Two stop sign infractions but one ticket?

Hey folks. I just picked up the disclosure for my traffic ticket (I know this is from Ontario, I am from Ontario-but live in Saskatchewan now.. hope it's alright, I plan to move back someday)

On the disclosure, the ticket cites (in almost impossible to understand handwriting, I still can't make out some of his words) two infactions for failing to properly stop, but only one ticket. I asked the court officer today at the police station which infraction he intends to prosecute, and he said the second one- which we can "prove" occurred. He does have a video, the first one imo, which is from a considerable distance away, shows headlights and a probable stop sign violation, though a couple seconds is obstructed completely by a passing vehicle at the time my vehicle was approaching the intersection (which has a stop sign about 7 metres from the highway) on a grid road.

The second alledged infraction, occurred aprox. 5 seconds after the first. It shows the officer speedily approaching my vehicle from behind, accelerating while I came to a near complete stop. The video evidence clearly reflects a full intention and near completion of a stop. My arguement on that one, which I believe the crown intends to prosecute, is that I believed the vehicle behind me was an aggressive, possibly intoxicated driver. Who accelerates towards a stop vehicle at an intersection? The officer does not put his lights on until after I proceed past the stop sign. It's a daunting and intimidating experience to have a large suv accelerate at a close distance while your vehicle is stopped in the darkest of nights. A reasonable person, which I hope the judge is, would clearly see my case here without doubt.

So in a nutshell folks, can anyone please tell me how to go abouts defending myself when it's unclear on the ticket which alleged infraction I'm being prosecuted for? If the video, which shows both potential violations, is used to prosecute the 2nd offense, could they use the first alleged offense which is not being prosecuted as collective evidence in the second? Can the officer/crown chose at the time of the court trial, which of the two infractions the court intends to prosecute? Could they argue I violated two stop signs, which were both mentioned on the ticket and shown in the video, but the officer was a nice guy and only issued one actual fine? Either way, it seems it would be my legal prerogative to know which of the two alleged offences the court intends to prosecute.

I'm not a legal expert, but it seems they should have to define which infraction, clearly, I am being prosecuted for. I intend to ask for an adjournment if the ticketing officer shows up, to give myself more time to prepare for the trial, as I am unsure which infraction to defend myself from. I also cannot understand what the ticketing officer wrote, the chicken scratch writing is not legible.

I also believe the crown (the court officer) believes he has the case in a nutshell. He informed me "this is the video" we will be showing, which is clear evidence. I beg the differ. My hope is that he believes the evidence is "so clear," that the ticketing officer does not make an attempt to show up in court.

Thanks

Hey folks

I uploaded the video to Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DUZ5JXkoPw&t=86s

It's 8 minutes but only the first minute is relevant. My argument for the 2nd infraction, which is the 1/2 noted on the ticket, will be that I did my best to stop. But under the traffic act, it also cites that one doesn't have to stop until safe to do so- in this case, I did my best to safely stop but was intimdated by the vehicle approaching at an accelerated rate behind me, hence, why I proceeded.

What do you all think? Any help would be helpful

And folks, if the officer was so confident that I didn't safely stop for the 2nd alleged infraction, why did the officer breeze thru the intersection at no less then 30km/hr without making any verification there were no vehicles coming- assuming he believed that I did not safely scope it out?

Can someone please give me their opinion.

I watched the video a bunch of times. Your brake lights were on for about five seconds. I find it really hard to tell whether you came to a complete stop or were still rolling. The officer was sufficiently far back that it's difficult to gauge where you were relative to the intersection. That's my opinion; the JP could see it the other way.

Zatota wrote:

I watched the video a bunch of times. Your brake lights were on for about five seconds. I find it really hard to tell whether you came to a complete stop or were still rolling. The officer was sufficiently far back that it's difficult to gauge where you were relative to the intersection. That's my opinion; the JP could see it the other way.

Thanks for your opinion Zatota.

Was the infraction you're reference the first one (31 second to 45 second mark) or the second one at the intersection, just before he pulled me over?

Any suggestion on the two referenced violations for failing to stop but only one ticket? Do you know if the crown has to specify which infraction he intends to pursue?

Saskman wrote:

the first one imo, which is from a considerable distance away, shows headlights and a probable stop sign violation, though a couple seconds is obstructed completely by a passing vehicle at the time my vehicle was approaching the intersection (which has a stop sign about 7 metres from the highway) on a grid road.

You come barreling out of the side street with nothing close to a stop. Your car was not obstructed for a "couple seconds". You'd be lucky if it was obstructed for a single second. I think probable is being generous.

Saskman wrote:

The video evidence clearly reflects a full intention and near completion of a stop.

I don't think it clearly indicates that at all, but that's just me.

Saskman wrote:

My arguement on that one, which I believe the crown intends to prosecute, is that I believed the vehicle behind me was an aggressive, possibly intoxicated driver. Who accelerates towards a stop vehicle at an intersection? The officer does not put his lights on until after I proceed past the stop sign. It's a daunting and intimidating experience to have a large suv accelerate at a close distance while your vehicle is stopped in the darkest of nights. A reasonable person, which I hope the judge is, would clearly see my case here without doubt.

