I recieved two tickets this evening
"Driver fail to surrender licence" -sect 33(1)
"Speeding 140km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone" -sect 128
The tickets come up to $405.00 (#1 $110.00, #2 $295.00), Now, I'm unemployed at the momment and litterally have no way to legaly come up with the money to pay these tickets, so I'd really like to fight them and hope he screwed up or doesn't show up to court, or at the very least push back the date at which I need to pay until I have a job.
I was driving along the QEW between Niagara and Fort Erie, my exit was coming up so I sped up a little to get ahead of the line of cars in the right lane. Behind that line of cars was a cop on the side of the road, he pulled me over.
The thing is, the officer was really railing into me for stunt driving. He said he had radar evidence that I was going over 150 km/hr, while I wasn't staring at the odometre the whole time, I never saw it higher than ~140, and I do keep an eye on it very regularily when passing people, and especially when there is a suspiscous black vehicle on the side of the highway. I was only going about 10 km/h faster than everyone else whom I was trying to pass, and these people were in almost a solid line between me and the shoulder for the whole stretch he could have clocked me.
He threatened me with roadside seizure, licence revocation, $2500+ fine, and a whole bunch of other stuff, he even made my mother cry when he called her to varify my identity. He was kind of... unpleasant, really milking the whole thing, I felt like i'd killed someone the way he was giving it to me, he had me scared half to death. Looking back on it I wonder if he wasn't just messing with me in some attempt to scare me straight or something, because I'm really about as certain as I could reasonably be I wasn't going that fast, nor was I driving unsafely under the circumstances. Or perhaps he was just attempting to scare me into accepting the ticket and not fighting it? I really don't have any experience with police, so I don't know but the reason I bring that up is... If I do try and do anything other than plea guilty, can they try and throw any of this back at me? I'm afraid that if I do try and delay or fight it they might pin the stunt driving thing on me. Paying them right now is litterally not an option for me, for at least 3 weeks assuming I miraculously land a job tomorrow.
I'm not even sure how I would fight it, since I certainly did not have my liscence on me, and was certainly going 135-140, I'd be lieing if I said that wasn't true. I checked everything on the tickets and they seem to be filled out correctly.
Am I just totally screwed here or what? Anyone have any advice?
If you are not going to dispute your guilt you can ask to meet with a prosecutor and ask for lower charges in exchange for pleading guilty to one of the charges. If they don't come up with something you are happy with you can elect to go to trial at a future date.
Most JP's will grant you as much time as you need to pay the fine, if you explain your dire financial situation they will reduce the fine to something you can realistically afford.
It's kind of unfair if charges which I would refute as untrue would keep me from having the same chance at reducing my actual charges as anybody else, which is why I'm asking if that has any bearing on any of this or have they forfeited that whole claim at the scene.
If your charge has been reduced from 50+, I wouldn't count on catching anymore breaks.
If you go all the way to trial, you will see your charges amended your real speed. Probably something you'd want to avoid in your case.
Out of curiosity though, what's to stop all officers from just exagerating charges, then knocking them down at the scene to blackmail people into going straight for the plea of guilt?
1) Courts----we don't live in a corrupt country; every case can be tested before an impartial court;Abraxis wrote:Out of curiosity though, what's to stop all officers from just exagerating charges, then knocking them down at the scene to blackmail people into going straight for the plea of guilt?
2) Legal professionals---they are trained to bring to surface any deficiencies in your charge so as to test the evidence;
3) Officers have no vested interest in your case---believe what you will but officers make no money off of any fines you pay;
4) Risk of termination/charges---why would an officer risk losing their livelihood by 'blackmailing' people to pay fines that they won't benefit from in any event---there's no incentive; and finally (as Decatur stated)...
5) Integrity----most officers respect their role and function and would not want to tarnish themselves or the profession with such stupid actions. They are proud to lead by example.
Of course, I've also never met someone who is driving doubly suspended and ever freely accepts the blame---its always someone else's fault. Your comments don't surprise me in the least! Thankfully, we have honest officers who are able to swim through the BS and will charge people like you accordingly! I especially love it when someone on 2 probation orders is charged for multiple breaches on just 1 act! I guess you'll soon learn your lesson on the concept of multiplicity.
