saturday 12:15 am, weather and road condition are good.

i was in a go/no go (uncertain) situation as i make a left turn on a wide intersection while on amber light

turning red but i already passed the middle of the intersection. i was stopped by an opp officer and he told

me i run through an amber light and i should have stopped. my wife politely asked him what to do when facing an

amber light, he just replied "STOP". my wife elaborated more, "stop if you can do so safely otherwise proceed with caution." (OPP's 1st inconsistency). he issued me the ticket he charged me with "red light-fail to stop" well in fact he was explaining to me earlier what to do when facing an amber light (his 2nd inconsistency).

so i requested him to change the charge but he said he already write the ticket and he added "fail to stop on red and

amber lights" are both the same charges which i later found out in the internet they are not (his 3rd inconsistency).

he told me i have 3 options and if i decided to choose option 3 he will make sure he would be there on the trial.

ever since that happened i am emotionally affected with his wrongful accusation and his inconsistencies. if i go to court hearing it's gonna be his word against mine. my questions are:

1) what is my chance of winning my case and how i would defend myself

2) would those 3 inconsistencies contribute to winning the case, and lastly

3) would the wrongful accusation be a ground for quashing the ticket.

to anyone who would find some time to counsel and help in my case, THANK YOU SO MUCH in advance.

PLS HELP.

"Amber Light – Fail to Stop is a separate and distinct offence from Red Light – Fail to Stop and cannot be considered to be an included offence." That's straight out of paragraph 22 of the Reiber decision. Keep in mind though that the Reiber decision is not an appeal decision and thus not binding on JP's---just persuasive since it indicates what their 'brother' JP has already decided. Still, its probably quite soundly decided and unlikely that another JP would go against it or that a prosecutor would want to re-litigate the issue so that a binding precedent might be definitively created by an appeal court.

If the officer attempted to merge both offences on to one ticket, it will almost certainly be withdrawn by the Prosecution and quite likely by the court. After all, you either entered the intersection on the yellow (which means the red light is of no relevance since you're already in the interesection) or the light was already red before you entered the intersection (thereby making the amber charge not relevant since you were not in the intersection while it was yellow). It can't be both ways. Besides, as an accused, you have the constitutional right to know precisely which offence you need to answer to-----if the ticket you received is as you indicate (with both amber and red mentioned)----the 'combined' offence doesn't exist, plus you're unable to know which to answer to.

I hope that helps clarify things.

thank you so much HIGHWAYSTAR for your thoughts and help.

i greatly appreciate it.

as i've stated on my 1st post, i was facing an amber light when i

drove thru the intersection and then the signal light turn red seconds after i already made

my left turn at the middle of the intersection. but on the ticket, he charged me of

red light-fail to stop instead of hta 144(15) amber light-fail to stop. obviously, i was wrongfully

accused. will this be a ground for quashing the ticket.

he told me red light and amber light - fail to stop are both the same charges that is why he

did not change his charges on the ticket. but later i found out total set fine for red light

is $325 and it is only $180 for amber light. although demerit points for both offence is 3 pts

that is only one of the 3 inconsistencies he did on me as i've mentioned on my 1st post.

can i use this on my defence.

one thing i forgot to include on my post is that the street/road where i was driving during that time

has no posted speed limit assuming it would be 50 kph, and assuming i did 65 kph but i slowed

down as i enter the intersection and made my left turn, will the driving speed badly affect my case.??

any comments and thoughts on my posts shall be greatly appreciated.

PLS HELP.

As I stated before, the charges are unique--they are not the same thing. You either entered the intersection when the light was red (i.e.: Red Light – Fail to Stop), or you entered it when it was amber and you COULD have safely stopped (i.e. Amber Light – Fail to Stop ). That's also the reason why the set fines are different. After all, it is A LOT more dangerous to enter an intersection once the light is red.

In your case, you likely got lucky by the officer charging you with Red Light--Fail to Stop. Had he changed the offence to Amber Light-Fail to stop, you might be found guilty. Regarding the amber charge: it all depends on whether you could safely stop. The obligation is to STOP at the amber light. Many folks think the amber is just a warning signal; its not! The onus then shifts on to YOU to establish that you couldn't reasonably stop safely. That's not always easy to convince when road conditions are fine, speed is not extreme, and especially if there was already traffic ahead of you making the left or you purposely accelerate to enter the intersection (run the amber!). Plus, keep in mind that before entering the intersection, you must ensure that you'll be able to clear it fully. Also, many other factors can come in to play such as whether there was a count-down on the pedestrian beacon warning you that the light was about to change, etc.

Regardless, don't be confused in to thinking that the charge will be quashed. You will undoubtedly have to go through the process of a trial to be acquitted, unless the prosecutor withdraws it. After all, it all depends upon what the evidence is. Unless the officer merged the 2 offences on the same ticket (in which case it is a fatal error since the combined offence doesn't exist), you can't rely upon it being dismissed if you fail to show up for court. After all, the ticket may be correct on its face. So, that means you pleading not guilty, obtaining disclosure, and seeing what the officer is actually saying happened. It may very well be that he says you DID run the red and only entered the intersection after the light turned red!

So, to summarize: if the officer says you entered the intersection after the red, then the charge is correct and you'll have to raise reasonable doubt at trial. On the other hand, if he says you were already in the intersection when the light turned red, then you should get acquitted since that is a different offence (Amber Light--Fail to stop) for which you are not facing! And, if the prosecution tries to argue that both offences are one in the same, then rely upon the Reiber decision to indicate that they are not.

