My wife got a ticket for 117 in an 80, near Walkerton. Judging by the officer's notes, he was using the Decatur Genesis 2, directional radar unit. I sent a letter of disclosure in November. I asked for a copy of both sides of the officers ticket, a copy of the officers notes, proof of the officers qualifications for the Genesis 2 radar unit, and calibration and repair records for the radar unit. They only sent the copy of both sides of the ticket and the officers notes, nothing else. Is this a big deal, or not. The officer wrote in his notes that he is a qualified operator. I also asked for a copy of the manual, they also didn't respond to that part, but I expected that. I emailed Decatur and asked them when the officer presses the test button on the unit, if this only serves to verify that the radar unit is functioning properly, or if this serves as a valibration tool. As expected, they also didn't respond. Does anyone know where I can get an electronic copy of the Decatur Genesis 2 operators manual? I also asked for any other documents that the crown is planning on using against my wife. They sent a copy of her driving record, from the time she started driving. There are a couple speeding infractions from 10 and 15 years ago. Can the crown still use these to try to prove that she is a habitual speeder (I assume this is why they included this document in the response)? Is there a time limit when these documents are no longer viable? I want to ensure that my wife has a fair trial, but we are having a difficult time finding information out.
My wife got a ticket for 117 in an 80, near Walkerton. Judging by the officer's notes, he was using the Decatur Genesis 2, directional radar unit.
I sent a letter of disclosure in November. I asked for a copy of both sides of the officers ticket, a copy of the officers notes, proof of the officers qualifications for the Genesis 2 radar unit, and calibration and repair records for the radar unit. They only sent the copy of both sides of the ticket and the officers notes, nothing else. Is this a big deal, or not. The officer wrote in his notes that he is a qualified operator. I also asked for a copy of the manual, they also didn't respond to that part, but I expected that. I emailed Decatur and asked them when the officer presses the test button on the unit, if this only serves to verify that the radar unit is functioning properly, or if this serves as a valibration tool. As expected, they also didn't respond. Does anyone know where I can get an electronic copy of the Decatur Genesis 2 operators manual?
I also asked for any other documents that the crown is planning on using against my wife. They sent a copy of her driving record, from the time she started driving. There are a couple speeding infractions from 10 and 15 years ago. Can the crown still use these to try to prove that she is a habitual speeder (I assume this is why they included this document in the response)? Is there a time limit when these documents are no longer viable?
I want to ensure that my wife has a fair trial, but we are having a difficult time finding information out.
There is no valid reason for the Crown to deny you a copy of or access to the manual. At the very minimum you are entitled to view the entire manual at the prosecutor's office. Please see R. v. Vanier, 2005 ONCJ 318. The fact that they are not giving you everything you want is really good! The frustration you are feeling is exactly what you need in order to toss this charge... WARNING: Think carefully about how you want to proceed. The very minimum you must do is send a follow-up disclosure request again insisting (adamantly) that you must have the information you requested in order to prepare your defence. Don't quote the case above. Hopefully they'll tell you to get lost! The last thing you want is for them to give you the information. Then at least 15 days prior to trial you will file an application for a stay based on improper disclosure. You cite the case above in your application. Hopefully you can also attach an 11(b) unreasonable delay argument as well so that an adjournment is not possible. See my site for more info. Good luck and good fight!
There is no valid reason for the Crown to deny you a copy of or access to the manual. At the very minimum you are entitled to view the entire manual at the prosecutor's office. Please see R. v. Vanier, 2005 ONCJ 318. The fact that they are not giving you everything you want is really good! The frustration you are feeling is exactly what you need in order to toss this charge...
WARNING: Think carefully about how you want to proceed. The very minimum you must do is send a follow-up disclosure request again insisting (adamantly) that you must have the information you requested in order to prepare your defence. Don't quote the case above.
Hopefully they'll tell you to get lost! The last thing you want is for them to give you the information.
Then at least 15 days prior to trial you will file an application for a stay based on improper disclosure. You cite the case above in your application. Hopefully you can also attach an 11(b) unreasonable delay argument as well so that an adjournment is not possible.
Thanks for the info ticketcombat. One thing I forgot to add. The trial date is January 13th. Am I too late to do any of the things you suggested? What would be the best to do, given the tight timeline? I just thought all along that there was nothing I could do about them not disclosing all the info.
