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.
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