I think I'll go in and ask to for a meeting with the prosecutor to discuss payment options, and if the oportunity presents itself, obtain disclosure of the evidence. After speaking with my mother, apparently he litterally said he intends to press the stunt driving charge if I try and fight it. So without any evidence of my own either way, that seems out of the question.
Thanks again everyone.
In my situation, I stand to lose a whole lot more from seeing this to court than I stand to gain. Simply exercizing your right to a court hearing should never, ever have such negative reinforcement attached to it. If you get charged, try to deffend yourself and fail, you should be in the same situation as when you started with the charges. You should not face more charges for choosing to push your deffense. I have been heavily disencentivised from deffending myself in court here. How is that any better than a corrupt system in which I couldn't have a court deffense?highwaystar wrote:1) Courts----we don't live in a corrupt country; every case can be tested before an impartial court;
I can't afford my ticket, I certainly can't afford a legal professional. I imagine it may be in my right to have one appointed to me for free. If I thought I could afford cosultation with layers instead of asking a forum, I would have. Whatever the case, let's say I got a lawyer, see #1highwaystar wrote:2) Legal professionals---they are trained to bring to surface any deficiencies in your charge so as to test the evidence;
Whether they get paid is irrelevent. Officers, as with any other job have their performance evaluated. The duty of a traffic officer is to issue tickets for violations. If he's not issueing tickets, he might as well have spent his day in time hortons reading a book. This reflects poorly. Whether it's career advancement, respect among his peers, self-importance, whatever, getting tickets is unquestionably better than not getting tickets.highwaystar wrote:3) Officers have no vested interest in your case---believe what you will but officers make no money off of any fines you pay
My car is ungoverned and I do not have any sort of legally recognized monitering device affixed to my odometer, who does?. How could I, or anyone for that matter, possibly have the necessary evidence to make this a risk for a cop choosing to do this? As for incentive, see #3highwaystar wrote:4) Risk of termination/charges---why would an officer risk losing their livelihood by 'blackmailing' people to pay fines that they won't benefit from in any event---there's no incentive
That's admirable, and I'm sure many cops think that way. I have met some that seemed to act that way, and I know another personally whom holds himself to those standards. But at the end of the day, they're people. Not everyone is the same, and not all cops have the same respect for integrity, it's so naive of you to imply all of them would. They're people in a uniform, just as imperfect as everyone else.highwaystar wrote:5) Integrity----most officers respect their role and function and would not want to tarnish themselves or the profession with such stupid actions. They are proud to lead by example.
As for this specific cop, he's put me in a position where I can't reasonably deffend myself. Whether he is a man of integrity or not, that is at least enough to warrant some suspicion on my part. I find it hard to believe any reasonable person would disagree with that. Nobody should ever have to worry about harm coming from simply analyzing their deffensive options. On forums or in life.
If he already knocked it down for you on the side of the road say from "stunting" you do run the risk of having the ticket brought back up to the original charge. However if you feel like you have a strong case for whatever reason to have the ticket thrown out then go for it.
Request a trail, see the discloser, talk to the prosecution (early resolution meeting) if you want to see if you can get it knocked down further and go from there. You can pay your knocked down ticket up until your trial.
1) You were driving while 'DOUBLY' suspended;
2) BUT, not just driving ---instead you're going at LEAST 40 over (i.e. a great way not to draw attention to yourself!);
3) PLUS, you're doing all of this with your own MOM in the car!
And, now, you've actually got the nerve to be questioning the integrity of the officer!!!! Are you serious??? How 'bout you look in the mirror or look at your mom (for even letting you do these things in her presence).
Count yourself lucky the officer only threatened you with 'stunt driving' (a perfectly valid charge if you were going over 50)----because a 'bad' cop would have found a way to beat your sorry a$$ down and haul you to jail! Be grateful you live in Canada!
2) Mom wasn't in the car. The officer called her.
Thanks for your reply Decatur---I just realized I've been posting in the wrong thread! My previous comments were geared to another Op------I merged the threads in my mind! Oddly enough, my comments wouldn't have made sense on the other thread either! Now, if only I could merge the 2 lobes of my brain to work together!Decatur wrote:1) I don't see anything in the OP to indicate the driver is suspended.
2) Mom wasn't in the car. The officer called her.
My apologies to everyone, and especially to THIS Op.