Thanks for the info ticketcombat. One thing I forgot to add. The trial date is January 13th. Am I too late to do any of the things you suggested? What would be the best to do, given the tight timeline? I just thought all along that there was nothing I could do about them not disclosing all the info.
Ok, so I'm running out of time. I called the POA office today to ask where the rest of the info is that I requested. Here's the answers I got. First the gentleman told me that he sent all the info I requested. I told him that I only received 2 of the six documents requested. I asked him where the proof is of the officers training on the radaar unit. He told me that he doesn't have that info. I asked him where the documents of repairs and calibration of the radar unit is. He told me that I would have to ask Decatur for that info. I asked him for a contact at Decatur. He told me that I would have to find that myself. I asked him for the documentation of verification of the accuracy of the tuning forks used to check the calibration of the said radar. He told me that the OPP no longer use tuning forks to verify the accuracy of the radar. He said that now the radar has an internal "self check" to do that. I thought that was odd. I have a brochure for the Genesis 2, and it states that the units come with 2 tuning forks, when first bought. I have read somewhere that the test button on the unit is only to verify that the unit is working correctly, not for calibration. Does anyone else find these answers odd, or am I alone here???
Ok, so I'm running out of time. I called the POA office today to ask where the rest of the info is that I requested. Here's the answers I got.
First the gentleman told me that he sent all the info I requested. I told him that I only received 2 of the six documents requested.
I asked him where the proof is of the officers training on the radaar unit. He told me that he doesn't have that info.
I asked him where the documents of repairs and calibration of the radar unit is. He told me that I would have to ask Decatur for that info. I asked him for a contact at Decatur. He told me that I would have to find that myself.
I asked him for the documentation of verification of the accuracy of the tuning forks used to check the calibration of the said radar. He told me that the OPP no longer use tuning forks to verify the accuracy of the radar. He said that now the radar has an internal "self check" to do that. I thought that was odd. I have a brochure for the Genesis 2, and it states that the units come with 2 tuning forks, when first bought. I have read somewhere that the test button on the unit is only to verify that the unit is working correctly, not for calibration.
Does anyone else find these answers odd, or am I alone here???
OPP has not used tuning forks since about 2004-2005. The tuning fork process is not even in the manuals and units do not come with tuning forks. The police do not calibrate radar. We ensure the unit is fuctioning properly by following the manufacturer test procedure. If there is a problem located during the test, the unit is taken out of service and sent for repair. All officers are now trained on radar before they even leave the Academy and subsequent training is every two years. Tuning forks were never to "calibrate" a radar. Tuning forks were used to simulate a speed of a vehicle at a known speed as there was no internal tests in older models. If the speed shown was the same as the fork, it was working properly. New models have the same test of speed simulation only done internally by a computer. If I recall correctly the tuning fork test could be plus/minus 2km/hr. The current internal test must be bang on!
OPP has not used tuning forks since about 2004-2005. The tuning fork process is not even in the manuals and units do not come with tuning forks. The police do not calibrate radar. We ensure the unit is fuctioning properly by following the manufacturer test procedure. If there is a problem located during the test, the unit is taken out of service and sent for repair.
All officers are now trained on radar before they even leave the Academy and subsequent training is every two years.
Tuning forks were never to "calibrate" a radar. Tuning forks were used to simulate a speed of a vehicle at a known speed as there was no internal tests in older models. If the speed shown was the same as the fork, it was working properly. New models have the same test of speed simulation only done internally by a computer.
If I recall correctly the tuning fork test could be plus/minus 2km/hr. The current internal test must be bang on!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Thanks for the info Bear. Very enlightening. If the officers are refreshed every two years, I would still have to ask why they would not provide the documentation for this. Would the radar units not be sent in periodically for bench testing to verify that they are functioning properly?
Thanks for the info Bear. Very enlightening.
If the officers are refreshed every two years, I would still have to ask why they would not provide the documentation for this. Would the radar units not be sent in periodically for bench testing to verify that they are functioning properly?
