so, to disclose them to Mr. Wheeler no later than June 30, 2007. The fact that they might be in the possession of the police rather than the Crown is irrelevant (see R. v. Vokey reflex, (1992), 102 Nfld. P.E.I.R. 275 (N.L.C.A.)).ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
R. v. Robichaud, 2008 NSPC 51
http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nspc/doc/20 ... spc51.html
This recent judgment provides an excellent review of case law on disclosure specific to radar enforcement.
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“The applicant referred to the Crown brief where he said it indicates that Constable Dykstra performed the radar function test at the start of his shift in accordance with RCMP policy for radar operators. That policy should be disclosed, and that is ordered. In that regard, I refer again to the judgment in Wheeler where the Court says, in paragraph 28, part way through the paragraph, and I quote: ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“However, if the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary have operations standards which its officers are expected to follow when using a radar device then these are sufficiently relevant to be disclosed.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
So here is my plan of defence for my 2nd court date (June10). Please comment or provide advice on the following:
Ask for stay based on non disclosure (or at least adjournment and order for disclosure by judge). I have made 5 timely disclosure requests.
If that fails, then proceed with trialÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â¦.
DISQUALIFY OFFICERS NOTES
Attempt to disqualify officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s notes based on independent recollection. I will quiz the officers on events of that day and this particular charge. I will also bring up that the officer had already testified in another case (same offence day) that I witnessed that they did not have an independent recollection of that day and the events of that day.
- any advice on how to grill the officer to get the notes disqualified??
- If successful, I assume the prosecution would dismiss the charge
MOTION TO REMOVE OFFICER BASED ON QUALIFICATION AND TRAINING
Disclosure provides no evidence of officer training, qualification, or certification on use of radar. Can I have the officer removed based on this? What if they try to produce a certificate at the trial. Can I object and ask that the certificate be not admissible based on the fact that it was not disclosed?
TESTING OF RADAR BEFORE AND AFTER
OfficerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s notes that were disclosed only reveal that he tested the radar before enforcement. There is no evidence in the disclosure that he tested after the stop. I believe case law requires testing before and after an enforcement stop.
R v. Vancrey
D'Astous v. Baie-Comeau
R. v. Schlesinger, 2007 ONCJ 266
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj266.html
Here is a quote from that decisions :
Question 1) Is it necessary for a laser device to be tested by a police officer both before and after a speed enforcement stop?
In R v Vancrey 147 CCC (3d) 546, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) ruled on this issue. The OCA considered an earlier ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal in D'Astous v. Baie-Comeau (Ville) 1992 CanLII 2956 (QC C.A.), (1992), 74 C.C.C. (3d) 73.
In Vancrey, the court adopted from DÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢Astous that in order to provide an ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“evidentiary basis necessary for a conviction for speeding based on a radar readingÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â that ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“the Crown must still prove that the particular radar device used was operated accurately at the time.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
One of the tests established by the Quebec Court of Appeal to establish such proof was:
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“The device was tested before and after the operationÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â.
The OCA having accepted this ruling then continued at para 21:
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“The Crown seeks to uphold the conviction on the basis that there was led at trial prima facie evidence of the accuracy and reliability of the particular laser unit, consisting of the performance of the manufacturer's tests for good working order both before and after the use of the deviceÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
The court then held at para 22:
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“In my view, the position of the Crown is correct.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
Therefore, I find that it is necessary for a laser device to be tested by a police officer both before and after a speed enforcement stop.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
What if the prosecution and officer try to introduce evidence that he has in his notes that he tested the device sometime later in the day. Can I object as this was not disclosed and therefore inadmissible?
TESTING OF RADAR USING INTERNAL TESTS ONLY (WITHOUT TUNING FORKS)
Case law dictates testing of radar to prove that it was functioning properly during the enforcement.
I will try to argue that internal testing alone is not sufficient. An external test (i.e. tuning forks) should be required to prove the accuracy of the radar unit.
It is interesting however, that the brochure for this particular radar from the manufacturerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s website confirms that the unit is sold with 2 tuning forks. So it is strange that most officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s do not use them and they are not mentioned in the manual???? They must be used for something, otherwise, why are they included in the package. See here: http://www.decaturradar.com/uploads/fil ... -22-08.pdf
Further to this point, on the same website, there is a section for accessories. Again, there are tuning forks specifically for the Genesis VP Directional Radar.
http://www.decaturradar.com/accessories ... gory_id=13
TRACKING HISTORY DEFENSE
The radar manual goes into great detail about the ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“tracking historyÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â, specifically mentioning that if any element of the tracking history is left out, no enforcement can be taken.
