Hi folks. Few days ago the police put me a ticket for Disobeying a Stop Sign 136 (1) (a) in Thornhill Woods. I'm quite sure I did stop but the police told me they have me recorded. So i requested the disclosure and I got their notes and a video. There are a couple of inconsistencies here: 1) The notes indicate: In Car Camera Footage of Offense Captured (Yes) 2) The video provided with the disclosure just shows when they stopped me 2 blocks away... and actually I can hear the office saying they have a video of the offense. 3) Notes indicate: Number of Occupants (1). However there were 3 persons in the car. 4) Looking at the video, you can easily determine there were at least 2 people in the car as you can see the heads moving. A couple of questions for you guys: 1) How should I proceed with the video that was not provided and that according to the notes do exist? Should I ask for the disclosure again? 2) Can I say that to the JP that, if the police were unable to notice there were 3 occupants... then how can they assure from 30m that my rims did not stop? 3) If the video of the offence does not exist? Can I say the cop is lying when tells me they have a recording? If they are lying with that, how can I be sure they are not lying with the offense? Thank you very much and happy holidays for everyone.
Hi folks.
Few days ago the police put me a ticket for Disobeying a Stop Sign 136 (1) (a) in Thornhill Woods.
I'm quite sure I did stop but the police told me they have me recorded.
So i requested the disclosure and I got their notes and a video.
There are a couple of inconsistencies here:
1) The notes indicate: In Car Camera Footage of Offense Captured (Yes)
2) The video provided with the disclosure just shows when they stopped me 2 blocks away... and actually I can hear the office saying they have a video of the offense.
3) Notes indicate: Number of Occupants (1). However there were 3 persons in the car.
4) Looking at the video, you can easily determine there were at least 2 people in the car as you can see the heads moving.
A couple of questions for you guys:
1) How should I proceed with the video that was not provided and that according to the notes do exist? Should I ask for the disclosure again?
2) Can I say that to the JP that, if the police were unable to notice there were 3 occupants... then how can they assure from 30m that my rims did not stop?
3) If the video of the offence does not exist? Can I say the cop is lying when tells me they have a recording? If they are lying with that, how can I be sure they are not lying with the offense?
Thank you very much and happy holidays for everyone.
I would make another request and specifically for the video of the offense itself as the officer even admits that there is video of it. You can ask the officer how many occupants (1 per notes) and then point out there are three heads in the video. This will not win the ticket for you, but just as a very little bit of weight against the officer. On its own it is not enough. But your question would be good... "So you say you saw 1 occupant in the vehicle from less than 10 meters away, but clearly there are 3. So is it possible that your observation of the rims not stopping, viewed from 30 meters away, is also inaccurate?"
I would make another request and specifically for the video of the offense itself as the officer even admits that there is video of it.
You can ask the officer how many occupants (1 per notes) and then point out there are three heads in the video. This will not win the ticket for you, but just as a very little bit of weight against the officer. On its own it is not enough. But your question would be good... "So you say you saw 1 occupant in the vehicle from less than 10 meters away, but clearly there are 3. So is it possible that your observation of the rims not stopping, viewed from 30 meters away, is also inaccurate?"
As Jeff suggested, contact the prosecutor's office in writing again and ask for clarification as to whether there is video of you committing the act itself---not after the fact. If there's no additional video, then use what you have to discredit the officer. After all, if the officer's notes say there was only 1 person in the car, but the video shows more than that it will clearly call in to question his observations of whether you stopped or not. After all, he would have been up close to your vehicle and spoken to you to give you the ticket. So, how can he make such a big mistake as to the number of occupants when he is right up to you, but be believed that you stopped from a much greater distance! Plus, if the video DOES have audio of him saying he got you on video not stopping, then it once again, will challenge his credibility since you'll have the reply from the prosecutor's office saying there isn't any such additional video. It just makes the officer seem less credible. Bottom line: it doesn't mean your case is a slam dunk necessarily, but it certainly WILL challenge the officer's credibility and potentially be enough to create reasonable doubt.
As Jeff suggested, contact the prosecutor's office in writing again and ask for clarification as to whether there is video of you committing the act itself---not after the fact. If there's no additional video, then use what you have to discredit the officer. After all, if the officer's notes say there was only 1 person in the car, but the video shows more than that it will clearly call in to question his observations of whether you stopped or not. After all, he would have been up close to your vehicle and spoken to you to give you the ticket. So, how can he make such a big mistake as to the number of occupants when he is right up to you, but be believed that you stopped from a much greater distance!
