Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

Stanton wrote:

Officers notes: Must be provided

Both sides of the ticket: Wont be provided unless notes were written on back of ticket

Typed version: Unlikely to receive on first request. Will have to justify upon reviewing notes (i.e. illegible, use of short forms that are indecipherable)

Statements made by the defendant: Unless you gave the officer a written statement, this wont exist.

Records relating to training, internal directives, policies: Wont be provided

Occurrence report: Wont exist, police dont complete reports for a simple traffic stop.

Video /Audio Evidence: Should be provided if it exists

Make, model, and serial number of speed measuring device: This would be part of the notes

Owners manual: Youll likely just get the testing section.

Officers training record: Wont be provided.

Repair history of the unit: Wont be provided.

Calibration Procedures & Records: Wont be provided

Procedure for radar/laser equipment testing and operator training standards: Wont be provided.

Traffic Stop and Vehicle Search Procedures: Wont be provided.

You can question the officer regarding his or her training and testing procedures at trial, but you won't receive any documentation in regards to it.

Thanks for your reply, Stanton. If they dont provide me with all relevant information and documentation so I can prepare a defense and answer to the charges, would not it be a reason to request an adjournment or even a stay?

As for typed version of any handwritten notes, I agree that its unlikely to receive it on first request, but if dont request it now and if I get handwritten notes just before the trial, how will I be able to claim that they didn't provide the typed copies of the officer notes and request a stay/ adjournment if Ive never requested a typed version? Thanks.

Memo1 wrote:

As for typed version of any handwritten notes, I agree that its unlikely to receive it on first request, but if dont request it now and if I get handwritten notes just before the trial, how will I be able to claim that they didn't provide the typed copies of the officer notes and request a stay/ adjournment if Ive never requested a typed version? Thanks.

They don't have to provide typed notes before you have even seen the original notes. The originals can be perfectly fine and legible. If for some reason you can't read the notes, you can send in a second request. If you don't get the notes in time, they'll likely just give you another trial date. While at the courthouse, it's possible they'll have the officer there to go over the notes with you and satisfy your request.

bend wrote:

Memo1 wrote:

As for typed version of any handwritten notes, I agree that its unlikely to receive it on first request, but if dont request it now and if I get handwritten notes just before the trial, how will I be able to claim that they didn't provide the typed copies of the officer notes and request a stay/ adjournment if Ive never requested a typed version? Thanks.

They don't have to provide typed notes before you have even seen the original notes. The originals can be perfectly fine and legible. If for some reason you can't read the notes, you can send in a second request. If you don't get the notes in time, they'll likely just give you another trial date. While at the courthouse, it's possible they'll have the officer there to go over the notes with you and satisfy your request.

Thank you, Bend.

If that is what they do, it looks like its better not to request a typed version now, hoping that the original notes will be difficult to understand. It also looks like its better send a second request as late as possible (perhaps just before the trial) to leave them with less time to provide a typed version. But, on the other hand, according to http://www.ticketcombat.com/step4/section_109.php, in order to give them proper notice of a constitutional question "section 109 requires you to …notify them at least 15 days before the court date."

So, what would be a better approach?

1) Send the first disclosure request as soon as possible and send the second request as soon as the first disclosure is received in order to have time notify them of constitutional question at least 15 days before the court date

2) Send the first disclosure request as late as possible (6 weeks before the trial date?) and the second request as late as possible (perhaps just before the trial date?) to leave them with less time to provide the second disclosure

Thanks

You're supposed to want disclosure as soon as possible. Waiting until the last minute or waiting until it's impossible to respond doesn't benefit you.

You're only sabotaging your own trial.

bend wrote:

You're supposed to want disclosure as soon as possible. Waiting until the last minute or waiting until it's impossible to respond doesn't benefit you.

You're only sabotaging your own trial.

Thanks for your advice, Bend.

Let me expand.

If you sit around for months and wait until the last minute to request disclosure, it will be used against you. You're going to argue how you don't have disclosure and the other side is going to make the point that you've made no attempt to request disclosure until the last minute.

Your trial will likely be adjourned and you'll be considered at fault for the delay. You can no longer argue your trial is taking too long because you're the one who is wasting time.

They are going to make sure they satisfy any relevant requests then and there before you leave the courthouse. Example, if you're arguing over wanting a copy of the device manual, they'll book you an appointment in their office to look it over and you'll be forced to drive back down again. They've now instantly satisfied your request without doing any work and now you've got to waste another day before your trial.

bend wrote:

Let me expand.

If you sit around for months and wait until the last minute to request disclosure, it will be used against you. You're going to argue how you don't have disclosure and the other side is going to make the point that you've made no attempt to request disclosure until the last minute.