I will grill the officer on the tracking history. First IÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢ll quiz his knowledge of it, so if he stumbles, then obviously the charge should be thrown out. One of the key elements of the tracking history is an estimation of speed before using the radar to confirm. There was no mention of tracking history or an estimation of speed in the officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s notes disclosure. Nor was there mention of the audible tone in the notes (another requirement of tracking history).
This is supported by the following case law:
R. v. Hawkins, 2009
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj101.html
VEHICLE IGNITION INTERFERENCE
The radar manual specifically mentions this saying, ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“some vehicles exhibit excessive alternator noise at the lighter receptacle. In these rare cases, the radar can exhibit erratic readings, especially when the electrical system is operated under heavy load. Wiring an accessory outlet directly to the battery minimizes the effect.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â
Maybe I can use this to cast more reasonable doubt. Hopefully the officer plugged it into the receptacle and wasnÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢t using the battery instead.
ATMOSPHERIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
In the back of the radar manual, there is a summary of case law regarding radar enforcement. One of the cases, R. vs. Joudrey (1992, Nova Scotia Prov Court), the defense referenced a textbook called ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“The Law on Speeding and Radar. The defense questioned the officer on specific passages stating that certain atmospheric and environmental conditions could give spurious readings. The court took judicial notice of the passages and the accused was acquitted.
I have yet to go to the library to find this book and copy those passages. Again, I will try to cast more reasonable doubt and maybe get the same outcome. It would help if I had the text of the decision, but CanLII does not have this in its database. I called the Nova Scotia court, and they said the decision is to old to be in its archives. Anyone have knowledge of this case or advice on how to play this?
General Question: If I refer to case law, do I need to bring a copy with me to court?
Well, thanks for reading this textbook of a case. It took forever to get all this down, hopefully it will help others in the future. Again, any feedback, suggestions, or help of any kind would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance...
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... cj217.html
I have more but i'll post tomorrow.
Oh, and that R. V Schlisinger is good too.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
Yes, you need to provide copies of case law to the justice and the Crown. You will need to kill a small forest.
You have an excellent case for a stay based on non disclosure but you are out of time for a stay application (should be at least 20 days in advance) but make the application NOW anyway. At worse they can adjourn to allow you to give sufficient notice.
Fight Your Ticket!
ticketcombat knows the most of any of us so I'd follow his advice. Make that stay application first thing tomorrow morning! If the JP is particularly sympathetic he might quash the proceedings right away as opposed to giving an adjournment.
As for the trial... looks like you've pretty much got all the bases covered. If the officer does not show, have a little narrative written down so you can stop them from attempting to move the trial date and get the JP to stay it. If the officer does show, try the "independent recollection" trick and see if it works. I like that one.
When the trial begins, if it gets that far, you'll have a chance to blow this one out of the water. When the Prosecutor sees your monstrous stack of paperwork, watch him react like this: Present all of your avenues in questioning the officer: Tracking history, "after" test on the radar device, is he aware of the possibility of ignition interference, and everything else. Present the internal test information that we've discussed, and most importantly, ticketcombat's point about the fact that AT NO POINT does the manual say that the tests verify that the device is accurate! If the manufacturer does not specifically and categorically state that the tests verify its accuracy, how can the court accept the tests as proof? Specifically, how can the court presume to place an assumption of accuracy and integrity upon the device based upon the use of the "test" button when the manufacturer won't even make such a claim? No one present in the courtroom could possibly have the expertise of the people who made the device. As such, the standard for proof that the device was accurate has not been met and therefore it cannot be considered reliable. You already mentioned a case where the tuning fork was needed. Anyone else have any feedback on that approach? That's what I'd do - hopefully it helps.
EDIT: Would also like to mention that since the test procedure has not been claimed by the manufacturer to prove it is working properly, that leaves other avenues to prove its accuracy, like tuning forks. Wait, the OPP doesn't use them. Then there's possible calibration and servicing. Oh sorry, they didn't do that either, not to the device in question! NOTHING was done to prove the device was accurate.
I'd like to echo what ticketcombat mentioned, as well. I hope that you stick around and help others. Your background work was quite impressive. Too bad I'm working on June 10 - would've liked to have seen the court case unfold. Good luck with it!
You probably already aware that in other cases the JP did accept officerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s statements that he was trained at place in the month/year (without proof of certificate) or the ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“usual practiceÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â of testing the device before and after the stop (without written note) as accepted evidences providing that the officer sounded as a credible witness on the stand.
So it may be a good idea to shake him up on the stand first with technical questions and faulty memory recollections to make him look not-credible then deliver the knock-out punch like no proof of test after the traffic stop.
As for the calibration, the tuning fork may not need it (as they said), but the radar device need to be periodicly calibrated and a sticker affixed to the unit with the next calibration date on it.