I wonder if the manufacturer has guaranteed its accuracy through the service life of the radar unit, if the units have a written "service life." Funny that the unit has its own self-contained accuracy test. I'm sure it has an internal integrity check (internal circuits & processor check), I have no idea about accuracy. Radars I've used have a "TEST" mode but that only verifies the internal circuits, processor and display, and returned a specific test pattern. If it didn't display the test pattern, or "RADAR FAULT" was annunciated, the radar was not usable. Even if the test went okay, we were cautioned that it may still not be dependable. To verify that it was working properly we actually had to point it at something and get an actual return on the displays. If it didn't jive with what we were looking at, radar was also not usable. Our radars also had mandatory yearly bench testing. BUT... that's not the type of radar that police would use, so I'm not really sure it would apply here. Just my two cents, so my blurb there might be irrelevant. Main point is, Crown hasn't properly disclosed the requested info to you, much of it being relevant to your defence. You could always motion for a stay at trial. I'd give one more shot at getting disclosure, this time via registered mail or courier (Xpresspost... reliable, cheap; UPS, more expensive, but much faster & very reliable; Fedex, hit and miss) and show evidence that you tried three times to get the requested evidence and they stonewalled you. Here's some more info... http://www.ticketcombat.com/step5/stay.php
I wonder if the manufacturer has guaranteed its accuracy through the service life of the radar unit, if the units have a written "service life."
Funny that the unit has its own self-contained accuracy test. I'm sure it has an internal integrity check (internal circuits & processor check), I have no idea about accuracy. Radars I've used have a "TEST" mode but that only verifies the internal circuits, processor and display, and returned a specific test pattern. If it didn't display the test pattern, or "RADAR FAULT" was annunciated, the radar was not usable. Even if the test went okay, we were cautioned that it may still not be dependable. To verify that it was working properly we actually had to point it at something and get an actual return on the displays. If it didn't jive with what we were looking at, radar was also not usable. Our radars also had mandatory yearly bench testing. BUT... that's not the type of radar that police would use, so I'm not really sure it would apply here. Just my two cents, so my blurb there might be irrelevant.
Main point is, Crown hasn't properly disclosed the requested info to you, much of it being relevant to your defence. You could always motion for a stay at trial. I'd give one more shot at getting disclosure, this time via registered mail or courier (Xpresspost... reliable, cheap; UPS, more expensive, but much faster & very reliable; Fedex, hit and miss) and show evidence that you tried three times to get the requested evidence and they stonewalled you. Here's some more info...
The subsequent refresher training every 2 years is an "internal" policy only, not required by the manufacturer. I have never seen an old radar that is not accurate, range diminished yes. That was on the old MuniQuip MDR1, old "X" band, where it seemed you could throw a baseball farther than it could pick up a vehicle :lol: Our radar does not go in for routine check-ups, if that is what you call it. They are either working or not. I do not know where my documentation is about my training either. I would think it might be in a big filing cabinet, but I have absolutely no access to that cabinet. I do know the month, year and instructor on my last training day, I also remember my very first training day.
The subsequent refresher training every 2 years is an "internal" policy only, not required by the manufacturer.
I have never seen an old radar that is not accurate, range diminished yes. That was on the old MuniQuip MDR1, old "X" band, where it seemed you could throw a baseball farther than it could pick up a vehicle
Our radar does not go in for routine check-ups, if that is what you call it. They are either working or not.
I do not know where my documentation is about my training either. I would think it might be in a big filing cabinet, but I have absolutely no access to that cabinet. I do know the month, year and instructor on my last training day, I also remember my very first training day.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Thanks Bear. It sounds like you're very knowledgable in this field. I hope you don't take me wrong here, I'm just playing the devil's advocate. Why would it be that other measuring devices, such as scales and fuel pumps have to be checked for calibration by a technician, yearly, but the radar units used by the OPP do not need to be bench tested at all. I heard at one point that these units are good for one year once received by the manufacturer, then they have to be bench tested, and calibration tested. Do you happen to know when the OPP first started using the Decatur Genesis 2 units?
Thanks Bear.
It sounds like you're very knowledgable in this field. I hope you don't take me wrong here, I'm just playing the devil's advocate. Why would it be that other measuring devices, such as scales and fuel pumps have to be checked for calibration by a technician, yearly, but the radar units used by the OPP do not need to be bench tested at all. I heard at one point that these units are good for one year once received by the manufacturer, then they have to be bench tested, and calibration tested.