Plus, if the video DOES have audio of him saying he got you on video not stopping, then it once again, will challenge his credibility since you'll have the reply from the prosecutor's office saying there isn't any such additional video. It just makes the officer seem less credible.
Bottom line: it doesn't mean your case is a slam dunk necessarily, but it certainly WILL challenge the officer's credibility and potentially be enough to create reasonable doubt.
And if you have never been to court before, you might want to read this thread http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7039.html so you understand what we mean by cross-examination and a little how to do it.
I got a ticket this morning while driving my sons to school. The officer said I only slowed down but didn't stop at the intersection. However I did stop because the intersection is a block from the school and there was a crossing guard there to help the students cross the road. The crossing guard at the time was helping some students crossing the road along the direction I was going. I also saw the officer parked on my right at the intersection. I came to a complete stop and it was clear for me to proceed. At that time no other car at the intersection and no one crossing the road in front of me. Then the officer came after me. My oldest son age 10 told me that he saw me stopped at the intersection. Can I use my son as a witness when I dispute the charge? Will the judge take my son as a credible witness?
I got a ticket this morning while driving my sons to school. The officer said I only slowed down but didn't stop at the intersection. However I did stop because the intersection is a block from the school and there was a crossing guard there to help the students cross the road. The crossing guard at the time was helping some students crossing the road along the direction I was going. I also saw the officer parked on my right at the intersection. I came to a complete stop and it was clear for me to proceed. At that time no other car at the intersection and no one crossing the road in front of me. Then the officer came after me. My oldest son age 10 told me that he saw me stopped at the intersection. Can I use my son as a witness when I dispute the charge? Will the judge take my son as a credible witness?
From the Ontario Evidence Act https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e23 Presumption of competency 18. (1) A person of any age is presumed to be competent to give evidence. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Challenge, examination (2) When a persons competence is challenged, the judge, justice or other presiding officer shall examine the person. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Exception (3) However, if the judge, justice or other presiding officer is of the opinion that the persons ability to give evidence might be adversely affected if he or she examined the person, the person may be examined by counsel instead. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Evidence of witness under 14 18.1 (1) When the competence of a proposed witness who is a person under the age of 14 is challenged, the court may admit the persons evidence if the person is able to communicate the evidence, understands the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation and testifies under oath or solemn affirmation. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Same (2) The court may admit the persons evidence, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even though the person does not understand the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation, if the person understands what it means to tell the truth and promises to tell the truth. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Further discretion (3) If the court is of the opinion that the persons evidence is sufficiently reliable, the court has discretion to admit it, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even if the person understands neither the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation nor what it means to tell the truth.
18. (1) A person of any age is presumed to be competent to give evidence. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Challenge, examination
(2) When a persons competence is challenged, the judge, justice or other presiding officer shall examine the person. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Exception
(3) However, if the judge, justice or other presiding officer is of the opinion that the persons ability to give evidence might be adversely affected if he or she examined the person, the person may be examined by counsel instead. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Evidence of witness under 14
18.1 (1) When the competence of a proposed witness who is a person under the age of 14 is challenged, the court may admit the persons evidence if the person is able to communicate the evidence, understands the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation and testifies under oath or solemn affirmation. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Same
(2) The court may admit the persons evidence, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even though the person does not understand the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation, if the person understands what it means to tell the truth and promises to tell the truth. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Further discretion
(3) If the court is of the opinion that the persons evidence is sufficiently reliable, the court has discretion to admit it, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even if the person understands neither the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation nor what it means to tell the truth.
I requested the evidence showing the offense and they simply told me that what I got is what they have. One of the prosecutors there heard my conversation and came to make a deal. He checked the videos and he says there is nothing else... and offered to reduce one demerit point... thing that I completely rejected because I consider I am not guilty. All this was verbal as I was not allowed to request the evidence again. How should I proceed? Should I sent a formal letter requesting the video again? Or having a video of the police office saying to me that he verified the video of the offense should be enough to disqualify him? Thanks.
I requested the evidence showing the offense and they simply told me that what I got is what they have. One of the prosecutors there heard my conversation and came to make a deal. He checked the videos and he says there is nothing else... and offered to reduce one demerit point... thing that I completely rejected because I consider I am not guilty.
All this was verbal as I was not allowed to request the evidence again.
How should I proceed? Should I sent a formal letter requesting the video again?
Or having a video of the police office saying to me that he verified the video of the offense should be enough to disqualify him?