So ask him on the witness stand if there was a sticker on it (where was it on the unit?) and what was the calibration date (if he ever checked it?). No sticker, no next calibration date, itÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s reasonable doubt about the reliability and accuracy of the radar or violation of maintenance procedure.
Good luck and thanks again
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com
Disqualify the officer?
I don't think so, you can try to have the charge dropped wording it carefully that due to a lack of training, or no proper certification approved by the company and or the OPP, justifies that this officer is not properly trained to use the specific radar device.
If this fails i would complain there is no evidence the officer was trained to use that specific radar unit. If the certificate mentions the Genesis II (in car one, or lets say a hand held lidar unit complain.)
Now this is where I think you have got this one.
Not only can you complain about the officer's training.
NOw this is a 2 step part.
This is the part where you mention the design, construction, of the 407. Not only this is going to tie in with the fact that radar, is not vehicle specific.
You need to ask the officer, how was he sure it was your vehicle.
And if the officer does not have a clear collection or memory of the events that happened that day.
I would raise this up because takea look at the 407 by keele. go on google maps.
The officer already stated he was in fact stationary, and located near an on ramp.
Okay there is no centre median!!
How can he be sure it was your vehicle and not the other one on coming?
With no centre median if he was aiming your car front words how can he not be sure he got the rear of another guy's car in the fast lane or the opposite way is how can he be sure if he shot your rear or the oncoming traffic in the passing lane.
Here is a picture from google maps of where you were caught.
I will take a picture and then also include some scenarios.
I also took a look at the gun from the manual. This gun is very cheap. There is no cross hairs, or no way to ensure he can be sure this was the vehicle he had hit. Especially with no concrete in the middle he could easily be getting readings from cars comming the opposite direction.
I would drive back to the scene of the ticket and take detailed pictures, label them and bring them into court. Ask the officer where he was doing the enforcement here. Maybee he will say i was here then you can mention there is no way for him to be sure it was your vehicle?
Did he pace you after to confirm this reading or just take the fastest reading and cause you were in the fast lane take it?
You also said it was -18 outside at the time and snow.
With snow how was he to know he wasnt getting readings of vehicles oncomming?
If there was snow he would have had reduced visibile, along with radar not being vehicle specific, and no concrete in the middle to stop him from reading cars travelling in the opposite direction!!!
Okay here is my 2 pictures.
The first one is just an overview of that overpass at 407 & Keele st.
The next one is what i am talking about.
With no concrete median, and only using a hand held RADAR device how was he to be sure he was getting a reading of 148, on your vehicle???
Bear is going to kill me. But i wonder. with 3 lanes and no median, with snow, what is to say he wasnt reading another vehicle.
I illustrated this in my second photograph in witch he could easily be getting someone else.
Mind you if you made a mistake and he was using a lidar device, this defense would be totaly toast!
As with lidar there is cross hairs and they target a specific individual. This kind of enforcement though in this situation i would question.
Also as far as training goes.Ask the officer or try to say that in this situation would not a lidar gun be a better tool to measure speed and ensure the correct vehicle?
The big question here i would pose is not the speed he recorded, but how he knew it was your vehicle at the time, and try to mix this in with how he was trained, or whether his training was valid.
Especially here on the 407 with all those cars whizzing by in packs with no median, and using a hand held K band radar. I would question that.
Make sure you talk about the design of the road, (snow if any), and the way in which radar works that can not ensure a specific vehicle. I would bring in pictures like this.
but what i am trying to show is that with nothing in the middle what is there to not say he read someone else oncoming.
The green X's are cars and the red would be his location.
With this device, and being so far back with how wide the 407 is on an on ramp i still am not 100 % sure how he can be sure it was your vehicle.
It is a directional specific radar, thus eliminating another direction.tdrive2 wrote: but what i am trying to show is that with nothing in the middle what is there to not say he read someone else oncoming.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
There is no button to select the direction.
I have seen a demo of an in car unit it might have been an Eagle or a Genesis 2 but the officer has a bunch of buttons to select mode's and the antenna he wishes to use.
How would this kind of hand held (seems basic) device do that?
What i was trying to say is that targeting cars (travelling away from officer) in the fast lane he could have easily read a car in the other fast lane (coming towards him) because they're is nothing in the middle?
Are you telling me this specific radar has some kind of mode that can only clock cars in one direction (coming towards officer, or going away from officer)
This one does not seem to have some button or controls.
However i was aware the units that are "fixed" in the car do have this option and have multiple antenna's and modes.
Do these guns have a moving mode like the decatur genesis 2 does where you can get a reading while driving, from front antenna or rear?
I wonder why the officer didnt use lidar here.
