Detailed Disclosure Request for Radar Gun Ticket

I got a ticket clocked by OPP with a radar gun parked on a side of the road in the middle of the night inside his cruiser.

The officer was alone parked on the side of a 2 lane highway in pitch black darkness if that matters.

What is the most detailed disclosure I can request based on that ?

TY

Sample disclosure request form: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2959.html

All you can ask for are the officer's notes and a copy of the manual for his radar gun.

Don't be surprised if all you get is a copy of the testing instructions for the device. That's all That most jurisdictions will give you.

Thanks, one more question, do I send the disclosure request to the Prosecutor's Office at the address given on the Notice of Trial ?

I am asking because I sent the original Trial Request to the City of Barrie,ON and the actual TN came with a different address of a court in Churchill,ON

Call the Clerk of the Court in Barrie and ask them for specific contact information for prosecutor.

***UPDATE***

I requested detailed disclosure including manual, typed officer notes.

All I received is a first page of Radar Gun manual it's Decateur GHD Scout, and completely unreadable officer notes (not typed)

My trial date is in 3 weeks, the 2 questions I have:

Is it possible to challange that particular radar device and how ?

Since I can't read the officer notes, should I request typed version and if not received before trial date can I request an adjournment based on that or would the JP just ask the police officer to clarify the notes for me right there ?

My ticket is already marked with an R as it was reduced from the original reading, if I did plea guilty would the prosecutor offer a further reduction for a plea deal on already reduced ticket ?

DrSteven wrote:

Since I can't read the officer notes, should I request typed version and if not received before trial date can I request an adjournment based on that or would the JP just ask the police officer to clarify the notes for me right there ?

They don't have to be typed, they just have to be clear. So yes, if it's hard to read you can ask for clarification. If they're not ready in time, they'll likely push your court date to another day.

DrSteven wrote:

My ticket is already marked with an R as it was reduced from the original reading, if I did plea guilty would the prosecutor offer a further reduction for a plea deal on already reduced ticket ?

That depends on how much it has already been reduced.

bend wrote:

DrSteven wrote:

Since I can't read the officer notes, should I request typed version and if not received before trial date can I request an adjournment based on that or would the JP just ask the police officer to clarify the notes for me right there ?

They don't have to be typed, they just have to be clear. So yes, if it's hard to read you can ask for clarification. If they're not ready in time, they'll likely push your court date to another day.

DrSteven wrote:

My ticket is already marked with an R as it was reduced from the original reading, if I did plea guilty would the prosecutor offer a further reduction for a plea deal on already reduced ticket ?

That depends on how much it has already been reduced.

So should I make a formal request to the prosecutors office for typed notes ? They are not likely to respond within the 3 weeks from what I gather.

It was reduced from 38 over to 20 over.

Yes you should send another disclosure request for a typed copy of the notes as they are illegible as is. And I would also request the following pages from the manual: Operating Modes, Testing The Device, Specification, and Legal Requirements. Make sure you say something like "I require these sections of the manual in order to properly prepare my defense and be able to properly cross-examine the officer."

Maybe if you get them 1 week before you will feel okay going forward on the trial date, but that will really be up to you. I would suggest that you need at least 2 to 3 weeks to properly prepare your defense so I would personally ask for an adjournment. If you do ask for an adjournment, make sure you request that the time count against the prosecution in the event you need to file a motion for lack of speedy trial in the future. In your request you asked for typed copy, so this should have been provided initially. The JP will most likely agree to the adjopurnment, but if the JP makes you sit down with Officer to review the notes and will not give you an adjournment and forces trial to go forward that day, then this would be good news because you would almost certainly win on an appeal.

The best way to challenge all radar devices is usually the testing procedure and also the officers knowlege of its use and their training. The courts have decided though that an officer simply testifying that they are trained on the device is sufficient proof that they are trained how to use it properly. So good cross-examination on exactly how they tested versus it versus exactly what the manual says is important.

As far as the GHD Scout specifically is concerned, read this thread http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7284.html and download the attached pdf and scroll down to the Notice of Motion to exclude all radar evidence. There are also some good cross-examination questions in there as well.

Since the officer already reduced the speed, there is close to a 0% chance the prosecutor will offer to reduce it more. It does not hurt to ask of course, and maybe the prosecutor is in a good mood and offers you 15 over instead, but remember even a 0 demerit point charge can cause your insurance to go up, so demerit points are irrelevent. Also remember if you go to trial, they will amend the charge back up to the higher original speed at the trial so you will be fighting the 38 over charge.

jsherk wrote:

In your request you asked for typed copy, so this should have been provided initially.

No, it shouldn't. You can't argue the notes aren't clear when you haven't even seen them. If you need clarification, you can make a second request.

Prosecutor sees them before they are sent and can clearly see (pun intended) whether or not they are clear.

jsherk,

thanks for your detailed post especially for the link to the thread , my ticket is in exact same jurisdiction/court office and radar device as that case.

jsherk wrote:

Prosecutor sees them before they are sent and can clearly see (pun intended) whether or not they are clear.

That's not their problem and it's not for them to decide whether or not you'll need further clarification.

If you have any questions, you can simply make a second request.

You know how when someone has a dealing with an officer and you're the first one to talk about doing the bare minimum? It works both ways.

"There are also some good cross-examination questions in there as well." There are also a pile of not so good cross examination questions in there, ...Those questions have been floating around for years, the problem with them is that they go on and on and on. The JP gets very impatient when you start asking all those questions and you can do yourself more harm than good. Many of those questions are old, useless and flat out wrong. In the hands of a person who knows nothing to very little, you will damage your case by asking the many goofy questions...

Absolutely. It's why JPs hate self-representation because they end up having to coach people in the rules of evidence. You ABSOLUTELY will hurt your chances if you reel off a laundry list of irrelevant questions. Decide on what you want to attack in the evidence and focus on that. Questions such as do you remember how many cars you stopped that shift have ZERO bearing on the case and will just piss people off, including the judge.

Update:

I requested more detailed disclosure as the original did not give enough info, they never responded to the 2nd request so I went on my court date ready to request an adjournment until I get my disclosure request fulfilled. Officer was a no-show for unknown reason, charge withdrawn.

Congratulations on the win!!!

Congrats on your win...

Not strictly a win. A win would be beating the evidence. But a withdrawal nonetheless.