I don't see it. If anything, it shows the officer keeping a safe distance while pursuing a vehicle at the same time. In my opinion, you're grasping.

Saskman wrote:

But under the traffic act, it also cites that one doesn't have to stop until safe to do so- in this case, I did my best to safely stop but was intimdated by the vehicle approaching at an accelerated rate behind me, hence, why I proceeded.

I don't even have to read the act from Saskatchewan to know you've read this wrong.

Saskman wrote:

And folks, if the officer was so confident that I didn't safely stop for the 2nd alleged infraction, why did the officer breeze thru the intersection at no less then 30km/hr without making any verification there were no vehicles coming- assuming he believed that I did not safely scope it out?

This argument is going to get you nowhere fast.

I agree with Bend---you have not only interpreted the law wrong, but the video speaks for itself that you didn't stop (and the officer was no risk to you).

Re-read section 40(4)(a) of the HTA (Sask).

40(4) The driver of a vehicle shall bring the vehicle to a stop:

(a) at every place where a stop sign is erected...

then, subsection 6

40(6) No person who is required to stop pursuant to subsection (4) or (5) shall proceed until it is safe to do so.

and then finally, the definition of "stop" as per section 2(1)(dd):

"stop" means:

(i) when required, a complete cessation from movement; and

(ii) when prohibited, any stopping, even momentarily, of a vehicle,

whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with

other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or a

traffic-control signal.

This is where you seem to think that stopping at stop sign is merely "prohibited"---its not, its "required"---thus the definition of stop s.2(1)(dd)(i) applies to you. Section 40(6) requires you to not proceed until it is safe to do so.

So, your arguments have no merit.

As for the video, its pretty clear that you made no attempt to stop on the first stop sign---there is not even a slowing down of the vehicle and no loss of sight of it. The latter portion (at the next stop sign) simply clarifies your identity to proceed on the first infraction (if they wanted to). But, the second intersection also shows the same thing----your wheels never stop. The officer is also quite a safe distance from you. So, bottom line: I think the entire sequence (both intersections) will sink you.

I would take a deal, if they offer one. As for the charges, they could proceed on both (and get convictions on both), but they'll likely just proceed on the last intersection since there is no denying who you are at that point (no ID issues!).

highwaystar wrote:

I agree with Bend---you have not only interpreted the law wrong, but the video speaks for itself that you didn't stop (and the officer was no risk to you).

Re-read section 40(4)(a) of the HTA (Sask).

40(4) The driver of a vehicle shall bring the vehicle to a stop:

(a) at every place where a stop sign is erected...

then, subsection 6

40(6) No person who is required to stop pursuant to subsection (4) or (5) shall proceed until it is safe to do so.

and then finally, the definition of "stop" as per section 2(1)(dd):

"stop" means:

(i) when required, a complete cessation from movement; and

(ii) when prohibited, any stopping, even momentarily, of a vehicle,

whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with

other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or a

traffic-control signal.

The traffic acts are a carbon copy of each other, that's exactly what the Saskatchewan Act says also.

However the officer's video is grainy and it has a poor frames per second issue in the dark.

If you look at the other lights in the video, many appear to be blinking and expanding; some appear to be even moving when the officer is turning.

Have you considered the poor quality of footage, with the poor night time ISO, not adequately capable of recording video with competency at night.

Even in the first video, you can see my brake lights activate. At that intersection, the stop sign is a significant ways back.

In the video, the vehicles appearing in it are going at difference rates, due to the lighting bothering the camera.

highwaystar wrote:

This is where you seem to think that stopping at stop sign is merely "prohibited"---its not, its "required"---thus the definition of stop s.2(1)(dd)(i) applies to you. Section 40(6) requires you to not proceed until it is safe to do so.

So, your arguments have no merit.

If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer dwell upon my dilligence to scope out the intersection? The officer made no attempt to stop at the intersection. I had my stop lights on for around 10 seconds, which is evidence of stopping in my opinion. The officer's cruiser accelerates towards mine while my brake lights were on, intimidating my vehicle, which is now under the assumption there is a dangerous driver behind me.

If it wasn't safe to proceed- why did the officer, who didn't even yield whatsoever to traffic?

Do you think that's an argument?

highwaystar wrote:

As for the video, its pretty clear that you made no attempt to stop on the first stop sign---there is not even a slowing down of the vehicle and no loss of sight of it. The latter portion (at the next stop sign) simply clarifies your identity to proceed on the first infraction (if they wanted to). But, the second intersection also shows the same thing----your wheels never stop. The officer is also quite a safe distance from you. So, bottom line: I think the entire sequence (both intersections) will sink you.

They can proceed to try to get me on both with only one ticket issued?

Could I ask the judge to adjourn the hearing in order for me to retain a digital video professional (at the time of the hearing, due to new evidence given at the disclosure)?