Neo333 hasnt responded but ill assume the reason he used radar is cause he was clocking cars going away from him (radar shooting at rear bumper)
yestdrive2 wrote: Are you telling me this specific radar has some kind of mode that can only clock cars in one direction (coming towards officer, or going away from officer)
Lidar can also be used on vehicles going away...FYI.Neo333 hasnt responded but ill assume the reason he used radar is cause he was clocking cars going away from him (radar shooting at rear bumper)
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I can't imagine trying to drive at 130 chasing someone down trying to look through cross hairs to aim that thing from far back.
Bear question for you, usually in the GTA region when you see an officer parked on the side of a highway(shoulder) or under an overpass off a highway and lets say he is doing speed enforcement?
My guess would be using something like Decatur GENESIS 2? with the front antenna?
Now in all honesty it would be better to catch speeders using the rear antenna.
I am not gonna try to seem all "cool" here but when an officer is parked under an overpass or on the shoulder and he is using radar at the rear of your car it is not very hard to see at all.
The problem i guess is safety. How can you face the traffic? then you have to cut in into the right lane from 0 when everyone else is 100 + = dangerous?
I have seen some officer's in really dangerous places to do paper work, or doing speed enforcement.
Ill be honest though lidar is by far the scariest.
The worst is late at night randomly on the shoulder in an undercover on the shoulder or behind shrubs Using lidar on the front of your car! You have almost no chance to see them!
Anyways back to what i was asking.
In a place like Toronto on 401 or407 would you sit at the side with your car parked the same direction as traffic using your rear antenna?
The problem i see here is sometimes those cars in the left lane are so close to each other all speeding how will you know who is the fastest?
I am sure all this is different in more rural places like chatam, but in GTA its so packed, so many cars all speeding, concrete middle, small shoulders, drivers who wont move over, and roads already with to much volume how do they do it?
The biggest concern i have is lets say you are an officer doing speed enforcement, you have a pile of cars in the left lane all speeding less say 125-140 they are all very close (maybee 1-3 car lengths) and your using a unit that has mode to get the fastest speed? Who do you pull over?
With so many cars whizzing buy it must be pretty tough to tell who exactly, at that specific time your device got the reading, who the fastest one is.
I just asked cause in GTA area with all the volume it is not unsual to get packs of cars that will travel in large groups, very close going very fast.
Usually parallel to the road (3 lane express way GTA region)
One time i saw it on the 401 around Mavis rd.
Honestly i don't know what that cop was doing but he was in a really dangerous position.
I happened to be getting off there and slammed on my breaks and freaked out as i was driving this vehicle appeared out of no where in the middle of the night.
He was in an unmarked, black, crown vic, with everything off using a lidar gun on shoulder aiming for cars in the middle of the night.
Sure great way to catch speeders, but what if a tractor trailer blew a tire and had to pull over.
Not only that he was parallel to the road.
From 0 km/hr he has to cut into the right lane and accelerate to get someone.
A while ago just along that stretch now now complaining here, but the guy was in a Tahoe off the 407 off ramp that enters to 401 east near Winston church hill.
This is a high speed zone where to big highways come into one and he is right where they join facing the direction of traffic doing speed enforcement.
What if someone came down that 407 ramp freaked out and skidded into him?
If you wanted to do speed enforcement they're could be so many better ways to catch them sneakily in safer places.
If they really wanted to get them that bad they could sit on the 400 in the bushes on the side of the road hiding under blankets with a laser gun and radio officer's a few km's up.
I mean i understand they are there for safety but sometimes i see cops do things that are not safe!
If i had to pull over on that piece of highway i could have not picked a more dangerous place to pull over right on the ramp where 2 big 400 series highways merge into one on a fast section of the 401.
Not to rant about th elimit today but heres a funny story.
Traffic about 130 as usual so anyways its all going fine then all of a sudden the whole road stops. For some reason a traffic jam is brewing.
So i just figured it was someone who was plugging the left lane. Anyways i went into the right lane and saw something AHHHHH!!!! An OPP cruiser in the left lane must have been going about 110. Mind you this is on a section of the 401 where the flow of traffic is a lot faster then this. So the officer looks behind him, he sees a traffic jam brewing. Not a single person would pass him. He just happened to be going to his next destination. So the officer doing what i would have done or any other polite person does. He speeds up and moves to the right to allow traffic to flow. But here's the problem hes braking the law. So he goes 120 and everyone still paces him. He eventually gives up and gets up to just about 130 then there was not such a huge traffic jam behind him.
Again if a cop driving 115-120 is causing a mini traffic jam of cars behind him on the highway do i have to ask again why the limit is 100?
He speed up to just a notch under 130 and things started to improve again, but still if i or anyone else on this forum did this we could be in big *EDIT*, big fines, 3 points, and a massive insurance increase.