Ticketed for right turn at yellow light [resolved]

I was coming home this morning (just an hour ago) after dropping my mom off at work and was nearing an intersection. As there was no traffic near me, I slowed down and made a right turn since the light was yellow. The police cruiser stopped at the red light came right after me and pulled me over.

The reason? I "blatantly blew a red light".

I'm still trying to come to terms with this. I'm just a college student with a perfect driving record. I drive safe and my car is maintained properly and in fine shape. I did absolutely nothing wrong but knew that I couldn't argue anything with the officer. She was pretty adamant about giving me the ticket and claimed she had given out enough cautions about it. Ok, great, so why didn't I get a caution for a first time "offense"? Her words were that I will get demerit points and my insurance will "jack up". Excellent.

So now I'm sitting here with a $325 ticket for breaking Highway Traffic Act 144(18)

Red light

(18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18).

The ticket officially states "Red light - fail to stop"

This is a complete LIE!

I didn't argue it with her but I was clearly shocked that I was receiving the ticket in the first place. I know better than to provide a police officer desperate to meet her quota with an actual reason for trouble.

My question to you folks here is how good are my chances of overturning this charge since it's a complete and utter lie? I always get off QEW at Cawthra, turn south, and then turn right into South Service Rd. It's always a right turn for me at that particular intersection as it's the shortest route to my home. This means that I NEVER pass straight through the intersection. So how can I possibly run a red light?

I definitely plan to fight this, as a student I can't even afford this ridiculous charge and the fact that my insurance will skyrocket. I refuse to be a victim of a dishonest officer.

The way she was presenting the case was that I was driving recklessly and should've stopped before turning. The fact of the matter is that the light was yellow when I began turning and I obviously slowed down. If I had taken such a tight turn at 50km/h (posted limit on Cawthra) I would've obviously lost control and crashed into the median on South Service. At the very least my tires would've squealed. I still had my hockey gear in the car, my goalie pads and anything else would've tumbled towards the left side. Her point of view is completely illogical.

Any help or comments would be greatly appreciated.

PS. My insurance and driving record won't be affected unless I plead guilty, right? Is this something I will need an attorney for or will the judge understand my point?

Mazda wrote:

I. This means that I NEVER pass straight through the intersection. So how can I possibly run a red light?

A vehicle that fails to stop at a red during a turning movement is still "running a red light".....just sayin'

Ok, but it was yellow.

If your testimony is consistent, in that you turned right on an amber light, and you are not swayed or shaken by the Crown when you get cross-examined, you would have a chance of being found not guilty. Here's a case where the officer said "you ran the red light," but the defendant testified "no, it was amber," - and won:

R. v. Sandhu, 2009

Step 1 is always requesting the trial. In your Notice to Appear, make sure that you check the box that says you intend to challenge the evidence against you. In a few months, you'll get a trial date. At that point, you can file for disclosure and get the Crown's evidence against you. In that case, it should be the officer's notes. The key component is, the officer had to observe that the signal facing you was red, then afterwards your vehicle proceeded through the intersection. The officer cannot make an inference that the light was red; the officer has to see that the light facing you was red.

Mazda wrote:

My insurance and driving record won't be affected unless I plead guilty, right? Is this something I will need an attorney for or will the judge understand my point?

You are right (or if you get convicted). It may be worthwhile to get a paralegal - if you're interested there's a form to fill out on the bottom of the page for a no-obligation quote. They'd represent you and are just as good (sometimes better) than lawyers for traffic cases. If you do your research and preparation properly, and are thorough, you could win on your own - others have. But the advantage of a paralegal is you don't have to do any of the work. All depends on what you want to do/can afford.

Keep us posted...

Thanks for that, it was an interesting read. Since it is a large fine (in my opinion), is it safe to assume the officer will definitely show up on the court date?

I definitely plan to defend myself in a clear and concise manner, but I don't have any experience in this situation. I'm quick and able when the matter calls for it, but the prospect of having a prosecutor attempt to dispute my defense with legal jargon is not nice.

I'm only a college student, I don't think I could afford any legal help.

Well, for now at least, file to fight the charge. The charge will not affect you immediately, at least not until you are convicted. Read over similar cases on forum here, you can get more ideas.

What to do: make notes now, file with "option 3" and "officer present", make a photocopy of your ticket. When you are presenting evidence, be as clear, logical, and consequent as possible - that is, make sure you tell the story from start to finish, without contradicting yourself.

I'd say it's safe to say the officer will show up, mostly because it was the Peel Region Police (I'm assuming) that stopped you. They show up usually 60%-70% of the time. Toronto is more like 50%.

Mazda wrote:

I definitely plan to defend myself in a clear and concise manner, but I don't have any experience in this situation.