Good luck in court.

thank you so much HIGHWAYSTAR to your post dated May 29th.

further to my problem is until now i haven't received yet my disclosure so i have no idea if the OPP

had written down what had actually happened, that is, me actually facing the amber light before entering

the intersection. he told me i sped up while trying to beat the amber light but in fact i did not. my speed is constant

although probably yes, i was doing approx 60-65 kph on unposted (no signage/post) speed limit and that time was 12:43am saturday and the road was clear and silent, no cars ahead of me and i slowed down at the intersection with caution. there was NO count-down on the pedestrian beacon warning me that the light was about to change, etc.

my question here is: (1) will i be in trouble if i did that speed. (2) what would be my defence just in case.

can i question the OPP's accuracy of how he determined that i sped up base on his observation only without

the speed laser.

here are some dates details for your reference/opinion:

offence date: march 15

i filed option 3: april 23

notice of trial (stamped mailed) april 28

trial date: June 11

i emailed prosecutions office on May 5, 11, 27 requesting for disclosure

and their "first and last" reply was only on May 28 and the prosecutions office reply was:

(quote) "the Prosecutor has requested the notes from the officer. We have not received them yet,

however as soon as we do so, they will be forwarded to you." (unquote)

(1) will the case be dismissed if i stand in trial without receiving the disclosure.

(2) what would my defense be to win my case without receiving the disclosure.

(3) what if prosecution would hand me the disclosure on the day of the trial, what would i do.

so my hopes are:

(1) that the OPP won't show up

(2) that the OPP says on his disclosure that i was already in the intersection when the light turned red since that is a different offence (Amber Light--Fail to stop) And, if the prosecution tries to argue that both offences are one in the same, then i will rely upon the Reiber decision to indicate that they are not.

again, i would like to thank you HIGHWAYSTAR and any other good fellows out there who may want to help

and share their thoughts and inputs regarding my case.

Thank you in advance.

driver1 wrote:

(1) will the case be dismissed if i stand in trial without receiving the disclosure.

You should not proceed to trial without receiving disclosure; this is why the courts have "pre-trial" motions, this is where you tell the justice of peace you have not received disclosure; the prosecutor will have to provide a response as to why they've failed to do so. If the officer is present, he'll photocopy his notes; if his writing is illegible or has short-form writing, you'll have an opportunity to review the notes with him.

If the officer or his notes are not present/available at your trial, the prosecutor will most likely withdraw the charge.

If you proceed to trial without receiving disclosure, that will be on you. If you plead not-guilty after you're arraigned, there is no turning back. The trial will proceed without you having any chance to look at the prosecutor's evidence.

driver1 wrote:

(2) what would my defense be to win my case without receiving the disclosure.

As stated above, there is no defence... unless the justice of peace refuses a disclosure item; in those instances you may be able to appeal using case-law from other decisions where that disclosure item was made available... and how it deprived of you of your S7 Charter of Rights: right to mount a defence and make a full answer.

It's your responsibility to request/receive disclosure prior to proceeding to trial. Disclosure issues have to be remedied prior to proceeding to trial.

driver1 wrote:

(3) what if prosecution would hand me the disclosure on the day of the trial, what would i do.

If you're self-represented, and its your first appearance... the courts will grant an adjournment and give you time to review the disclosure. If the new date infringes on your 11b right to a speedy trial, then you'll have to argue how that adjournment falls at the feet of the prosecutor.

thank you iFly55 for your thoughts on my post thursday june 5th.

the prosecution just send me today (june9th) the disclosure via email and the court hearing will be two days from now.

ABOUT THE DISCLOSURE::

just for reference: cruiser (opp) via WB westbound street ALFA (not real street)

mv (motor vehicle) myself = via NB northbound street BRAVO (not real street)

following are excerpts from opp disclosure just received today:

Cruiser WB ALFA-approaching traf light at BRAVO-red light.

obs lights for BRAVO NB amber – lone mv NB on BRAVO clearview of mv as is visisbly speeds up – I can see light for NB BRAVO turns red prior to mv entering intersection mv speeds through turning West on ALFA. Cruiser approx 75meters from intersect as mv goes through. my (cruiser) light turns green for WB ALFA – cruiser doesnt have to stop – proceed on green – stop cruiser – mv approx 100 meters from light when I first observe light was already amber.

(end of disclosure)

the truth of the matter is that i was facing an amber light when i

drove thru the intersection and then the signal light turn red seconds after i already made

my left turn at the middle of the intersection BUT according to his disclosure the light turns red

PRIOR my entering the intersection.

base on the above officer's disclosure, should i get ticketed for (1) red light-fail to stop

or should i get ticketed for (2) amber light-fail to stop

My question is: will this be considered red light-fail to stop if you are facing amber then light turns red

PRIOR to entering the intersection ???

because as far i know, red light-fail to stop- is when you did not stop when you are already facing the red light.

my court date is two days from june 11th. anyone, pls help me stand to win for the truth. he writes his disclosure to get me convicted for the red light-fail to stop which i did not because when he stopped me he told me i should have stop because it was amber. but when he issued me the ticket he issued me red light-fail to stop. when i requested him

to change the charges to amber light he said he cannot change the ticket and he'll just see me in court if i decided to go to trial.

HIGHWAYSTAR, Ifly55, anyone, pls give some help and advice before i stand on trial

to anyone, thank you so much.

I had a court trial on june 11th on charges about Red Light-Fail to stop.

an hour and half before my trial, i met with the prosecutor for a resolution

and the prosecutor offered me a lesser charge of hta 144 (10) Disobey lane light

with no demerit point and fine of $85 plus surcharge and service charges.

i would like to thank highwaystar and iFly55 for your help and support regarding

my case.

thank you and best regards.