Your trial will likely be adjourned and you'll be considered at fault for the delay. You can no longer argue your trial is taking too long because you're the one who is wasting time.

They are going to make sure they satisfy any relevant requests then and there before you leave the courthouse. Example, if you're arguing over wanting a copy of the device manual, they'll book you an appointment in their office to look it over and you'll be forced to drive back down again. They've now instantly satisfied your request without doing any work and now you've got to waste another day before your trial.

Thanks for your reply, Bend. I requested the disclosure and today I've already got a call from the prosecutor who told me that I can pick it up. So it does not look like there will be any delay or any opportunity for adjournment. Actually, Im surprised. I've never expected that it would take them only one day to provide a disclosure. Is this typical?

I got a disclosure. I requested a full copy of the officers notes but was provided with something titled "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text". However, there is no narrative there and its not a handwritten either. It looks like a computer printed form that just repeats the info from the ticket. There are no additional details whatsoever other that it does say:

"Actual Speed: 80" (originally the cop claimed the speed was 84)

Is that normal? Can I request another disclosure insisting on getting a full copy of the officers notes?

Must a cop have handwritten notes with some details? If he has no details, how is he supposed to testify? For example, what is going to happen if he is asked about the color of the car and he does not remember?

Also, I got a copy of some pages from Speed Laser Users Guide but the quality is so poor that I cannot read some of it. Can I request a readable copy? Thanks.

It seems like you got one of the new e-tickets (which ARE permitted). The officer's notes do not need to be handwritten. They simply use the laptop inside the cruiser which populates a lot of your data once your driver's license is swiped and then they type in their additional notes. There should be some notes about things like the officer's observations, road conditions, the speed limit, how they ID'ed you, any statements/comments made, etc. If nothing exists, then you've likely got yourself a winning case. After all, how will the officer be able to remember the particulars of your specific incident? That would make for a VERY easy cross-examination to create reasonable doubt. In all likelihood, if there are NO officer notes, the prosecutor usually drops the charge as there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. However, if there ARE notes, then they should have given you them at your first request and any delay (adjournment) that arises should be counted against the prosecution.

highwaystar wrote:

It seems like you got one of the new e-tickets (which ARE permitted). The officer's notes do not need to be handwritten. They simply use the laptop inside the cruiser which populates a lot of your data once your driver's license is swiped and then they type in their additional notes. There should be some notes about things like the officer's observations, road conditions, the speed limit, how they ID'ed you, any statements/comments made, etc. If nothing exists, then you've likely got yourself a winning case. After all, how will the officer be able to remember the particulars of your specific incident? That would make for a VERY easy cross-examination to create reasonable doubt. In all likelihood, if there are NO officer notes, the prosecutor usually drops the charge as there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. However, if there ARE notes, then they should have given you them at your first request and any delay (adjournment) that arises should be counted against the prosecution.

Thanks a lot, Highwaystar. In the "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" given to me, there are no notes "about things like the officer's observations, road conditions, the speed limit, how they ID'ed you, any statements/comments made, etc " and I was told that this police officer is known for providing the very minimum. Your reply gives me hope that this case can be won. Probably, not by me but by an experienced ticket-fighter who knows how to handle this. Do you happen to know such a ticket-fighter? Thanks.

Memo1 wrote:

Your reply gives me hope that this case can be won. Probably, not by me but by an experienced ticket-fighter who knows how to handle this. Do you happen to know such a ticket-fighter? Thanks.

Save your money. If what you received is the only evidence they have, I can't imagine they'd even proceed to trial.

bend wrote:

Memo1 wrote:

Your reply gives me hope that this case can be won. Probably, not by me but by an experienced ticket-fighter who knows how to handle this. Do you happen to know such a ticket-fighter? Thanks.

Save your money. If what you received is the only evidence they have, I can't imagine they'd even proceed to trial.

Thank you, Bend. I have a feeling that they will not only proceed to trial but also will be amending the speed rate up.

As for the officers notes, they told me that the computer made "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" (with "Actual Speed: 80") ARE the officers notes.

The problem is that I dont know how to handle cross-examination to create a reasonable doubt. And I dont know what exactly I should do in case if they give me 'Winlow Warning' or if there ARE some officers notes not given to me at my first request. Im not even sure whether or not I should request another disclosure. Thanks.

Would the following questions be useful during cross-examination?