Also, I have a feeling the crown will be the one to show the video and the police officer will not show up. If the police officer doesn't show up, could the charge be dismissed?

bend wrote:

You come barreling out of the side street with nothing close to a stop. Your car was not obstructed for a "couple seconds". You'd be lucky if it was obstructed for a single second. I think probable is being generous.

Could we say the officer's camera was too far back and only reflects lighting. If you review the other lighting in the video at that distance especially, such as the stars or lamposts, all appear to be flashing, expanding and enlarging, due to the cameras inabilities to process lighting under those conditions. Objects in the video appear to be moving at different rates, the frames per second go from choppy to less choppy, but there is no question that the lighting objects in the video are being falsely manipulated by the low quality cruiser camera. Even higher end cameras have difficulty taking clear pictures at night without changing the ISO settings and using a tripod to remain still.

Do you see any way to lessen the credibility of the evidence in the first allegation?

bend wrote:

I don't think it clearly indicates that at all, but that's just me.

If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer dwell upon my diligence to scope out the intersection? The officer made no attempt to stop at the intersection. I had my stop lights on for around 10 seconds, which is evidence of stopping in my opinion. The officer's cruiser accelerates towards mine while my brake lights were on, intimidating my vehicle, which is now under the assumption there is a dangerous driver behind me.

If it wasn't safe to proceed- why did the officer, who didn't even yield whatsoever to traffic?

Do you think that's an argument?

bend wrote:

I don't see it. If anything, it shows the officer keeping a safe distance while pursuing a vehicle at the same time. In my opinion, you're grasping.

If you look closely in the video, you can notice the officer accelerates towards mine. Counting 10 seconds, my brake lights were on. The officer dwelled upon my verification that the intersection was clear, if not, why did he proceed without stopping or even yielding? His lights came on- to identify his vehicle as police unit- at the time of being in the intersection, not exactly a safe deterrent to oncoming traffic, assuming the officer believed my vehicle proceeded when it was not safe to do so?

If you thought a vehicle behind you, at night, was approaching you at a quick rate and may not stop in time, would you proceed or remain? Its clear that my vehicle had made a strong intention to stop, having the brake lights on for 10 seconds and ensuring traffic was clear, do you contest that?

bend wrote:

I don't even have to read the act from Saskatchewan to know you've read this wrong.

HighwayStar below posted from the Ontario Traffic Act, which is worded the same.

bend wrote:

This argument is going to get you nowhere fast.

How do you feel that my argument re the officer cruising thru the intersection without yielding, after my vehicle made intention to stop is useless?

Does a 10 second brake light mean nothing? If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer, who did so without yielding or stopping?

And guys, one more things.

Here is the non legible ticket I was issued, detailing or summarising the offense. Can you read it, cause I can only read bits and pieces (and I love reading, and writing!)

Do you think my intention of forcing the officer to translate this in court (assuming he shows up, I hope he doesn't- but if he does) is a good idea that will work?

If he does show up and reads this, I would like to adjourn the trial to a later date, based on new evidence (the summary of what he charged me with!)

I don't see how this can justly be denied, given it's impossible to read his handwriting, which is imperative for the trial.

Saskman wrote:

However the officer's video is grainy and it has a poor frames per second issue in the dark.

If you look at the other lights in the video, many appear to be blinking and expanding; some appear to be even moving when the officer is turning.

Have you considered the poor quality of footage, with the poor night time ISO, not adequately capable of recording video with competency at night.

Even in the first video, you can see my brake lights activate. At that intersection, the stop sign is a significant ways back.

In the video, the vehicles appearing in it are going at difference rates, due to the lighting bothering the camera.

You were not charged based on the video evidence. The video evidence is just extra.

Saskman wrote:

If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer dwell upon my dilligence to scope out the intersection? The officer made no attempt to stop at the intersection. I had my stop lights on for around 10 seconds, which is evidence of stopping in my opinion. The officer's cruiser accelerates towards mine while my brake lights were on, intimidating my vehicle, which is now under the assumption there is a dangerous driver behind me.

Having your brake lights on isn't evidence of stopping and they weren't on for around 10 seconds. They were barely on for 5, not that it matters.

Saskman wrote:

If it wasn't safe to proceed- why did the officer, who didn't even yield whatsoever to traffic?

Lets pretend that this was a valid argument for a second. How does the officers failure to stop cancel out yours?

Saskman wrote:

Could we say the officer's camera was too far back and only reflects lighting. If you review the other lighting in the video at that distance especially, such as the stars or lamposts, all appear to be flashing, expanding and enlarging, due to the cameras inabilities to process lighting under those conditions. Objects in the video appear to be moving at different rates, the frames per second go from choppy to less choppy, but there is no question that the lighting objects in the video are being falsely manipulated by the low quality cruiser camera. Even higher end cameras have difficulty taking clear pictures at night without changing the ISO settings and using a tripod to remain still.

Again, you were not charged based on the video evidence. The video evidence is just extra.