One way to get some experience without the risk is to go to the courthouse where your trial will be held (address should be on the back of the ticket). You can observe trials there at no cost, except for parking. Take notes, see what others do, and where people are successful, and where they fail. If you're lucky, you might get to see the officer who ticketed you in court, and figure out a plan for cross-examination.

If you dress nicely, act professional and civilized, have a solid case prepared (not too hard in your case) and have a general understanding of the procedures and decorum, you'll be better off than 95% of the defendants who go to trial representing themselves. The majority of them never get disclosure, never prepare a case, and walk in to court with some seriously mistaken beliefs about how it works, and get their rear-ends handed to them on a silver platter. I've seen defendants curse and swear, yell, bring up stuff that doesn't make any sense, etc. One guy thought a good defence to speeding on LIDAR was "them things don't work anyhow." That was his defence. All of it. The JP tried to help him (and tried harder not to laugh) but ended up convicting him, no surprise there.

I appreciate the responses so far, thanks folks. I'll write up a defense statement and post it here for comments.

I'm going to ask for the officer's notes when I go in on Wednesday. Anything else I should be aware of?

Radar Identified wrote:

One way to get some experience without the risk is to go to the courthouse where your trial will be held (address should be on the back of the ticket). You can observe trials there at no cost, except for parking. Take notes, see what others do, and where people are successful, and where they fail. If you're lucky, you might get to see the officer who ticketed you in court, and figure out a plan for cross-examination.

I had a ticket last summer (driving with G1, although friend who was an experienced driver was accompanying me) but the case was dropped as the officer did not show up. I sat there for about an hour and observed many cases, as well as one where a cocky lawyer got completely smacked down by the judge and prosecutor. It was like something straight out of those awful TV shows.

My trial is set for April 1st, 2010, only two months away. I requested the officer's notes at the prosecution office but that'll take another 4-6 weeks.

How is this enough time for a defense? This seems very prejudicial against my case.

WOW that was quick. They can't just give you the disclosure package on the day of trial or two days prior to trial and not have it be prejudicial... but 2 weeks-1 month prior might be enough... I don't have any case law references on that, unfortunately. Some others might, though...

In the mean time, get your defence statement ready. The Sandhu case that was linked above should be a good template for you. Have you had a chance to observe any trials in the mean time?

Disclosure Form just arrived, here are the officer's notes exactly as they are typed. Messy handwriting btw

-[unknown] stopped a stale red E/W

-observe [unknown] for Cawthra (N/S) cycle to amber

-observe silver veh S/B Cawthra, curb lane

-observe veh approach intersection

-no attempt to stop

-observe amber cycle to red (N/S)

-observe veh enter the intersection against the red & turn S.S

-veh crossed the clearly marked white strip line

-stopped veh on S.S W. of Cawthra

-single [unknown] in veh

-m. driver

-advised reason for 7/5

-id self with ON DL, produced ownership, ins.

-driver (i think) Mazda

-immediately returned to intersection

-observed 3 cycles of lites - all appear to be in working order

On the side she has written "did not lose site of veh" meaning she added it into the timeline of events she described.

First of all, I turned on a yellow light. I have a photographic memory and would never make such a stupid mistake as running a red, especially when I've spotted the police cruiser from a hundred feet away.

Basically, her claim that I made no attempt to stop is ridiculous. Since the light was yellow when I entered the intersection, there was no need to make a full stop. However, I did slow down to a crawl to make a safe and careful turn after observing that there were no northbound Cawthra vehicles in the left lane. The pavement was also wet that morning as it had been raining prior to me leaving home and my tires don't have the best grip - I would've most likely lost control and crashed into the median. It's also worth mentioning that my hockey bag was in the trunk at the time, my goalie pads and sticks were on top of the rear seats. Had I taken a reckless turn, they would've toppled to the left side of the car. They were still neatly stacked when the officer approached me.

Furthermore, there were southbound cars on the two lanes to my left on Cawthra that stopped at the yellow light (obviously they didn't want to take a chance with the police car present) so there would've been a brief moment when my small Protege would've disappeared behind the cars from her perspective.

Also, her claim that she was observing me for such a long time prior to arriving at the intersection is just ridiculous. She's only written that to further strengthen her case against me after pulling me over. The likely scenario is that she saw my car pass the white mark, she looked at the light and saw it was red (because the amber had cycled at this point) and then concluded that I ran a red.

I really don't have a case here, it's my word against hers.

You do not have to prove complete innocence to win a ticket. All you have to do is to raise the reasonable doubt as to officer's testimony. It is the duty of the LEO to show that you have violated the OHTA beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that there seems to be something added on the side works in your favour - you can argue that she added stuff later, and there is no guarantee that she put correct information in her notes.