1. What color is my car?

2. How many doors does my car have?

(The color of my car and the number of doors are not mentioned in the computer made "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" provided to me as the officers notes, but probably they can get this info by using the plate)

3. What was I wearing?

4. Was I wearing a pair of glasses?

5. Was that a pair of sunglasses or a pair of regular glasses?

6. What was the weather like?

7. What did you tell me about the speed of my car?

8. What did you tell me that the speed was 84 "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text", says Actual Speed: 80"?

9. Did you show me the laser reading?

10. Why did you not show me the laser reading?

11. Do you never show the driver laser reading?

12. Is that a bad practice to show the driver the laser reading?

13. Do the other police officers show the driver the laser reading?

Also I have a general question. Suppose, the officer would say that he told me that the speed of my car was 80 (actually, he told me that it was 84) or he would say that he showed me the radar reading (or he would say something else that is not true.) In this case, there will be his words against mine. So, what should be or done in such a case? Thanks.

If the disclosure is really only what you received, it's a slam dunk. That being said, those are some of the absolute worst questions.

Why is the colour of your shirt or whether or not you were wearing khakis relevant? It's a speeding ticket. The officer is not required to remember what was on your dash, what color your seats were, or what was hanging from your mirror. Unless you're defending a seat belt violation and want to make a point about your shirt colour being the same as your belt, the question is a big waste of time.

Why is sunglasses versus glasses relevant?

Why 100 questions about showing the device? The officer is not required to show you anything, end of story. Whether he showed you, didn't show you, shows anyone, good practice to show, or other police officers show is irrelevant.

Your disclosure is missing the most critical information and you're arguing about what you're wearing. Start at the basics.

bend wrote:

If the disclosure is really only what you received, it's a slam dunk. That being said, those are some of the absolute worst questions.

Why is the colour of your shirt or whether or not you were wearing khakis relevant? It's a speeding ticket. The officer is not required to remember what was on your dash, what color your seats were, or what was hanging from your mirror. Unless you're defending a seat belt violation and want to make a point about your shirt colour being the same as your belt, the question is a big waste of time.

Why is sunglasses versus glasses relevant?

Why 100 questions about showing the device? The officer is not required to show you anything, end of story. Whether he showed you, didn't show you, shows anyone, good practice to show, or other police officers show is irrelevant.

Your disclosure is missing the most critical information and you're arguing about what you're wearing. Start at the basics.

Thank you, Bend. I do appreciate your reply. Like I said, I have no experience with cross-examination. So, it leaves just the following questions:

Would the following questions be useful during cross-examination?

1. What color is my car?

2. How many doors does my car have?

(The color of my car and the number of doors are not mentioned in the computer made "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" provided to me as the officers notes, but probably they can get this info by using the plate)

3. What did you tell me about the speed of my car?

4. Why did you tell me that the speed was 84 but "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text", says Actual Speed: 80"?

A general question: Suppose, the officer would say that he told me that the speed of my car was 80 (actually, he told me that it was 84) In this case, there will be his words against mine. So, what should be or done in such a case?

As for disclosure, do you think I should make another request for disclosure? If yes, could you please let me know what do you think about the following request? Thanks.

General Request

We are scheduled to appear in courtroom to answer the above charge. With regard to the above matter and in light of the guidelines set out in R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CANLII 45 (S.C.C.), and subsequent cases, we are requesting that you provide us with all relevant information and documentation in order to make full answer and defense to the above charge.

Specific Request

Without limiting the generality of the above request, we ask that you also include:

o A copy of both sides of the officers copies of the ticket (Notices of Offence) and any notes from the officer pertaining this case. Alternatively given weve received a copy of one side of the officers copies of the ticket and the computer made "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text", please provide a signed letter by appropriate authorities confirming that no other documents of this nature exist and will be used in this case.

o A typed version of any hand written notes including the hand written notes related to the make, model, and serial number of the unit used to measure the velocity of the car, its owners manual and the officers training record specific to the said unit

o The following records (in readable form) relating to the incident, and to training, internal directives, policies and the identity of various kinds of equipment used by the Police:

1. Occurrence report

3. Video /Audio Evidence

4. The make, model, and serial number of the unit used to measure the velocity of the car (radar/laser or specification of the other unit), and its full owners manual (all pages).

5. The officers training record specific to the said unit

6. Any repair history of the unit

7. Calibration Procedures

8. Records of the calibration of the unit used to measure the velocity

9. Official procedure for radar/laser equipment testing and operator training standards

10. Traffic Stop and Vehicle Search Procedures

o Any other evidence the Prosecutor intends to use at trial

Missing Information

We also request that you advise us of any information, which is not being disclosed and an explanation for such non-disclosure.

If you require further information from us or have any questions regarding our request for disclosure please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you.

You need focus on the essential elements the crown needs to prove in order to get a speeding conviction.