Saskman wrote:

How do you feel that my argument re the officer cruising thru the intersection without yielding, after my vehicle made intention to stop is useless?

Does a 10 second brake light mean nothing? If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer, who did so without yielding or stopping?

Does any of that prove you stopped?

bend wrote:

You were not charged based on the video evidence. The video evidence is just extra.

True, but without the video evidence, the officer lacks the competency to determine that my vehicle came to an adequate stop.

It was the darkest of nights.

bend wrote:

Having your brake lights on isn't evidence of stopping and they weren't on for around 10 seconds. They were barely on for 5, not that it matters.

True, I actually miscalculated. They were on for five seconds, which is a sufficient duration required to come to a stop?

Brake lights are evidence of an attempt to reduce or cease kinetic motion. Can you, without a doubt, verify that my vehicle didn't stop for the slightest of a second?

Honestly, I've watched this 100x and I cannot.

bend wrote:

Lets pretend that this was a valid argument for a second. How does the officers failure to stop cancel out yours?

Well I would say that if the officer failed to stop, as he did, not even yielding whatsoever, he would have endangered public safety.

My question to the officer, "would you endanger public safety to stop a motor vehicle that you felt engaged in a rolling stop?"

If the officer wasn't convinced I stopped, then did he knowingly endanger public safety by not stopping himself?

Or did he sufficiently believe that my vehicle safely proceeded?

Basically, my argument here is to insinuate, that the officer believes I adequately stopped sufficiently to safely proceed.

Saskman wrote:

How do you feel that my argument re the officer cruising thru the intersection without yielding, after my vehicle made intention to stop is useless?

Does a 10 second brake light mean nothing? If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer, who did so without yielding or stopping?

bend wrote:

Does any of that prove you stopped?

Well it doesn't "prove" I stopped, but it either proves that the officer believes I did safely stop my vehicle to an extent that it was safe to proceed, or he himself put other motor vehicles at risk by failing to stop and rather activate his lights to pull my vehicle over.

His video does not prove I didn't stop for the slightest of a second, 5 seconds of braking shows an intention to cease movement. Of course I understand your side, the argument in favor or against, on the 2nd infraction could potentially go either way. Failure to stop carries a levy of 4 demerit points, is the slightest of doubt, or a near completion of a stop, worthy of being given a whopping 4-demerit points to an otherwise, flawless, driver, who has never had any infraction in his driving career?

But again, my argument, assuming it gets to an actual trial-trial, would be I quickly proceeded due to a quickly oncoming vehicle behind me.

Bend, can you tell me what you think of my poor ticket handwriting photo. This is a summary against me, yet I cannot determine without question, exactly what it says. My trial is set for Jan 19th, but I intend to request the ticketing officer identify his writing and translate it. Upon him doing this, assuming he shows up, I intend to ask the judge to adjourn the hearing based on "new disclosure" as the statement being properly translated into mainstream legible English handwriting, would be tantamount to.

I want to prevent this from getting to an actual trial. Do you think I have a convincing argument for this? I'm hoping to deter the crown or an absence of the ticketing officer.

I believe the crown is so confident, that he believes he "scared" me from proceeding to trial, when he released the CD-rom containing the video footage at the police station when I went to pick up the disclosure. I would prefer to have the ticket dismissed or reduced based on the crown or court wishing to complete the matter without further delay in costs or time, I would like to deter them from pursuing and would be willing to make a plea deal to a non-demerit point offense. If I could do this based on a technicality, that would be ideal.

First off,I posted sections of the Sask. HTA; not the Ontario one. The Ont. HTA is very different in structure, style, wording, and detail. Its far from a carbon copy!!!

Secondly, if the officer doesn't show, the prosecutor can't proceed. They would be unable to ID you as the driver and the video would not be able to be authenticated (and so, inadmissable).

As for the officer proceeding through the stop, he could--he was in pursiut of you and it was safe to do. The question is not whether it was safe to proceed---that's not what you are being charged with---rather, its whether you stopped (i.e. a cessation of movement as per the definition of stopping). You clearly did not.

Its irrelevant if your brake lights are on or not---all that matters is whether you stopped, which NEVER occurred. Even your own argument is going to be proving that you didn't stop (out of fear of getting rear-ended). Not only are you helping the prosecutor by admitting you didn't stop but then you have to find out if the charge is absolute liability (in which case your argument is useless) or whether its strict liability (in which case I don't think you'll be able to satisfy the due-diligence defence with your argument).

highwaystar wrote:

Secondly, if the officer doesn't show, the prosecutor can't proceed. They would be unable to ID you as the driver and the video would not be able to be authenticated (and so, inadmissable).

Well I live in a small town, unfortunately, courthouse is right beside the police station.

However I'm hoping that the police discourage their officers from attending court, or encourages the crown to minimize court expenditures by making deals.

Each court appearance is 4 hours in pay, a hefty amount for a small town.

