My husband was charged with the above, but, according to him, the light was amber when he proceeded into the intersection. The police officer was following him and my husband was aware that he was behind him. This particular light is located in a small town at a busy intersection and I do not believe that my husband could go through a red light here without being involved in a collision. Also, there was a pedestrian in a wheelchair at the intersection. If the light had been red for my husband, the Walk sign would have been lit for him to cross the street. This ticket happened October 28, 2010 when they were having a "blitz" on people running red lights and stop signs. Not sure if there is some way to use this in his defense. 3 days after my husband got this ticket, I was pulled over (31st of Oct) for failing to stop for a stop sign. I told the officer that I most certainly did stop at the stop sign and, after looking at my license and registration, he returned to his cruiser and drove away. I really believe that this was done to get convictions for their "blitz". Neither my husband or myself have ever been charged with failing to stop for anything, and to both be stopped within days of each other during a "blitz" seems very suspect. Any suggestions?
My husband was charged with the above, but, according to him, the light was amber when he proceeded into the intersection. The police officer was following him and my husband was aware that he was behind him. This particular light is located in a small town at a busy intersection and I do not believe that my husband could go through a red light here without being involved in a collision. Also, there was a pedestrian in a wheelchair at the intersection. If the light had been red for my husband, the Walk sign would have been lit for him to cross the street. This ticket happened October 28, 2010 when they were having a "blitz" on people running red lights and stop signs. Not sure if there is some way to use this in his defense. 3 days after my husband got this ticket, I was pulled over (31st of Oct) for failing to stop for a stop sign. I told the officer that I most certainly did stop at the stop sign and, after looking at my license and registration, he returned to his cruiser and drove away. I really believe that this was done to get convictions for their "blitz". Neither my husband or myself have ever been charged with failing to stop for anything, and to both be stopped within days of each other during a "blitz" seems very suspect.
When police do a blitz it doesn't mean that they start making up charges where no offence was committed (I'm not say that you're alleging this, I'm just pointing it out), but what it does mean is that they adopt a zero tolerance policy for infractions which, in the case of stop signs, means that nearly everybody who goes through could properly be charged with an offence since most people "roll" through without coming to a complete stop. Same for red lights. I don't think that there's a way to use this in your defence, since their evidence will be that your committed the elements of the offence and, because of the zero tolerance policy at the time, you were charged. There's really nothing improper about adopting a zero tolerance policy during a blitz, so if you ask the officer about it at a trial, they'll fully acknowledge it without damaging their case. All of the other things you mentioned, like the fact that you have good records or that a collision would have been likely if you had gone through the intersection on a red are just facts which you can call on the judge to draw an inference from in your favour, but which don't hold much actual evidentiary weight. It seems that, from what you've described regarding the red light ticket, the real evidence you have is your version of events from your perspective. Trial is an opportunity for you to present that perspective to the JP. The crown will present the officer's perspective and the JP will weigh the 2 stories and come to a decision.
When police do a blitz it doesn't mean that they start making up charges where no offence was committed (I'm not say that you're alleging this, I'm just pointing it out), but what it does mean is that they adopt a zero tolerance policy for infractions which, in the case of stop signs, means that nearly everybody who goes through could properly be charged with an offence since most people "roll" through without coming to a complete stop. Same for red lights. I don't think that there's a way to use this in your defence, since their evidence will be that your committed the elements of the offence and, because of the zero tolerance policy at the time, you were charged. There's really nothing improper about adopting a zero tolerance policy during a blitz, so if you ask the officer about it at a trial, they'll fully acknowledge it without damaging their case.
All of the other things you mentioned, like the fact that you have good records or that a collision would have been likely if you had gone through the intersection on a red are just facts which you can call on the judge to draw an inference from in your favour, but which don't hold much actual evidentiary weight.
It seems that, from what you've described regarding the red light ticket, the real evidence you have is your version of events from your perspective. Trial is an opportunity for you to present that perspective to the JP. The crown will present the officer's perspective and the JP will weigh the 2 stories and come to a decision.
i lost my license in an accident i had to due my exceeding amount of demerit points. i went to jail and made bail i was put on a curfew of 9am to 9pm stupidly enough i did not follow and i got pulled over for driving with a different cars license plates, no insurance, and violating my curfew... i…
I was charged for disobey sign (no left turn) in a winter noon time around Bay/Edward (the prosecutor/judge said it to be a Absolute liability offences but disobey sign is actually a strict liability offence, right? And I found this: For example, if you made an illegal left-turn where there were…
so got fined with 69km in a 50km, at bottom of hill...didn't even have foot on the gas. first ticket ever in over 10 years of driving. fine was 62$ and 3 points.
cop says take to court and get demerit points reduced. didn't even let me speak and walks away.
On my way to work today I got a 110 dollar ticket + 2 demerit points.
I was driving north on Bathurst and turned left onto a side street into a residential area before hitting the lights at Eglinton and Bathurst. I normally do this to avoid the big line up to turn left onto Eglinton.
On the 400 extension EB towards Barrie cops like to hide out under an over pass that is Ski Trails Rd. They tag people as the come over the crest of the hill and that is 900m from where this officer was standing.
I'm confused because I knew this, saw the cop, and checked my…
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…
Today i got caught doing 115 in a 90 at Mayfield and 410 and what I have been reading is that this offence is 3 points. Seeing this is my first offence I'm unsure if the ticket is supposed to I lost 3 points or is that just automatic. Also should I go to fight it to drop the points and just pay the…
I was (recently) involved in a traffic accident where, due to icy road conditions, I slid into oncoming traffic while making a right turn, while they were coming towards me and stopping at a stop sign. This was a residential area and there's no way I was exceeding anything over 20KM/h on…