Do you happen to know when the OPP first started using the Decatur Genesis 2 units?
Switched from the MuniQuip MDR1 to the Decatur Genesis II and Decatur Genesis VP in early 2000. There have been subsequent models purchased Decatur Genesis II Select, Decatur Genesis VP Directional and the most recent being the Decatur Genesis II Select Directional. All manuals were updated so that tuning forks are not required. Again that is a redundant test. I do not know of any MTO scale, or fuel pump that has any internal computer system to keep checking itself like the modern radar has. Hence the need to be calibrated once a year. I have complete confidence in the Decatur products, the previous Kustom Signals Golden Eagle and the previous Muni-Quip MDR1.
Switched from the MuniQuip MDR1 to the Decatur Genesis II and Decatur Genesis VP in early 2000.
There have been subsequent models purchased Decatur Genesis II Select, Decatur Genesis VP Directional and the most recent being the Decatur Genesis II Select Directional. All manuals were updated so that tuning forks are not required. Again that is a redundant test.
I do not know of any MTO scale, or fuel pump that has any internal computer system to keep checking itself like the modern radar has.
Hence the need to be calibrated once a year.
I have complete confidence in the Decatur products, the previous Kustom Signals Golden Eagle and the previous Muni-Quip MDR1.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
The manual will do you no good especially if it's a copy. The officer only needs to testify he's qualified and the unit was tested and functioning properly.
The manual will do you no good especially if it's a copy. The officer only needs to testify he's qualified and the unit was tested and functioning properly.
But you just said its range after awhile was less than I can throw a baseball. And I don't even play baseball... Range may be diminished, such as in rain/snow, but the unit is still accurate.
racer wrote:
hwybear wrote:
I have complete confidence in the Decatur products, .......... the previous Muni-Quip MDR1.
But you just said its range after awhile was less than I can throw a baseball. And I don't even play baseball...
Range may be diminished, such as in rain/snow, but the unit is still accurate.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I have read about the cosine error effect. From what I read, this can affect the reading of a moving radar unit. Correct me if I'm wrong. The target obtained by the receiver can be several degrees from directly in front of the police car. This will cause the reading to be construed, giving the unit the incorrect speed of the police car. Due to the fact that the computer calculates the "speeder's" speed as being the difference from the speed received of the "speeder's" vehicle, and the police car's speed (which might be incorrect due to the cosine error effect), the speed calculated by the "speeder" might be incorrect. 8) Has anyone heard of the "tracking history check list"? For stationary radar the checklist is: 1. Was a visual speed estimate made of the suspect vehicle? 2. Was the speed reading displayed consistent with the visual estimate? 3. Did the audio doppler tone match the speed reading and visual estimate? 4. Was the suspect vehicle out front and by itself when the speed readings were made? For moving radar operations, add 5. Did the radar displayed patrol speed match the vehicles speedometer reading at the time the suspect vehicle was tracked?
I have read about the cosine error effect. From what I read, this can affect the reading of a moving radar unit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The target obtained by the receiver can be several degrees from directly in front of the police car. This will cause the reading to be construed, giving the unit the incorrect speed of the police car. Due to the fact that the computer calculates the "speeder's" speed as being the difference from the speed received of the "speeder's" vehicle, and the police car's speed (which might be incorrect due to the cosine error effect), the speed calculated by the "speeder" might be incorrect.
Has anyone heard of the "tracking history check list"?
For stationary radar the checklist is:
1. Was a visual speed estimate made of the suspect vehicle?
2. Was the speed reading displayed consistent with the visual estimate?
3. Did the audio doppler tone match the speed reading and visual estimate?
4. Was the suspect vehicle out front and by itself when the speed readings were made?
For moving radar operations, add
5. Did the radar displayed patrol speed match the vehicles speedometer reading at the time the suspect vehicle was tracked?
Cosine errors will only make the speed of your car slower, not faster. Your checklist is what the officer will testify to. Do not believe the internet hype that you can easily win a speeding ticket. Its one of the tougher offences to have thrown out. Based on where you are going with your wife's defence you'd be better off meeting with the Crown and taking a plea, if thats available to you.
Cosine errors will only make the speed of your car slower, not faster. Your checklist is what the officer will testify to.