For an Ontario Speeding Ticket, the only disclosure items you need to ask are in the sample form here: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2959.html

* A full copy of the officer's notes, typed if not legible;

* If short-form writing is used in the officer's notes, please have the officer provide an explanation for the short forms;

* A copy of the manual for the speed-measuring device used by the officer

They most likely won't even give you a copy of the manual, only the testing pages. The other items you've requested will require a Freedom of Information Request, which may cost you hundreds of dollars. Solely because the crown does not have those other items in their possession, and most importantly do need them in order to get a speeding conviction.

You need to read decisions on CanLII, LexisNexis and look at recent and case-law decisions on Speeding. The creativity you're displaying here means absolutely nothing. Everyone from the prosecutor, officer, justice of peace and even the court reporter are seasoned professionals with speeding trials.

R. v. Vancrey, 2000 CanLII 26961 (ON CA)

R. v. Niewiadomski [2004] O.J. No. 478

R. v. Roshani-Kalkhoran [2005] O.J. No. 238

R. v. Hayes [2005] O.J. No. 5057

R. v. Schlesinger [2007] O.J. No. 2365

R. v. Lounsbury [1993] M.J. No. 510

R. v. Puncher [2007] O.J. No. 2510

R. v. Kololgi [2009] O.J. No. 5742

R. v. Martin [2008] O.J. No. 1803

R. v. Meli [2011] O.J. No. 5314

Peel Regional Police Services Board (Re), 2008 CanLII 1829 (ON IPC)

Recent Cases

R. v. Isik [2014] O.J. No. 1604

Mangov v. Toronto (City) [2014] O.J. No. 3477

R. v. Giorgio [2014] O.J. No. 3827

York (Regional Municipality) v. Chair [2014] O.J. No. 5599

R. v. Strati [2014] O.J. No. 1413

R. v. Xu [2012] O.J. No. 2074

R. v. DePoe [2012] O.J. No. 2751

R. v. Priolo [2012] O.J. No. 4024

R. v. Gagetek [2012] O.J. No. 4723

R. v. Raina [2013] O.J. No. 2562

If you're serious about fighting this on your own, I recommend reading these.

The prosecutor only needs to prove these essential elements

*Officer is trained in the use of the speed measuring device

*Officer tested the device before and after your traffic stop and is in proper working order

*Officer stopped your vehicle and identified you correctly

And unfortunately items one and two will only be available during cross-examination. Officer may not go into detail in his notes how he tests the device before and after his shift. You'll have to elicit that information through cross-examination. If you're showing up at trial, item 3 is of no contest.

The recent cases have not changed the law; but you'll see a pattern of what the crown needed to secure a conviction. You will see how the crown does not need to disclose: officer copy, sworn signatures of authorization, typed version if the handwritten is legible, training records, occurence report, video, full owner's manual (you only need testing pages), repair history, records of calibration, official procedure, traffic stop procedure.

These extra items will require an expensive Freedom of Information Request at the police department, which will get denied and you'll have to go through mediation and appeals and ultimately the information won't help you at your speeding trial.

These are not essential elements that the crown needs to prove in order to get a speeding conviction. They don't have these extra items in their possession and you'll have to move mountains in order to convince the police service board you need them.

The courts don't really care about colour, dark blue, black, brown. It's all the same. Obviously if it's white vs. black then you have something. But you will have to expand on this somehow. The officer allegedly pointed his laser device at your vehicle, and stopped it without losing sight of the vehicle. The fact that he doesn't recall the exact colour or number of doors after he stopped you... does not throw out his other evidence.

There's an expectation from the police and the courts of how much notes they need to take. If it's a DUI/Criminal Charge they may take a notebook worth of evidence, especially if it involved a collision with multiple victims/witnesses. For speeding, a page or two is more than enough.

iFly55 wrote:

You need focus on the essential elements the crown needs to prove in order to get a speeding conviction.

For an Ontario Speeding Ticket, the only disclosure items you need to ask are in the sample form here: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2959.html

* A full copy of the officer's notes, typed if not legible;

* If short-form writing is used in the officer's notes, please have the officer provide an explanation for the short forms;

* A copy of the manual for the speed-measuring device used by the officer

They most likely won't even give you a copy of the manual, only the testing pages. The other items you've requested will require a Freedom of Information Request, which may cost you hundreds of dollars. Solely because the crown does not have those other items in their possession, and most importantly do need them in order to get a speeding conviction.

You need to read decisions on CanLII, LexisNexis and look at recent and case-law decisions on Speeding. The creativity you're displaying here means absolutely nothing. Everyone from the prosecutor, officer, justice of peace and even the court reporter are seasoned professionals with speeding trials.