Assuming he does show up, what do you think about my adjournment request in regards to the non-legible handwriting on the ticket (summary section?)

highwaystar wrote:

As for the officer proceeding through the stop, he could--he was in pursiut of you and it was safe to do. The question is not whether it was safe to proceed---that's not what you are being charged with---rather, its whether you stopped (i.e. a cessation of movement as per the definition of stopping). You clearly did not.

How could he competently determine whether it was safe to do so? Did he trust my judgement?

My likely argument will be that my vehicle 99% stopped, but quickly accelerated due to fear of being hit from behind.

highwaystar wrote:

Even your own argument is going to be proving that you didn't stop (out of fear of getting rear-ended). Not only are you helping the prosecutor by admitting you didn't stop but then you have to find out if the charge is absolute liability (in which case your argument is useless) or whether its strict liability (in which case I don't think you'll be able to satisfy the due-diligence defence with your argument).

I'm not going to use two different arguments, I'm merely trying to get your opinion on which is the better defense.

Can you please let me know about my plan for adjourning the trial, based on new disclosure, with hopes the court will seek to deter that and lessen the ticket?

Hey folks. Sick me yet? I enjoy the replies and I hope they keep coming.

I used the resources on this awesome forum and our SaskLawCourts website to decide on my next step, additional disclosure.

I requested disclosure on the same day of the 1st appearance, Nov. 9th. It wasn't until January 6th I received it, the court case is Jan 19th.

Upon receiving the disclosure, I've been left with more questions then answers. Hence, the additional disclosure.

What do you all think of it??? Any feedback??? Thanks

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE

In regards to the charge above, and with respect to the guidelines established by the R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 (SCC) and subsequent cases, I request that you provide me with all relevant information so that I can prepare a defence, and make full answer, to the charge mentioned above. Without limiting this request, I specifically ask that you include:

* A typed copy of the "details of offence" section on the ticket. Current detail of offence section, which is hand written by ticketing officer is not legible

* There are abbreviations involved in the "details of offence" section, please define full meanings

* A copy of the manual for the dash cam used on the police cruiser, including the specs and camera capabilities, as well as any other relevant information

* A copy of the dash cam footage recorded showing actual date and time as a sub section

* A copy of any previous malfunction reports or operation issues with dash cam

* An elaboration of the meaning of "equipment problems" regarding dash cam footage as handwritten in black marker on the CD-Rom package on initial disclosure.

I also request that you inform me of any information that is not being disclosed, with an explanation for such. If you require further information from me or have any questions regarding my request, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please notify me either by phone or e-mail when my request for additional disclosure has been complete, alternatively, you may send the additional disclosure to my address listed below.

Thank you.

Hey guys

Do you think this would be considered a fatal error, having no offence box properly selected (not even close) He does have the section number of the Sask Highway Traffic Act in there, but no actual box is selected of the offence I committed.

Could this be, a fatal error? Could it be successfully argued that the ticket is NOT complete nor an offence properly selected?

Under the Saskatchewan Provincial Offenses Act:

Procedures for use of ticket 7(1) Every summary offence ticket: (a) shall be completed and signed by the peace officer who issues it; and

Offence notice ticket

18(1) An offence notice ticket under this Part is required to:

(a) include:

(i) a certificate of offence; and

(ii) an offence notice; and

From the regulations, the definition of "completion of ticket."

Completion of ticket

12(1) A peace officer who issues a ticket with respect to an offence shall:

(a) in the spaces provided on the ticket, give:

(i) the section number of the Act, regulation or bylaw pursuant to which

the charge is made;

(ii) a brief description in words of the offence; and

(iii) the name of the person to be charged and other particulars indicated

on the ticket; and

(b) deliver to the defendant the summons or offence notice, as the case may

require.

(1.1) A peace officer who issues an offence notice ticket for an offence pursuant

to The Traffic Safety Act where an owner of a vehicle or a person in charge of

a vehicle is charged pursuant to section 273 of that Act shall indicate on the

ticket both the section number of the Act that describes the specific offence and

section 273 as the sections pursuant to which the charge is made.

There's a check mark by the box. I doubt you're going to get it thrown out for that.

Saskman wrote:

Zatota wrote:

I watched the video a bunch of times. Your brake lights were on for about five seconds. I find it really hard to tell whether you came to a complete stop or were still rolling. The officer was sufficiently far back that it's difficult to gauge where you were relative to the intersection. That's my opinion; the JP could see it the other way.

Thanks for your opinion Zatota.

Was the infraction you're reference the first one (31 second to 45 second mark) or the second one at the intersection, just before he pulled me over?

Any suggestion on the two referenced violations for failing to stop but only one ticket? Do you know if the crown has to specify which infraction he intends to pursue?

I've looked at it again, based on the comments others have posted. Here's what I think:

It's going to be hard to say you stopped the first time. The only hope you have (and it's quite faint) is that you could argue you came to a complete stop between the 40- and 41-second marks when that other car blocked the officer. You could simply have been moving forward to complete your turn after you were no longer blocked. Again, that will be hard, but there may be a glimmer of benefit of the doubt.