Do not believe the internet hype that you can easily win a speeding ticket. Its one of the tougher offences to have thrown out.
Based on where you are going with your wife's defence you'd be better off meeting with the Crown and taking a plea, if thats available to you.
If the Crown does not disclose the requested evidence, that is often sufficient to stay the charge. The evidence must be relevant and the "applicant" (jimp2061) must have a reason for needing it so that he can provide a full answer and defence. Couple of excerpts from the R. v Vanier case: Also http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj318.html If the defence does not provide a reason for requesting the manual or access to it, the Crown may have a valid reason for not disclosing it. (R. v Sequin, 2007) However, I'm sure ticketcombat, DynamicLegal or lawmen can outline where and when this would be the case. At this point there is nothing to lose by continuing to trial. On the day of the trial, a plea-bargain can still be used if you want to go that route. The JP can also order the Crown to disclose the evidence. If they show up with the evidence, a motion for an adjournment to allow you to review it would be appropriate.
If the Crown does not disclose the requested evidence, that is often sufficient to stay the charge. The evidence must be relevant and the "applicant" (jimp2061) must have a reason for needing it so that he can provide a full answer and defence. Couple of excerpts from the R. v Vanier case:
It was obvious that the use and accuracy of the instrument was fundamental to the Crowns case. The photocopying of a portion of the unit manual and the offer of access to the balance was enough to minimally satisfy the prosecution obligation regarding the manual disclosure. To contend that a request for repair records was irrelevant because the officers evidence would be that it was operating properly, was clearly wrong.
Also
Clearly, the prosecution in the proceedings has a duty to disclose relevant information to the defence, to enable full answer and defence. While there is no duty to produce the irrelevant, the prosecution must err on the side of inclusion and produce all information that has a reasonable possibility of assisting the defence ( R. v. Chaplin 1995 CanLII 126 (S.C.C.)
If the defence does not provide a reason for requesting the manual or access to it, the Crown may have a valid reason for not disclosing it. (R. v Sequin, 2007) However, I'm sure ticketcombat, DynamicLegal or lawmen can outline where and when this would be the case. At this point there is nothing to lose by continuing to trial. On the day of the trial, a plea-bargain can still be used if you want to go that route. The JP can also order the Crown to disclose the evidence. If they show up with the evidence, a motion for an adjournment to allow you to review it would be appropriate.
What about the proof of service and calibration. I'm still a little confused with this. From what I understand the OPP no longer test the calibration with tuning forks, and they have not disclosed any repair or bench testing documents. Would this be a credible defence?
What about the proof of service and calibration. I'm still a little confused with this. From what I understand the OPP no longer test the calibration with tuning forks, and they have not disclosed any repair or bench testing documents. Would this be a credible defence?
He does have something to lose. Typically Crown's will not take a deal on the day of the trial. They've set aside court time, called officer(s) in (possibly on OT) and prepared for the trial. Not to mention the fine will be higher than if he just paid it. Testing on most radar units consists of pressing a button and the unit says "passed". Done. Unit working properly. Tuning forks are old school and unless you have an old radar unit they are not used. Case law is great but what is your reason for seeing the manual. Remember officers are not radar experts but radar operators. Big diference. BTW was your wife speeding or not?
At this point there is nothing to lose by continuing to trial. On the day of the trial, a plea-bargain can still be used if you want to go that route
He does have something to lose. Typically Crown's will not take a deal on the day of the trial. They've set aside court time, called officer(s) in (possibly on OT) and prepared for the trial. Not to mention the fine will be higher than if he just paid it.
Testing on most radar units consists of pressing a button and the unit says "passed". Done. Unit working properly. Tuning forks are old school and unless you have an old radar unit they are not used.
Case law is great but what is your reason for seeing the manual. Remember officers are not radar experts but radar operators. Big diference.
Never ever ever have police checked the calibration. Tuning forks do NOT calibrate radar. Tracking history is common use of radar, no big deal. #4 does not make a difference #5 some radar units have VIP attached, therefore this will always be proper...(ie genesis II select and directional)
jimp2061 wrote:
From what I understand the OPP no longer test the calibration with tuning forks
Never ever ever have police checked the calibration. Tuning forks do NOT calibrate radar.
Has anyone heard of the "tracking history check list"?