R. v. Vancrey, 2000 CanLII 26961 (ON CA)

R. v. Niewiadomski [2004] O.J. No. 478

R. v. Roshani-Kalkhoran [2005] O.J. No. 238

R. v. Hayes [2005] O.J. No. 5057

R. v. Schlesinger [2007] O.J. No. 2365

R. v. Lounsbury [1993] M.J. No. 510

R. v. Puncher [2007] O.J. No. 2510

R. v. Kololgi [2009] O.J. No. 5742

R. v. Martin [2008] O.J. No. 1803

R. v. Meli [2011] O.J. No. 5314

Peel Regional Police Services Board (Re), 2008 CanLII 1829 (ON IPC)

Recent Cases

R. v. Isik [2014] O.J. No. 1604

Mangov v. Toronto (City) [2014] O.J. No. 3477

R. v. Giorgio [2014] O.J. No. 3827

York (Regional Municipality) v. Chair [2014] O.J. No. 5599

R. v. Strati [2014] O.J. No. 1413

R. v. Xu [2012] O.J. No. 2074

R. v. DePoe [2012] O.J. No. 2751

R. v. Priolo [2012] O.J. No. 4024

R. v. Gagetek [2012] O.J. No. 4723

R. v. Raina [2013] O.J. No. 2562

If you're serious about fighting this on your own, I recommend reading these.

The prosecutor only needs to prove these essential elements

*Officer is trained in the use of the speed measuring device

*Officer tested the device before and after your traffic stop and is in proper working order

*Officer stopped your vehicle and identified you correctly

And unfortunately items one and two will only be available during cross-examination. Officer may not go into detail in his notes how he tests the device before and after his shift. You'll have to elicit that information through cross-examination. If you're showing up at trial, item 3 is of no contest.

The recent cases have not changed the law; but you'll see a pattern of what the crown needed to secure a conviction. You will see how the crown does not need to disclose: officer copy, sworn signatures of authorization, typed version if the handwritten is legible, training records, occurence report, video, full owner's manual (you only need testing pages), repair history, records of calibration, official procedure, traffic stop procedure.

These extra items will require an expensive Freedom of Information Request at the police department, which will get denied and you'll have to go through mediation and appeals and ultimately the information won't help you at your speeding trial.

These are not essential elements that the crown needs to prove in order to get a speeding conviction. They don't have these extra items in their possession and you'll have to move mountains in order to convince the police service board you need them.

The courts don't really care about colour, dark blue, black, brown. It's all the same. Obviously if it's white vs. black then you have something. But you will have to expand on this somehow. The officer allegedly pointed his laser device at your vehicle, and stopped it without losing sight of the vehicle. The fact that he doesn't recall the exact colour or number of doors after he stopped you... does not throw out his other evidence.

There's an expectation from the police and the courts of how much notes they need to take. If it's a DUI/Criminal Charge they may take a notebook worth of evidence, especially if it involved a collision with multiple victims/witnesses. For speeding, a page or two is more than enough.

Thank you for your reply, iFly55. So, it looks like a cross-examination will be of no use in my case.

Could you please explain, if someone else shows up at trial instead of me, how could it help to contest item 3 (Officer stopped your vehicle and identified you correctly)? Thanks.

As for disclosure, my hope is that I will be able to request an adjournment or even a stay if they do not provide me with the information I need to prepare my defense.

So far, they have provided me with a computer made "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" (w/o any specific info) and the first page of Speed Laser User guide with some hand-written notes and stamps which look like related to "make, model, and serial number of the unit used to measure the velocity of the car, its owners manual and the officers training record specific to the said unit." But some of these hand-written notes and stamps are just not readable. They also provided an extremely bad copy of some pages from Speed Laser User guide but again I cannot read some of it because of its poor quality.

So, Im thinking about requesting this information in a readable format and also about requesting confirmation that there are no notes from the officer pertaining my case that can be used at trial.

I dont really expect them to provide me with the other items from my request but if they do not provide me with the items mentioned above I believe I can request an adjournment or a stay. Could you please let me know if Im mistaken? Thanks again.

I just read through the other three pages. It appears you may win or have the case withdrawn; the problem is that you're going about it the wrong way.

Can you provide us with a scan or a type out exactly what was provided to you in the "narrative text"? Please make sure sensitive information is not included (ie. officer name, badge number, license plates, your name, address).

iFly55 wrote:

I just read through the other three pages. It appears you may win or have the case withdrawn; the problem is that you're going about it the wrong way.