Always ask in writing. But if the prosecutor says there is no video, then you most likely will not get it. During cross-examination of the officer you can ask "Why did you tell me you looked at video of incident?" If he answers that there is NO video then you can say "So you lied to me about that?" Your goal here would be to discredit the officer some what. However, even if the officer admits to lying about the video (they are legally allowed to do that) it may not be enough to get the charge dropped. But along with your testimony and your sons testimony it will definitely help. If he says that there IS video then you can say to the JP "On the record I want to say that I requested the video from the prosecution X number of times and they told me there was not any. I have an issue that they did not disclose everything to me and think there should be a mistrial and the charge dropped."
Always ask in writing. But if the prosecutor says there is no video, then you most likely will not get it.
During cross-examination of the officer you can ask "Why did you tell me you looked at video of incident?"
If he answers that there is NO video then you can say "So you lied to me about that?" Your goal here would be to discredit the officer some what. However, even if the officer admits to lying about the video (they are legally allowed to do that) it may not be enough to get the charge dropped. But along with your testimony and your sons testimony it will definitely help.
If he says that there IS video then you can say to the JP "On the record I want to say that I requested the video from the prosecution X number of times and they told me there was not any. I have an issue that they did not disclose everything to me and think there should be a mistrial and the charge dropped."
Actually, that's an improper question since it presupposes that the officer made the statement. If the prosecutor is on their game, they should object and the JP should sustain it (Assumes facts not in evidence). The problem with the question is that you are already claiming that the statement was made to you and are simply asking him for his motive for the statement; not whether the statement was actually made! Rather, the proper question (as per a long-standing common law evidence rule) is that you first 'put the statement to the witness'. So, the proper question should be "Did you tell me that you looked at a video of the incident?" If he answers positively, now you can examine on it-----if he disputes the statement then you must move on----the witness has answered the question and not adapted the statement. The only way to introduce that statement now is for YOU to either introduce it from another witness who heard it----(likely YOU by taking the stand) and/or some written/audio/video evidence corroborating it was made. While some JP's don't quite understand the complexities of evidence law and let a lot of things slide, some ARE very knowledgeable and won't simply allow you to challenge a witness on a 'hypothetical' statement that has not been adapted as evidence.
jsherk wrote:
Always ask in writing. But if the prosecutor says there is no video, then you most likely will not get it.
During cross-examination of the officer you can ask "Why did you tell me you looked at video of incident?"
If he answers that there is NO video then you can say "So you lied to me about that?" Your goal here would be to discredit the officer some what. However, even if the officer admits to lying about the video (they are legally allowed to do that) it may not be enough to get the charge dropped. But along with your testimony and your sons testimony it will definitely help.
If he says that there IS video then you can say to the JP "On the record I want to say that I requested the video from the prosecution X number of times and they told me there was not any. I have an issue that they did not disclose everything to me and think there should be a mistrial and the charge dropped."
Actually, that's an improper question since it presupposes that the officer made the statement. If the prosecutor is on their game, they should object and the JP should sustain it (Assumes facts not in evidence). The problem with the question is that you are already claiming that the statement was made to you and are simply asking him for his motive for the statement; not whether the statement was actually made!
Rather, the proper question (as per a long-standing common law evidence rule) is that you first 'put the statement to the witness'. So, the proper question should be "Did you tell me that you looked at a video of the incident?" If he answers positively, now you can examine on it-----if he disputes the statement then you must move on----the witness has answered the question and not adapted the statement. The only way to introduce that statement now is for YOU to either introduce it from another witness who heard it----(likely YOU by taking the stand) and/or some written/audio/video evidence corroborating it was made.
While some JP's don't quite understand the complexities of evidence law and let a lot of things slide, some ARE very knowledgeable and won't simply allow you to challenge a witness on a 'hypothetical' statement that has not been adapted as evidence.
The fine is not the issue but I am worried about insurance rates. First speeding ticket in my life Any suggestions on how to handle this? I can't afford to spend a day at the court
So was at court today in Orillia for a friend, and I had submitted a couple notice of motion a couple weeks ago that I wanted to deal with before arraignment. I met with prosecutor before hand, and it went something like this:
Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law?"
Me: "What do you mean?"
Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law for your motion?"
Me: "All the case law is quoted in the motion that I…
1)failure to change address on license (i got married a couple of months earlier and moved)
2) license plate not fully visible
I got pulled over because I had 2 letters peeling off my license plate. I know ignorance isn't a defense, but I really had no idea that this was an issue. Plus, you see many cars on the road with peeling plates. I got both tickets and…
I was driving around 140km/h on a 100km/h posted on the highway. I was in the fast lane. The officer was very nice and reduced it to no points and just 15km/h over.
