Do you think this is a good try?
Thanks for your feedback.
- Radar Identified
- Moderator
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
- Location: Toronto
BUT (a little more technical)... If the officer is, say, half a block from the intersection, he doesn't have a clear view of the intersection, so often the defendant can be found not guilty if the sign was obscured by something. In that case, the officer would have to be far enough away from the intersection that they could not have seen what might have obscured the sign for that defence to work. You'd have to ask the officer "did you have a clear view of what I was seeing when I approached the sign?" You'd then have to, more or less, show how the sign was obscured. If the officer wasn't in position to observe the actual offence occurring, you could take photographs looking from where the officer was sitting to where the offence occurred to show that he couldn't have observed you commit the offence. If he could not have seen the offence itself occur, that should be enough for dismissal. How far away was the cop?
There are other ways to beat the charge.
Couple of questions: What sign were you ticketed for disobeying? Have you requested disclosure yet?
"No right turn between 4pm and 6pm". If both officers sit in the car (parked behind a condo entrance, about 10 meters away from the intersection) writing ticket, how can they see which car made the right turn?Radar Identified wrote:The officer does not have to directly observe the sign itself at the exact moment of the offence. They do have to observe the offence. Example: Sometimes they'll sit around a corner where there is a "no right turn" or "no left turn" sign, or whatever, and nail anyone who makes the turn. That's enough to get a conviction, usually.
BUT (a little more technical)... If the officer is, say, half a block from the intersection, he doesn't have a clear view of the intersection, so often the defendant can be found not guilty if the sign was obscured by something. In that case, the officer would have to be far enough away from the intersection that they could not have seen what might have obscured the sign for that defence to work. You'd have to ask the officer "did you have a clear view of what I was seeing when I approached the sign?" You'd then have to, more or less, show how the sign was obscured. If the officer wasn't in position to observe the actual offence occurring, you could take photographs looking from where the officer was sitting to where the offence occurred to show that he couldn't have observed you commit the offence. If he could not have seen the offence itself occur, that should be enough for dismissal. How far away was the cop?
There are other ways to beat the charge.
Couple of questions: What sign were you ticketed for disobeying? Have you requested disclosure yet?
- Radar Identified
- Moderator
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
- Location: Toronto
However, was the sign bilingual? If it has English only on it (the 4-6 PM thing is key), the sign (depending on what part of the province you're in) might be invalid.
http://www.ticketcombat.com/step5/bilingual.php
There are a couple of other ways of fighting the charge, such as if you do not get proper disclosure, etc. Keep in mind that if it comes down to the officer's word (he saw the offence) versus yours (you don't think he could have), they'll accept his as being more credible, unless you have proof to the contrary. Also... do you know for sure that they did not have a "spotter" who was at the intersection and radioed to the officers who were pulling people over? Ottawa used to do this quite a bit for red-light offences.
I'd try another request, and specify "Typed Version of Officer's Notes".ohtat wrote:I received the disclosure form, however the handwritting is too hard to recoganize it. What should I do next? Much thanks.
Were there any other pieces of information missing from disclosure that you requested?
"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
Thanks.
Wow, this is almost 10 months after you received the infraction notice. You have a good chance to get it stayed if you can prove disclosure is improper, using 11B argument.
"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
I used the example form downloaded from TicketCombat website. Here is on the request list:
. a full copy of police officer's notes
. a copy of both sides of the officer's copy of the ticket
. a typed version of any hand written notes.
. witness will say statements and witness statements
. any statement made by defendant.
. copyies of the original notes of such statements and
. the name, address, occupation and criminal record of the persons providing such information.
Looks like they did not give me the "typed version of hand written notes". Can I use this to say that I did not receive all information I requested? If I want to apply a stay, what should I proceed next?
Much thanks.
Also, read THIS
"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
Thanks.
"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
-
- Jr. Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:27 am
- Location: kitchener
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Help us, Help You!
Hello, we notice you may be using an adblocker...