For stationary radar the checklist is:
1. Was a visual speed estimate made of the suspect vehicle?
2. Was the speed reading displayed consistent with the visual estimate?
3. Did the audio doppler tone match the speed reading and visual estimate?
4. Was the suspect vehicle out front and by itself when the speed readings were made?
For moving radar operations, add
5. Did the radar displayed patrol speed match the vehicles speedometer reading at the time the suspect vehicle was tracked
Tracking history is common use of radar, no big deal.
#4 does not make a difference
#5 some radar units have VIP attached, therefore this will always be proper...(ie genesis II select and directional)
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Ok Bear, I hear ya. Man, you're good. I think I know what your answer will be to this one... I have had absolutely no luck with Decatur. Can anyone tell me if the Genesis 2 Directional is guaranteed for life for never having to be bench tested? I have heard from another site that the radar units are good for one year out of the box, then the manufacturer recommends that they be bench tested by a qualified technician.
Ok Bear, I hear ya. Man, you're good. I think I know what your answer will be to this one...
I have had absolutely no luck with Decatur. Can anyone tell me if the Genesis 2 Directional is guaranteed for life for never having to be bench tested? I have heard from another site that the radar units are good for one year out of the box, then the manufacturer recommends that they be bench tested by a qualified technician.
The best evidence that the Crown has of the 117 in an 80 is the radar reading. If the radar is not tested properly or is not used properly, the radar evidence should be excluded. All of the information regarding proper test/operation is in the manual. Being able to ask the officer exactly what he did to test it and how he used it, and compare it to the manufacturer's procedure, is central to the question of whether or not the radar reading is reliable. What are you basing this on? The Crown offers plea deals on the day of the trial as a matter of routine. The court date is scheduled usually based on the officer's availability. They set these up for rapid processing. Every time I've gone to traffic court (twice for my own purposes, 10+ times as an observer), the Crown tried to plea-bargain with the defendants in speeding cases. The Crown has already paid the money and they don't want to walk away empty-handed. Not necessarily. Raising the fine to the statutory amount can happen but the JP can lower it, too. Some other provinces, such as Quebec, make you pay an additional surcharge for court time if you fight it, but not here. The max they can impose for a Part 1 offence is $500. The way to argue, upon conviction, for the set fine (or less) is here: http://www.ticketcombat.com/step5/sentencing.php That assumes that the Prosecutor successfully gets a conviction. Right now the disclosure is still not complete. If they do get disclosure of the relevant parts of the manual, the game changes.
The best evidence that the Crown has of the 117 in an 80 is the radar reading. If the radar is not tested properly or is not used properly, the radar evidence should be excluded. All of the information regarding proper test/operation is in the manual. Being able to ask the officer exactly what he did to test it and how he used it, and compare it to the manufacturer's procedure, is central to the question of whether or not the radar reading is reliable.
He does have something to lose. Typically Crown's will not take a deal on the day of the trial. They've set aside court time, called officer(s) in (possibly on OT) and prepared for the trial.
What are you basing this on? The Crown offers plea deals on the day of the trial as a matter of routine. The court date is scheduled usually based on the officer's availability. They set these up for rapid processing. Every time I've gone to traffic court (twice for my own purposes, 10+ times as an observer), the Crown tried to plea-bargain with the defendants in speeding cases. The Crown has already paid the money and they don't want to walk away empty-handed.
Not to mention the fine will be higher than if he just paid it.
Not necessarily. Raising the fine to the statutory amount can happen but the JP can lower it, too. Some other provinces, such as Quebec, make you pay an additional surcharge for court time if you fight it, but not here. The max they can impose for a Part 1 offence is $500. The way to argue, upon conviction, for the set fine (or less) is here:
That assumes that the Prosecutor successfully gets a conviction. Right now the disclosure is still not complete. If they do get disclosure of the relevant parts of the manual, the game changes.