You have an argument here that she has looked at the light after she observed you cross the white line. It is a slim chance, but it is worth it to try.

You might also want to consult a paralegal - they can mount a better defence, although at a cost. That cost, however, nearly guarantees a win or a major reduction, plus, you do not have to spend a day in court. Fill out the form at the bottom of this page for a free, no-obligation quote.

Thanks, I figured my defense would have to revolve around the added note and her observation of the light after I passed the white mark.

And I did in fact fill out the form after my post yesterday, I figure it's worth a try. Unfortunately, as a full-time college student, I really can't afford legal help at the moment.

You'll need to make a strong defence - but if you're sure that the light was amber, and the Crown cannot make you falter under cross-examination, I'd say you've got a chance... a small one... but a chance nonetheless. Your version of events seems very clear and concise from what you wrote, particularly notes about the weather, your observations, the hockey equipment, etc.

The thing you'll have to push is getting the officer to at least seem a bit unsure if she saw the light change to red first, or saw your vehicle cross the stop line first then observe the red.

My only other advice is to show up early on the day of trial. Usually Prosecutors are reluctant to offer deals for this offence, but upon review of the evidence prior to trial, you might luck out.

I contacted Xcopper but their quote was $367 — that's just far too much for me. Looks like I'm in this alone.

Mazda wrote:

I contacted Xcopper but their quote was $367 — that's just far too much for me. Looks like I'm in this alone.

You're not alone, you have us....

Heh, can't believe I missed your post until now, didn't realize we made it to the second page already \o/

Thanks for your support, I appreciate it.

Question: how would I go about rescheduling the trial to a later date? April 1st is going to fall on a busy school week for me and I don't feel I've been given enough time to mount a proper defense. I would hope I could deal with this after my semester is over in mid-April.

PS. Your sig speaks the truth. I am willing to accept responsibility and pay for my mistakes, however in this case I'm an innocent man and I'll do whatever it takes to fight for my damn rights

Mazda wrote:

Question: how would I go about rescheduling the trial to a later date?

Go to the courthouse and ask for the paperwork to file a motion to re-schedule the trial. You'll have to appear before a JP and explain your reason for wanting to re-schedule.

Can this be done at any point before the trial date? Will I need any documentation if I say it's my grandmother's funeral?

Most importantly, would it work in my favour?

Mazda wrote:

Can this be done at any point before the trial date?

Sort of... but it should be done ASAP.

Mazda wrote:

Will I need any documentation if I say it's my grandmother's funeral?

Probably not, but you should have documentation in case they ask for proof. The JP would be perfectly reasonable in making that kind of request, too, IMO. If you've got a lot of exams, etc., that's also a valid reason.

Mazda wrote:

Most importantly, would it work in my favour?

It's a gamble. If you get on it immediately, it will probably work. Just go in and be honest with your reason for the request, and see how it goes.

Yeah, I just need a bit more time to deal with this as I've got major projects to worry about right now. Thanks, I'll go on Wednesday right after class.

If I were you, I'd go tomorrow. Usually you need to go at least 2 weeks before the trial date even though it's beneficial to do it a bit sooner. I've done it once strategically and made sure I did it about 3 weeks before the original trial date.

One more note: While it's not strictly required, once you appear in front of the JP, it would be a good idea to have course syllabuses and exam schedule printouts to show the JP something on paper that other commitments will make it very difficult for you to prepare your defense. It will save you some unnecessary grilling by the JP. The JP might also require you to work out a deal with the Crown. Your best bet on that count is to show that you're willing to discuss the issue with the Crown, step aside, hear their sales pitch, reject it and come back in front of the JP. I think I pissed mine off by my unwillingness to discuss a deal

I put a lot of thought into this yesterday. On one hand I'd like to reschedule it to give myself more time to mount a proper defense (and increase the chances of the officer not showing up); but on the other hand I'd like to just get in there, present my case, and get it over with.

I think I'm going to skip the rescheduling and focus on the trial. I will write my defense and post it here for the experts to look over.

What kind of cross-examination questioning should I be prepared for?

Any thoughts?

Just prepare for the Prosecutor to try to nitpick on every minute detail of your testimony. Specific questions will depend on your testimony, and how it differs with that of the officer. If you are convincing and resolute, the Prosecutor may ask a few questions, and the JP may also ask a few questions for clarification.

Key point to focus on - you entered the intersection on an amber. You must be absolutely sure of it. Your intent to enter the intersection must have been formed when the light was still green. It might also be worthwhile re-visiting that intersection to refresh your memory, and to time the light cycle. How long is the amber light? Are there any warnings (e.g. pedestrian walk count-down) that the light is about to change to amber? All of this is evidence you'll need.