I still say with the second one, the officer was too far back to determine whether you came to a complete stop. Yes, you're rolling when he's close enough to "nab" you, but you could have been stopped when he was too far back to have noticed.

There's only one ticket because you've been charged with the same offence (possibly two counts of it). The Crown only needs to prove that you failed to stop in either case. You will have to raise doubt on both of them to win.

Zatota wrote:

Saskman wrote:

Zatota wrote:

I watched the video a bunch of times. Your brake lights were on for about five seconds. I find it really hard to tell whether you came to a complete stop or were still rolling. The officer was sufficiently far back that it's difficult to gauge where you were relative to the intersection. That's my opinion; the JP could see it the other way.

Thanks for your opinion Zatota.

Was the infraction you're reference the first one (31 second to 45 second mark) or the second one at the intersection, just before he pulled me over?

Any suggestion on the two referenced violations for failing to stop but only one ticket? Do you know if the crown has to specify which infraction he intends to pursue?

I've looked at it again, based on the comments others have posted. Here's what I think:

It's going to be hard to say you stopped the first time. The only hope you have (and it's quite faint) is that you could argue you came to a complete stop between the 40- and 41-second marks when that other car blocked the officer. You could simply have been moving forward to complete your turn after you were no longer blocked. Again, that will be hard, but there may be a glimmer of benefit of the doubt.

I still say with the second one, the officer was too far back to determine whether you came to a complete stop. Yes, you're rolling when he's close enough to "nab" you, but you could have been stopped when he was too far back to have noticed.

There's only one ticket because you've been charged with the same offence (possibly two counts of it). The Crown only needs to prove that you failed to stop in either case. You will have to raise doubt on both of them to win.

The goal at this point is to have the ticket dismissed on a fatal error, which I'm hoping is a possibility as its not legally completed- as per regulations & act. Not only did he not properly select an offense box, he spelt my first name- Christophe- rather then Christopher, two errors on one ticket. The box however, is a direct violation of the regulations prescribed. The name one is a tiny borderline one, but coupled with the other one, hoping for a TKO.

My second goal is to not have the officer show up, thereby, dismissing the ticket.

My third goal is to adjourn the matter, based on a request for additional disclosure. Focusing on the non legible "summary of offense" written on initial ticket, which when translated into mainstream English characters, would be tantamount to a new disclosure.

Then if this occurs, I will call the crown and ask for a ticket reduction to a non-demerit point offense in return for a guilty plea. Hoping they will be deterred by another trial date.

If it gets to trial, I will find a photography/video editor in town who can attest on my behalf that the video makes objects appear larger and inaccurate in the dark.

Will request that this puts me at a judicial disadvantage and that the first 45 seconds of the video be omitted.

My last goal, if all else fails, is to appeal the ticket based on the technicality potentially overlooked by a JP- who may not even be an actual lawyer or hold a law degree.

If they want a meal from the desert, I'm going to make them work for it

Does the act specifically say that the check mark has to be in the box ?

Will your video editor testify that video makes things appear to be moving when they are actually stationary ?

I admire your tenacity but I fear the only person you will be inconveniencing is yourself - the Crown is being paid to be there.

argyll wrote:

Does the act specifically say that the check mark has to be in the box ?

Will your video editor testify that video makes things appear to be moving when they are actually stationary ?

I admire your tenacity but I fear the only person you will be inconveniencing is yourself - the Crown is being paid to be there.

The Saskatchewan Summary Offenses Regulations as to what defines "completion of ticket" in the Saskatchewan Summary Offenses Act states that in sector 1 (the part where the unmarked boxes are), the offense must be identified in the space provided, later to say "in form," however one wants to interpret that. To me, it's quite clear, defining a space provided, means a space provided. The Regulation's even includes a carbon copy of the actual ticket, which I have printed, highlighted and will bring to court. If I were taking a multiple choice test and answered "A" instead of "C", it would be considered invalid, even if it was obvious C was the most obvious answer and I scored 99% on all other parts of the exam- it wouldn't be allowed an amendment after the fact?

It's pretty clear that the regulations stipulate, "in the space provided." Not having the box actually checked (at all) should technically render it an incomplete ticket (as per the Act).

Of course, you, I and the judge or JP, knows, that this is a mistake and the officer missed the box. But it still is a clear cut violation of the definition of completion of ticket.

If the JP is willing to comply wholeheartedly with what is prescribed in the law, I feel she will be compelled to side with my argument, which I will prove in court.