Last edited by Radar Identified on Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
One has to remember that other sites and information in general on net in regards to laws is based a lot on where those people are. Such as a simple tuning fork, some places still require it, some don't. Some places don't recognize specific radar units unless they are passed through local gov't etc....think you get my drift. Some manuals are made specific to those areas as well. Some police have different procedures on use/qualifications as required by their province or state. Some go past the required and do extra stuff. (ie. OPP requalified every 2yrs, other forces might not be....maybe certain police do send their stuff back in every year, probably internal policy) End and short of it all. Radar is obtained certified, when/If it breaks down, it is send in for repair, fixed, calibrated and then sent back into the field.
jimp2061 wrote:
I have had absolutely no luck with Decatur. Can anyone tell me if the Genesis 2 Directional is guaranteed for life for never having to be bench tested? I have heard from another site that the radar units are good for one year out of the box, then the manufacturer recommends that they be bench tested by a qualified technician.
One has to remember that other sites and information in general on net in regards to laws is based a lot on where those people are. Such as a simple tuning fork, some places still require it, some don't. Some places don't recognize specific radar units unless they are passed through local gov't etc....think you get my drift. Some manuals are made specific to those areas as well. Some police have different procedures on use/qualifications as required by their province or state. Some go past the required and do extra stuff.
(ie. OPP requalified every 2yrs, other forces might not be....maybe certain police do send their stuff back in every year, probably internal policy)
End and short of it all. Radar is obtained certified, when/If it breaks down, it is send in for repair, fixed, calibrated and then sent back into the field.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
True, however if the manual is a copy (which it will be) it will not be admissible. You can ask all the technical questions you want but unless the officer makes an error in his testimony, in most cases, it will be good enough for a conviction. Crowns will take a plea deal on the day of the trial however not after it has started which is what was suggested in an earlier post. He can't say that he hasn't had full disclosure, JP doesn't dismiss the charge and then ask for a plea. Once it starts he's comitted to a triel. At least that's how I interpreted the earlier post. I have nothing to gain for my suggestions. I prefer easier, more foolproof methods. In my opinion, where he is going with his defence will not yield the intended results hence my suggestion for a plea. If her record is clean and he has a convincing argument he would likely be able to plea to 95/80, $65 and no points. Is it really worth taking a day off work, wasting hours of time on the net to beat it? Seems like a bad investment to me but if it all about the principle of the matter then I suppose it's worth it.
The best evidence that the Crown has of the 117 in an 80 is the radar reading. If the radar is not tested properly or is not used properly, the radar evidence should be excluded. All of the information regarding proper test/operation is in the manual. Being able to ask the officer exactly what he did to test it and how he used it, and compare it to the manufacturer's procedure, is central to the question of whether or not the radar reading is reliable.
True, however if the manual is a copy (which it will be) it will not be admissible. You can ask all the technical questions you want but unless the officer makes an error in his testimony, in most cases, it will be good enough for a conviction.
What are you basing this on? The Crown offers plea deals on the day of the trial as a matter of routine. The court date is scheduled usually based on the officer's availability. They set these up for rapid processing. Every time I've gone to traffic court (twice for my own purposes, 10+ times as an observer), the Crown tried to plea-bargain with the defendants in speeding cases. The Crown has already paid the money and they don't want to walk away empty-handed.
Crowns will take a plea deal on the day of the trial however not after it has started which is what was suggested in an earlier post. He can't say that he hasn't had full disclosure, JP doesn't dismiss the charge and then ask for a plea. Once it starts he's comitted to a triel. At least that's how I interpreted the earlier post.
I have nothing to gain for my suggestions. I prefer easier, more foolproof methods. In my opinion, where he is going with his defence will not yield the intended results hence my suggestion for a plea. If her record is clean and he has a convincing argument he would likely be able to plea to 95/80, $65 and no points. Is it really worth taking a day off work, wasting hours of time on the net to beat it? Seems like a bad investment to me but if it all about the principle of the matter then I suppose it's worth it.
I might've not worded my earlier post clearly enough, but yes you are right. We both agree on this point. Once the trial starts, the time for a plea is over. Prior to the trial beginning, a plea-bargain can be made. No one here really has anything to gain (or lose for that matter) from their suggestions. Pleading guilty to a lesser charge guarantees a lot of things. 15 km/h over yields the stuff you talked about but most importantly, for the longer term, usually will not result in an insurance increase depending on the provider. I agree with you that it is a virtually foolproof tactic, unless the Prosecutor has other things going on. Ultimately, time will tell what the outcome is. We've all made our points, it's up to jimp2061 and his wife to decide how they want to proceed.