I only have my G2.
1. Will this affect me taking the G test next month?
2. I am very grateful for the officer lowering the ticket... should I just pay the 52.5$ and leave it as is.. I am a secondary driver under my dads name and we have…
Hi, thanks in advance for the help. Been driving for 10 years, clean record until today when I got slapped with two tickets. First: going 135 at 100 on the 401, second: not having a valid sticker (I recently moved and completely forgot about it)
My friend tells me I should fight the speed ticket, if anything to reduce the fine and points. Would be alot of help if anyone could walk me through…
My wife, who has never had a traffic ticket in her life, just got 11 points.
Two tickets: "following too closely" and "failure to stop"
She was on a residential street and was behind a car at a crosswalk waiting for a pedestrian. Pedestrian crossed, they continued. Cop was drivig towards them down a side street , and as they passed he went after my wife.
I was driving in mid lane and was following a line of cars around speed limit.
The vehicle in front of me was large and I decided to change to the left lane to get better line sight.
As soon as I entered the left lane, I saw the car in front of me approximately 200m away stopped dead (for some odd reason, there was more traffic on the left lane).
Over the last few months I have received several parking tickets from the City of Kitchener. I haven't paid any of them and have attempted to dicuss the situation with the parking authority of the City, however, they're very unreceptive and defensive.
I work at a downtown construction site....ironically a Court House. The site takes up a whole city block, of which ONE side has 2 hour parking…
I was driving on a teusday night in the rain and fog at whites and highview by St. Mary CSS in Pickering, ON. At the time I was waiting at a red light to make a left north onto whites. There was also a car on the opposite side of the intersection making a left. The cars beams were pointed almost directly at my face and as a result, with the combination of the rain and fog, I…
I am new to this website and this is my first post so please forgive me if I've put this question in the wrong place. Please bear with me until I learn the ropes a bit.
So here are my questions:
Antique cars and hot rods (1930's- early '60's) and seat belt use in Ontario. If these vehicles never came from the respective factories with any seat belts, do they have to be retrofitted ?
OK so Jshreck has been taking some heat for the concept of providing the DL as being not required and therefore inadmissable in court. Personally, I think that argument would fall on deaf ears in the lower court and any chance at victory would have to be in the highest court. That would be quite something. When pigs fly I think, but along that line of thought, allow me to continue.......
I have a court date soon and am wondering whether the officers just read off their disclosure notes when interrogated.
Basically, according to the disclosure notes and the said distances and speeds quoted, by doing some simple math it just doesn't add up. My concern is whether the officer can change his story when on the stand after maybe realizing this?
Last week I was driving home from college in the sauga area. I drive a 1995 Chevy Monte Carlo v6 which I've owned since 2000, I really haven't done anything to the car except tinted windows (not completely darken) and some rims, and Nothing Engine wise. Anyway I look in my rear view mirror and out of no where i see cherry flashing. When pulled over the officer asked do you…
I was charged 2 days ago with RED LIGHT - FAIL TO STOP and set fined $150 and I guess 3 points. I was driving turning left on the intersection with a traffic light, and when I jst about to turn left the light turned to orange and I didn't have enough time to stop. Once I turned I saw the light turned to red and 2seconds later I saw a police beacon flashing through my rear-view mirror. It…
I figured pleading not guilty is the same as saying it was signed which is stupid. A friend of mine told me I could plead guilty with explanation and try to get the fine reduced when I come in.
So this Friday I was stopped by a local officer for going 110 in a 80zone. He also claims I was going 105 in a 50zone,which we literally passed when he stopped me as I was braking. It has been 3 days already and I can't seem to locate my ticket on their Internet site "pay ticket". Is there a way to determine if he has filed for certificate of offence to the courts? It has been 3 days I presume…
My trial date is in a couple days for a speeding ticket (york region) and i am nervous it is my first ticket ever as well as first trial
I did notice my ticket was filed beyond 7 days, 10 days after the day i got the ticket to be exact, which is stamped on the ticket. is this enough to have it dismissed?
If you look close enough, beside the drivers' side "A" pillar you will see a white circle = front antenna of Genesis radar......plus look above the dash pad...there is the Spectre RDD.
Any suggestions on how to handle this? I can't afford to spend a day at the court 