As for the video expert, what I'd like him to specify is the grainy frames per second rate. Objects appear to be moving slower and at other times quicker, depending on where the lighting is focused. The video can be crystal clear in the day, or under stationary conditions, as you can see when my vehicle is stopped. Frames per second increase to a fluid stream, rather then pausing and going, etc. So I don't actually want him to testify about the stationary object moving, but to downplay the accuracy of objects that are lit with a dash cam incapable of properly displaying those objects. Even a higher end camera would not do a much better job unless it were stationary, with a very steady hand or a tripod. If you review the lit objects/lights especially, in that video, they appear to be enlarging and blinking, when they are NOT. Also as the officer turns, the camera turns and it can make the objects appear as if they moved. When the passerby motor vehicle at the 40/41 second mark disrupts the camera, the lights distort the cameras accuracy. Just before the passerby's motor vehicle disrupts the dashcam, you can, from a distance, notice that it appears my brake lights were activating. That intersection is a rural like one, the stop sign is considerable ways back from the highway and its sloped.

So what appears to be, is not really so. But again, I hope it doesn't get to this stage. I'm trying to downplay the evidence before its' used in court, with the crown agreeing, to only showing the second alleged infraction in the courtroom, which I would not object to.

argyll wrote:

Does the act specifically say that the check mark has to be in the box ?

Will your video editor testify that video makes things appear to be moving when they are actually stationary ?

I admire your tenacity but I fear the only person you will be inconveniencing is yourself - the Crown is being paid to be there.

Well, for me, I am not inconveniencing myself either. I do shift work, so I'm off that day. When the insurance company ruled 50/50 fault when a driver struck my car, all the advice on the Internet said, don't waste your time arguing the SGI (Provincial Crown Insurance and License Administer) decision- the judge will always rule with SGI. Couple months later, I overruled their faulty decision in a trial, received my 800 deductible and rental car fees for a month, also the safe driver rating points which were applied were immediately quashed. Plus, I love law, politics and arguing, so whatever occurs, I will make the most of. This is my first time in traffic court, though for years of my life, I've been exposed to Family and Criminal Law, which I use to want to pursue as a career.

The Saskatchewan Summary Offenses Regulations as to what defines "completion of ticket" in the Saskatchewan Summary Offenses Act states that in sector 1 (the part where the unmarked boxes are), the offense must be identified in the space provided, later to say "in form," however one wants to interpret that. To me, it's quite clear, defining a space provided, means the space provided, which in this case is that vacant box the officer failed to sign. There is also Sec 209 in the Highway Traffic Act, which was another option beside the box. The Regulation's even includes a carbon copy of the actual ticket as an example, which I have printed, highlighted and will bring to court.

If I were taking a multiple choice test and answered "A" instead of "C", it would be considered invalid, even if it was obvious C was the most obvious answer and I scored 99% on all other parts of the exam- it wouldn't be allowed an amendment after the fact, even if the test administrator knew it was a mistake?

It's pretty clear that the regulations stipulate, "in the space provided." Not having the box actually checked (at all) should technically render it an incomplete ticket (as per the Act).

Of course, you, I and the judge or JP, knows, that this is a mistake and the officer missed the box. But it still is a clear cut violation of the definition of completion of ticket.

If the JP is willing to comply wholeheartedly with what is prescribed in the law, I feel she will be compelled to side with my argument, which I will prove in court.

As for the video expert, what I'd like him to specify is the grainy frames per second rate. Objects appear to be moving slower and at other times quicker, depending on where the lighting is focused. The video can be crystal clear in the day, or under stationary conditions, as you can see when my vehicle is stopped. Frames per second increase to a fluid stream, rather then pausing and going, etc. So I don't actually want him to testify about the stationary object moving, but to downplay the accuracy of objects that are lit with a dash cam incapable of properly displaying those objects. Even a higher end camera would not do a much better job unless it were stationary, with a very steady hand or a tripod. If you review the lit objects/lights especially, in that video, they appear to be enlarging and blinking, when they are NOT. Also as the officer turns, the camera turns and it can make the objects appear as if they moved. When the passerby motor vehicle at the 40/41 second mark disrupts the camera, the lights distort the cameras accuracy. Just before the passerby's motor vehicle disrupts the dashcam, you can, from a distance, notice that it appears my brake lights were activating. That intersection is a rural like one, the stop sign is considerable ways back from the highway and its sloped.

So what appears to be, is not really so. But again, I hope it doesn't get to this stage. I'm trying to downplay the evidence before its' used in court, with the crown agreeing, to only showing the second alleged infraction in the courtroom, which I would not object to.

So today, I got some additional disclosure from the local police (I live in a small town, so its really easy). The police officer for the court intends to show a video from the cruiser- which was taken at night, from a lengthy distance, as "proof" that I failed to properly stop. In my opinion, objects in the video with lights are falsely appearing to have flaming glows around them, lights come and then go black. Thankfully, the speed is also shown that the officer was traveling, which is something that will benefit me in court as my excuse for stopping 99% instead of 100%, was that I had a vehicle proceeding behind me at 70km/hr while I was stopping! Also, the police officer for the court informed me that he is leaving for vacation and will not be able to attend the trial, reminding me, that I can plead guilty any time prior to the trial on Jan 19th. Lol.

Police here use "WatchGuard 4RE" recording system, used for law enforcement purposes. Its high quality definition video, sent to the main police computer wirelessly. It has 4 different modes of recording and 4 different speeds of recording, selected manually by the police administrator. At night time however, the footage is corny and dramatically reduced in quality, it would be comparable to your typical iphone camera, trying to take video from a distance at night and while moving.