Can you provide us with a scan or a type out exactly what was provided to you in the "narrative text"? Please make sure sensitive information is not included (ie. officer name, badge number, license plates, your name, address).

Thank you for your reply, iFly55. The scan is attached. The full name is "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" . I hope you are right and this case can be won. Could you please let me know? Thanks.

It seems like it does not work. It says "The extension docx is not allowed". And pdf is not allowed either. So, I'm not sure how I can attach the scan.

Memo1 wrote:

iFly55 wrote:

I just read through the other three pages. It appears you may win or have the case withdrawn; the problem is that you're going about it the wrong way.

Can you provide us with a scan or a type out exactly what was provided to you in the "narrative text"? Please make sure sensitive information is not included (ie. officer name, badge number, license plates, your name, address).

Thank you for your reply, iFly55. The scan is attached. The full name is "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" . I hope you are right and this case can be won. Could you please let me know? Thanks.

It seems like it does not work. It says "The extension docx is not allowed". And pdf is not allowed either. So, I'm not sure how I can attach the scan.

Below I typed what is included in "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" (sic. I happen to know that the correct spelling is "Narrative"))

Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text

Ticket No: x

Ticket Details

-------------------

Ticket Number: x

Officer: x

Organization: x

Offence Date: x

Offence Time: x

Location: x

Municipality: x

Statute: HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

Charge: 128

Charge Text: SPEEDING – 70 KM/H IN A 60 KM/H ZONE

Set fine: 25.00

Total Payable: 40.00

Actual Speed: 80

Speed Charged For: 70

Speed Limit: 60

Charged / Offender

----------------------------

(My info)

Vehicle

-----------------------------

(My vehicle info)

Additional information

----------------------------------

Commercial Vehicle: N

CVOR: N

CVOR/NSC Number: (empty)

Code: (empty)

Motor Vehicle Involved: Y

Collision Involved: Y

Witnesses: N,

Memo Book Notes w/ Evidence: N

In-Car Video or Offence: N

Conversation Audio Only: N

Related Ticket #s: (empty)

Memo1 wrote:

Memo1 wrote:

iFly55 wrote:

I just read through the other three pages. It appears you may win or have the case withdrawn; the problem is that you're going about it the wrong way.

Can you provide us with a scan or a type out exactly what was provided to you in the "narrative text"? Please make sure sensitive information is not included (ie. officer name, badge number, license plates, your name, address).

Thank you for your reply, iFly55. The scan is attached. The full name is "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" . I hope you are right and this case can be won. Could you please let me know? Thanks.

It seems like it does not work. It says "The extension docx is not allowed". And pdf is not allowed either. So, I'm not sure how I can attach the scan.

Below I typed what is included in "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" (sic. I happen to know that the correct spelling is "Narrative"))

Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text

Ticket No: x

Ticket Details

-------------------

Ticket Number: x

Officer: x

Organization: x

Offence Date: x

Offence Time: x

Location: x

Municipality: x

Statute: HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

Charge: 128

Charge Text: SPEEDING – 70 KM/H IN A 60 KM/H ZONE

Set fine: 25.00

Total Payable: 40.00

Actual Speed: 80

Speed Charged For: 70

Speed Limit: 60

Charged / Offender

----------------------------

(My info)

Vehicle

-----------------------------

(My vehicle info)

Additional information

----------------------------------

Commercial Vehicle: N

CVOR: N

CVOR/NSC Number: (empty)

Code: (empty)

Motor Vehicle Involved: Y

Collision Involved: Y

Witnesses: N,

Memo Book Notes w/ Evidence: N

In-Car Video or Offence: N

Conversation Audio Only: N

Related Ticket #s: (empty)

Just noticed a typo above. Actually it says

Collision Involved: N

Memo1 wrote:

bend wrote:

If the disclosure is really only what you received, it's a slam dunk. That being said, those are some of the absolute worst questions.

Why is the colour of your shirt or whether or not you were wearing khakis relevant? It's a speeding ticket. The officer is not required to remember what was on your dash, what color your seats were, or what was hanging from your mirror. Unless you're defending a seat belt violation and want to make a point about your shirt colour being the same as your belt, the question is a big waste of time.

Why is sunglasses versus glasses relevant?

Why 100 questions about showing the device? The officer is not required to show you anything, end of story. Whether he showed you, didn't show you, shows anyone, good practice to show, or other police officers show is irrelevant.

Your disclosure is missing the most critical information and you're arguing about what you're wearing. Start at the basics.

Thank you, Bend. I do appreciate your reply. Like I said, I have no experience with cross-examination. So, it leaves just the following questions:

Would the following questions be useful during cross-examination?