On the morning of January 24th 2010, at approximately 10:45am, I was on my way home traveling westbound on the QEW after having taken my mother to work. I exited the QEW at Cawthra Rd. and proceeded to travel southbound on Cawthra in the far right lane. Approximately 230m from the intersection of Cawthra and South Service Road, I scanned the intersection ahead of me and spotted Officer X's white police cruiser in the left turning lane on South Service Road facing westbound behind a red light. The light facing me was green as I continued southbound on Cawthra at the posted speed limit of 50km/h. As I drew closer to the intersection, I turned on my right signal and began slowing down to make the right turn. Approximately 10 meters from the intersection, I observed the light turn to amber, but I did not have enough time to make a safe stop and proceeded past the white strip line. Having entered the intersection on an amber light, I made a partial stop at the curb and made sure that there was no northbound traffic on Cawthra attempting to make a left turn at amber. After deciding my way was clear, I safely proceeded and completed my turn into North Service Road.

Just under 10 seconds later, I spotted the same cruiser from the intersection behind me with its lights on. I promptly pulled over to the right curb on South Service Road and the cruiser stopped behind me. Officer X walked up to my window and stated that I blew a red light by not making a full stop and that it was a reckless action. I did not argue with the officer and calmly answered all of her questions and presented proper identification when requested. After having collected my drivers license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration, Officer X walked back to her car and returned several minutes later with a ticket in her hand. Confused at the thought of receiving a ticket for a right turn at an amber light, I asked if I was receiving a ticket. Officer X replied "yeah youre getting a ticket, the fine is $325." I told her I didnt understand why I was being ticketed, and she replied, "Listen Ive warned like 5 other people about the same thing, you didnt make a full stop at the red light and the guy in the car next to me was like 'huh when you went through; I cant let you off." Officer X then explained that I would receive demerit points and my insurance would "jack up", but she suggested that I attend court and fight it, in which case she would be more than glad to explain to the court that Ive been very polite and calm and it would assist me in my case.

On that particular morning, the road was slightly wet as it had been raining overnight; this is proven correct according to the Weather Networks historical data for January 24th 2010. Considering the wet road conditions, a reckless turn would've caused my car to slide out and hit the median on South Service Road. As well, I was carrying my hockey equipment in the car at the time and my goalie pads and sticks were on top of the rear seats. A quick and reckless turn would have caused the pads to topple over to the left side of the car. When Officer X approached me, the pads were still neatly stacked on top of each other on the rear seats.

According to Officer Xs notes, she observed my vehicle pass the "clearly labeled white strip", but according to this photo which was taken from the same position that Officer X was standing in, the strip is not clearly visible. She would have had to eyeball its location.

In her notes, Officer X stated that she observed my vehicle approach the intersection against the amber light, however I do not believe that my generic, silver, third-generation Mazda Prot©g© would have taken her attention away from the rest of the traffic around her; it is one of the most common cars on the road. Officer X also wrote "did not lose sight of vehicle", however it is written on the side of her notes [show disclosure], as if added at a later time, which forces me to question the validity of her notes. There is no guarantee that the Officer X entered the correct information in her notes.

The likely scenario is that Officer X first observed my car enter the intersection, then looked back at the light and saw it had turned to red—because the amber had cycled at this point—and concluded that I must have entered on a red light. When I entered the intersection, I checked the northbound leftmost lane on Cawthra to make sure there were no cars turning left on the amber and then proceeded through the intersection. As well, I quickly observed the first line of vehicles eastbound on South Service Road and noticed they had not yet moved as I drove past. This means they were still facing a red light. Had I entered the intersection at a late red light as Officer X suggests, those eastbound cars would already be facing a green light by the time I drove past them.

[will gather data on light cycles for this part]

I don't know how a defense statement should be structured, so I'm hoping what I've written is enough. Please let me know if there's something I should rewrite or expand on. I want to make sure the truth is as waterproof as possible.

NOTE: Officer's name edited out to protect the privacy of the officer and the defendant.

Okay now some feedback:

First paragraph is good. Use it!

Second paragraph seems a bit irrelevant. I'd leave it out.

Third paragraph - leave out the part about your tires. It suggests you're cavalier about vehicle maintenance and they'd probably extrapolate it to your driving. Include the info about your hockey equipment, raining, and the likelihood you would have skidded if you made a reckless turn.

Fourth to sixth paragraphs - proceed with caution. Make sure you can back up any assertion you have with evidence. Also, much of it, while good, should probably be used if the Prosecutor starts to question your credibility.

Your job is to introduce reasonable doubt. The Crown is going to have to show that your testimony is not credible.

Sorry about including the name, didn't think of that. Edited another instance of it out myself.

Removed the irrelevant information as you suggested. Better now?

Sounds good. How good are you at public speaking?