I have reviewed the technical specifications of this camera, the "compression method" used is H.264 High Profile, a type of codec.

In a nutshell, the fact that the original data was sent wirelessly, then uploaded to an old fashion CD-ROM, leaves the original video compressed over 1000x.

The H264 codec itself downsizes it 500x, resulting in some data loss.

On the Canadian Bar legal site, they cite the compression and data loss and a risk to the integrity of the video and advise on challenging it.

I've read on the Provincial Evidence Act that if video is to be shown, a video expert can be required to basically translate the video tech specs.

Can anyone here explain the process of challenging the admissibility of evidence into a court room?

Video or no video, the officer still witnessed the offense.

If officer does not show, then you can request the charge be dropped. That is probably best course of action.

Getting on stand and saying you stopped 99% will just mean you admitted you did not stop and by your own words you will be found guilty. You probably do NOT want to testify.

If the officer is not there, but they are still going to proceed with trial and show the video, you can OBJECT to video being shown as the officer that took it is not there for you to cross examine. If they still allow the video to be shown, then you can just point out the video is not that clear and does not clearly show that you did not stop. If they ever asked you if you stopped completely, you can answer "I am not required to answer that as I am not under oath"... do NOT answer that question unless you are under oath on the witness stand (which I recommend you do not do).

jsherk wrote:

If officer does not show, then you can request the charge be dropped. That is probably best course of action.

Getting on stand and saying you stopped 99% will just mean you admitted you did not stop and by your own words you will be found guilty. You probably do NOT want to testify.

If the officer is not there, but they are still going to proceed with trial and show the video, you can OBJECT to video being shown as the officer that took it is not there for you to cross examine. If they still allow the video to be shown, then you can just point out the video is not that clear and does not clearly show that you did not stop. If they ever asked you if you stopped completely, you can answer "I am not required to answer that as I am not under oath"... do NOT answer that question unless you are under oath on the witness stand (which I recommend you do not do).

Hi Sherk, thanks for the reply.

Why do you think I should not testify? My "excuse" which I believe is law abiding, for the 2nd infraction is:

From our Traffic Safety Act:

(qq) "stop" means:

(i) when required, a complete cessation from movement; and

(ii) when prohibited, any stopping, even momentarily, of a vehicle,

whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with

other traffic

I believed the officer was going to hit me (I did not know it was a police officer.) The video with Closed Captioning mode shows the officer approaching me while stopped at around 70km/hr, the speed actually registers on the CC camera. I have been struck by a drink driver before so I am very wary.

I scoped out the intersection and ensured it was safe, but took off quickly out of fear, that a vehicle was going to plow into me.

Do you buy this? It's actually true. My concern is the first "infraction" more then the 2nd.

Don't they have to establish the "mens rea," which is guilty mind- as this isn't a liability offence?

From the section of Saskatchewan's Traffic Safety Act that you quoted,

in subsection (i), when it says "when required", that seems to apply to stop signs because it is required by law to stop at a stop sign.

in subsection (ii), when it says "when prohibited", that likely applies to 'No Stopping' signs because it is prohibited by law to stop in a No Stopping zone.

Also, in the Supreme Court ruling R. v. Sault Ste Marie (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 5/index.do), the Court ruled that, in general, regulatory offences (such as traffic infractions) are considered strict liability offences, which means that the prosecution only needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence occurred, but the defence of due diligence (doing everything possible to prevent the offence from happening) and other common law defences can be used. The prosecution need not prove "mens rea", unless the specific wording of the legislation uses words such as "willingly", "knowingly", etc.

However, the specific wording of stop sign infractions in legislation has lent itself to be considered "absolute liability offences". In your case, section 209(6)(a) of the Traffic Safety Act says,

"(6) No driver of a vehicle shall fail to bring the vehicle to a stop:

(a) at every place where a stop sign is erected;"

The word "shall" makes a stop sign infraction lean more towards an absolute liability offence. Similar to strict liability, this means the prosecution only needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence occurred. The defence of due diligence, which was available under strict liability, is no longer available for absolute liability offences.

There are three levels of proof required:

- mens rea

- strict liability

- absolute liability

Tickets for things like speeding and failing to stop are considered absolute liability, meaning either yes you did or no did not do it. Whether you meant to do it or not is irrelevent. As soon as you admit you did it, you are guilty and there are no excuses or reasons that will get the ticket dropped, with the exception of your life being in danger.

Disclosure is an ongoing process where the defendant must take an active role. If you wait until court to ask for a typed written break down of the officers notes, the Jusitce of the Peace will question you as to what efforts you made to get a typed version of the notes...at trial, the JP may, or may not, adjourn the matter...The notes are not that hard to read...you went through the first stop sign at 20-25Km/H, went through the 2nd stop sign at 5-6Km/H, Officer had clear unobstructed view...