1. What color is my car?

2. How many doors does my car have?

(The color of my car and the number of doors are not mentioned in the computer made "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" provided to me as the officers notes, but probably they can get this info by using the plate)

3. What did you tell me about the speed of my car?

4. Why did you tell me that the speed was 84 but "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text", says Actual Speed: 80"?

A general question: Suppose, the officer would say that he told me that the speed of my car was 80 (actually, he told me that it was 84) In this case, there will be his words against mine. So, what should be or done in such a case?

As for disclosure, do you think I should make another request for disclosure? If yes, could you please let me know what do you think about the following request? Thanks.

General Request

We are scheduled to appear in courtroom to answer the above charge. With regard to the above matter and in light of the guidelines set out in R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CANLII 45 (S.C.C.), and subsequent cases, we are requesting that you provide us with all relevant information and documentation in order to make full answer and defense to the above charge.

Specific Request

Without limiting the generality of the above request, we ask that you also include:

o A copy of both sides of the officers copies of the ticket (Notices of Offence) and any notes from the officer pertaining this case. Alternatively given weve received a copy of one side of the officers copies of the ticket and the computer made "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text", please provide a signed letter by appropriate authorities confirming that no other documents of this nature exist and will be used in this case.

o A typed version of any hand written notes including the hand written notes related to the make, model, and serial number of the unit used to measure the velocity of the car, its owners manual and the officers training record specific to the said unit

It is an electronic ticket . There is NO back side. The officers notes is what you have and that's it. They are typed into the computer at the time of stop and then that is it. You will not get any signed document. If something is used at trial that has not been disclosed then you can fight it. even in criminal trials you would not get a statement like this from the crown.

o The following records (in readable form) relating to the incident, and to training, internal directives, policies and the identity of various kinds of equipment used by the Police:

1. Occurrence report

Won't get as likely does not exist. reports are not written for tickets

3. Video /Audio Evidence

unknown if exists good request

4. The make, model, and serial number of the unit used to measure the velocity of the car (radar/laser or specification of the other unit), and its full owners manual (all pages).

will get if officer has it. Will only get the relevant parts and not whole manual

5. The officers training record specific to the said unit

Will not get. Can ask at trial

6. Any repair history of the unit

will not get

7. Calibration Procedures

In the relevant part of manual you will get

8. Records of the calibration of the unit used to measure the velocity

will not get

9. Official procedure for radar/laser equipment testing and operator training standards

will not get

10. Traffic Stop and Vehicle Search Procedures

will not get as not relevant to the charge

o Any other evidence the Prosecutor intends to use at trial

Missing Information

We also request that you advise us of any information, which is not being disclosed and an explanation for such non-disclosure.

will not get.

If you require further information from us or have any questions regarding our request for disclosure please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you.

iFly55 wrote:

I just read through the other three pages. It appears you may win or have the case withdrawn; the problem is that you're going about it the wrong way.

Can you provide us with a scan or a type out exactly what was provided to you in the "narrative text"? Please make sure sensitive information is not included (ie. officer name, badge number, license plates, your name, address).

Hi, iFly55. I was going to make the second request for disclosure today, but, after you wrote that "you're going about it the wrong way", Im not sure whether or not I should do it. I typed out what was provided in a computer made "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" above. Could you please let me know whether this case can be won or withdrawn and whether or not the second request for disclosure should be made? Thanks.

Bringing someone else to court pretending to be you won't work as we ID the driver through the valid photo ID drivers licence provided at the scene. Courts don't expect us to be able to pick people out of a full court room 9 months after a traffic stop.

argyll wrote:

Bringing someone else to court pretending to be you won't work as we ID the driver through the valid photo ID drivers licence provided at the scene. Courts don't expect us to be able to pick people out of a full court room 9 months after a traffic stop.

Thanks, argyll. I didn't mean "bringing someone else to court pretending to be" me. I was just asking whether or not it would help if my representative would be at trial instead of me. Sorry I didn't make it clear.

Sorry to the OP - looking back I believe I was thinking of another thread on my last post. He was never ambiguous about identification at court. I thank him for not just telling me I was a moron !

The display of a vehicle's speed on a police radar or lidar does not have to be "locked" on the screen, the officer just has to have seen the reading, therefore it would be a blanked display when viewed anyway.

From my personal experience I do not show a reading if asked. For a several reasons:

- a person outside their car with other traffic is unsafe as they are too focused on need to see the reading, and forget about traffic and typically place themselves in a highly dangerous situation that now I have to deal with to prevent serious injury to all

- so someone views the display, it continues from there, the non-belief that was their vehicle speed and someone else vehicle must have given that reading.

