Hello,

I was just wondering if you are radar'd by an oncoming police cruiser while you have a car behind you and the officer passes you both, cruisers brakes are noted, then I went around a corner (still on the highway) and lost site of the cruiser. Approx 1-2 minutes later the cruiser is noted behind the car behind me, 20 seconds later he puts his lights on, passes the car behind me as it has just pulled over. Cruiser follows me for approx 30 seconds (with lights off) and then turns lights on and pulls me over for the original infraction that occured while he was initially oncoming to me.

From the above would you see a continuity of evidence case?

Also the ticket for location states "HWY XX @ smith road" it does not mention the city or municipality that I was in at the time of the offence. Would it not have to say "HWY 11 @ smith road municipality/city of north bay", no where on the ticket does it state the city/municipality.

I appreciate your help as I feel there was an un-necessary delay in pulling me over and that maybe the officer was trying to "wait to see if he could get me at a faster speed?"

ap97 wrote:From the above would you see a continuity of evidence case?

Possibly. It would depend on the highway, level of traffic, time of day and how long sight was lost for. You would have to request disclosure and see what the evidence is. If the officer got a partial plate or reasonable descriptors, the fact you were in the same location with the same car following sounds like reasonable evidence.

ap97 wrote:Also the ticket for location states "HWY XX @ smith road" it does not mention the city or municipality that I was in at the time of the offence. Would it not have to say "HWY 11 @ smith road municipality/city of north bay", no where on the ticket does it state the city/municipality.

It should have the City/Municipality. If the whole location section was left blank it would be a fatal error, but I'm not sure if it's still one with the roadway listed.

ap97 wrote:I appreciate your help as I feel there was an un-necessary delay in pulling me over and that maybe the officer was trying to "wait to see if he could get me at a faster speed?"

That's irrelevant in Court. There is no requirement the officer has to pull you over immediately after the offence, they could stop you the next day if they want. Some reasons for delays in stops are to get information back on the plate or to have the vehicle stop on a safer stretch of road.

Stanton wrote: There is no requirement the officer has to pull you over immediately after the offence, they could stop you the next day if they want. Some reasons for delays in stops are to get information back on the plate or to have the vehicle stop on a safer stretch of road.

Imagine that ....waiting for air time...then to check the plate and then finding a safe location to stop a vehicle.

I have waited sometimes 10km before stopping the vehicle.

I wasn't sure about some of these things that's why I asked ... What is the general thought on the lack of city on the ticket and the fact sight was lost?

ap97 wrote:Hello,

I was just wondering if you are radar'd by an oncoming police cruiser while you have a car behind you and the officer passes you both, cruisers brakes are noted, then I went around a corner (still on the highway) and lost site of the cruiser. Approx 1-2 minutes later the cruiser is noted behind the car behind me, 20 seconds later he puts his lights on, passes the car behind me as it has just pulled over. Cruiser follows me for approx 30 seconds (with lights off) and then turns lights on and pulls me over for the original infraction that occured while he was initially oncoming to me.

From the above would you see a continuity of evidence case?

Also the ticket for location states "HWY XX @ smith road" it does not mention the city or municipality that I was in at the time of the offence. Would it not have to say "HWY 11 @ smith road municipality/city of north bay", no where on the ticket does it state the city/municipality.

I appreciate your help as I feel there was an un-necessary delay in pulling me over and that maybe the officer was trying to "wait to see if he could get me at a faster speed?"

You saw the officer's light's but you did not pull over or even slow down?

They probably thought you were drunk and followed you a bit farther to see how you drove.

What speed where you at just before you slowed?

I believe the region needs to be written for them/you to know what court to attend.

I believe they can amend it if you do not object "before the charge is read"

It used to work that way.

Every thing I know about this stuff I learned by watching other cases.(live)

Luck

I would rate it at a 95% success rate /withdrawn.

Cheers

Viper1

You saw the officer's light's but you did not pull over or even slow down?

- they were on momentarily and then turned off (i thought the guy behind me was being pulled over)

What speed where you at just before you slowed?

- It was an 80 zone and I was doing just over 100km/h at this time, ironically I was watching my fuel economy for this trip so I wasnt speeding 95% of the time but thats the way it usually works!

Luck

I would rate it at a 95% success rate /withdrawn.

- I do not understand what you mean by this statement lol

95 times out of 100 you will have the charge with-drawn.

Fuel economy means nothing for the charge.

My car gets 50% better mileage at 140kph or .50% less at 90 kph.

That said if you don't slow for a cop you get what you get.

Cheers

Viper1