- as another member mentioned, roadside is not for clarifications, court is

hwybear wrote:

The display of a vehicle's speed on a police radar or lidar does not have to be "locked" on the screen, the officer just has to have seen the reading, therefore it would be a blanked display when viewed anyway.

From my personal experience I do not show a reading if asked. For a several reasons:

- a person outside their car with other traffic is unsafe as they are too focused on need to see the reading, and forget about traffic and typically place themselves in a highly dangerous situation that now I have to deal with to prevent serious injury to all

- so someone views the display, it continues from there, the non-belief that was their vehicle speed and someone else vehicle must have given that reading.

- as another member mentioned, roadside is not for clarifications, court is

Thank you for your explanation, Hwybear. So, my understanding is that you never show a reading, which is consistent.

I happen to see as the very same officer who did not show me the reading was showing a reading to another driver. Which leads to a question "Why did he single out me for not showing a reading?"

Also, he told me that the speed was 84, the ticket was for 70 but "Ontario Offence Ticket in Narative Text" says "Actual Speed: 80", which is not consistent at all.

@Memo1

You keep going back to the issue of whether officer should have showed you the display of the unit or not. It's a non-issue. They are not required to, and whether they showed it to somebody else or not does not help your case in anyway.

Also, do NOT bring up the issue of the speed about the officer saying it was 84 not 80 ... this could end up working against you as the officer could say something that helps support his case and make it stronger. A good rule of thumb in cross-examination is to never ask a question that you do not already know the answer too. And remember you have the right NOT to testify against yourself so do not at any time suggest or agree that you were speeding at all. You only need to answer questions about whether you were speeding or not IF you take the witness stand. If you are not on the witness stand then you do not need to answer any questions (I recommend you do not take the witness stand). Win the case by cross-examination and showing there is lots of reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case.

As far as disclosure goes, I would send a second request saying that you did not receive what you requested in the first disclosure. And if you still don't get what you want it is good reason to ask for a stay at the trial because you did not receive it. The JP may give prosecution time to provide it and just adjourn your hearing. But either way if you make a second request it looks good if you have to appeal the final decision in the end. Although we would always love to win the trial the first time thru, we need to be thinking about how we can set ourselves to win an appeal if we lose the trial. A Judge at an appeal has a better understanding of the law than most Justice of the Peace that you get at your trial... so plan ahead.

I would read as much case law as you can around "the officer's notes" issue. If he does not have any notes but they proceed with the trial anyways, then you will need to know how to put the proper arguments up to show reasonable doubt and get the charge dismissed (or have good grounds to win an appeal). If you find some good cases around that issue, please post them!

Read this for Cross Exam tips:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7041.html

Read this for general self representation tips:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7039.html

And this thread:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7032.html

jsherk wrote:

@Memo1

You keep going back to the issue of whether officer should have showed you the display of the unit or not. It's a non-issue. They are not required to, and whether they showed it to somebody else or not does not help your case in anyway.

Also, do NOT bring up the issue of the speed about the officer saying it was 84 not 80 ... this could end up working against you as the officer could say something that helps support his case and make it stronger. A good rule of thumb in cross-examination is to never ask a question that you do not already know the answer too. And remember you have the right NOT to testify against yourself so do not at any time suggest or agree that you were speeding at all. You only need to answer questions about whether you were speeding or not IF you take the witness stand. If you are not on the witness stand then you do not need to answer any questions (I recommend you do not take the witness stand). Win the case by cross-examination and showing there is lots of reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case.

As far as disclosure goes, I would send a second request saying that you did not receive what you requested in the first disclosure. And if you still don't get what you want it is good reason to ask for a stay at the trial because you did not receive it. The JP may give prosecution time to provide it and just adjourn your hearing. But either way if you make a second request it looks good if you have to appeal the final decision in the end. Although we would always love to win the trial the first time thru, we need to be thinking about how we can set ourselves to win an appeal if we lose the trial. A Judge at an appeal has a better understanding of the law than most Justice of the Peace that you get at your trial... so plan ahead.

I would read as much case law as you can around "the officer's notes" issue. If he does not have any notes but they proceed with the trial anyways, then you will need to know how to put the proper arguments up to show reasonable doubt and get the charge dismissed (or have good grounds to win an appeal). If you find some good cases around that issue, please post them!

Read this for Cross Exam tips:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7041.html

Read this for general self representation tips:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7039.html

And this thread:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7032.html

Thanks a lot for your advice, Jsherk. I wish I had read it before. After iFly55 wrote that I was going about it the wrong way, I didn't know what to do and just paid the ticket.

Thanks everyone for your replies!