Once it starts he's comitted to a triel. At least that's how I interpreted the earlier post.
I might've not worded my earlier post clearly enough, but yes you are right. We both agree on this point. Once the trial starts, the time for a plea is over. Prior to the trial beginning, a plea-bargain can be made.
I have nothing to gain for my suggestions. I prefer easier, more foolproof methods. In my opinion, where he is going with his defence will not yield the intended results hence my suggestion for a plea.
No one here really has anything to gain (or lose for that matter) from their suggestions. Pleading guilty to a lesser charge guarantees a lot of things. 15 km/h over yields the stuff you talked about but most importantly, for the longer term, usually will not result in an insurance increase depending on the provider. I agree with you that it is a virtually foolproof tactic, unless the Prosecutor has other things going on.
Ultimately, time will tell what the outcome is. We've all made our points, it's up to jimp2061 and his wife to decide how they want to proceed.
Wow, thanks for all the input and advice. Likely I'll try the plea bargain route for 95/80. That might be the safest idea. Ok, I haven't had allot of experience with this. Am I best to show up with all my info, and use it to try to bargain with the Crown? I have a few previous decisions, and appeals with regard to the disclosure. Would I just be shooting myself in the foot, if I let the Prosecutor know that I have this info, or would it work to my advantage?
Wow, thanks for all the input and advice.
Likely I'll try the plea bargain route for 95/80. That might be the safest idea. Ok, I haven't had allot of experience with this. Am I best to show up with all my info, and use it to try to bargain with the Crown? I have a few previous decisions, and appeals with regard to the disclosure. Would I just be shooting myself in the foot, if I let the Prosecutor know that I have this info, or would it work to my advantage?
I guess it depends on the Prosecutor. Since you've decided to go the route of bargaining, definitely bring all of your evidence, a BIG stack of it, notes, etc., so that if things don't go as planned you're ready. This is what I would do: Show up as early as possible, definitely in advance of 30 minutes prior to trial, and seek out the Prosecutor. Of course the common-sense approach would apply: Dress for the occasion, be polite and respectful, show your wife has a clean or mostly clean driving record, and is apologetic and remorseful. Stuff like that. Indicate that you're willing to negotiate. If he's hesitant, then I'd show him the stack of evidence (show him the stack but if possible try not to let him read it) and in a friendly way say that you're trying to speed things up and make it quick and easy for everyone. You may find this thread helpful as it applies in your case: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic545.html Does anyone have any experiences negotiating with the Crown that they can tell of here? Would be useful I think. I have a couple of them but they aren't that relevant here. Of course if the officer doesn't show, they'll probably drop the charge! Don't bet on the officer being absent, though, they usually show these days. Regardless, good luck with it.
I guess it depends on the Prosecutor. Since you've decided to go the route of bargaining, definitely bring all of your evidence, a BIG stack of it, notes, etc., so that if things don't go as planned you're ready. This is what I would do: Show up as early as possible, definitely in advance of 30 minutes prior to trial, and seek out the Prosecutor.
Of course the common-sense approach would apply: Dress for the occasion, be polite and respectful, show your wife has a clean or mostly clean driving record, and is apologetic and remorseful. Stuff like that. Indicate that you're willing to negotiate. If he's hesitant, then I'd show him the stack of evidence (show him the stack but if possible try not to let him read it) and in a friendly way say that you're trying to speed things up and make it quick and easy for everyone. You may find this thread helpful as it applies in your case:
Does anyone have any experiences negotiating with the Crown that they can tell of here? Would be useful I think. I have a couple of them but they aren't that relevant here. Of course if the officer doesn't show, they'll probably drop the charge! Don't bet on the officer being absent, though, they usually show these days. Regardless, good luck with it.
See if you can meet prior to the trial (not the day of). This way they can cancel the officer. Walk in with your wife and humbly ask to plea to a lesser charge. Use her good record and remorse as a bargaining tool and make a statement that you don't want to waste any more of the courts time than necessary (you're time isn't important). They have a job to do and aren't out to screw anyone. The more cases they get through the better for them.
See if you can meet prior to the trial (not the day of). This way they can cancel the officer. Walk in with your wife and humbly ask to plea to a lesser charge. Use her good record and remorse as a bargaining tool and make a statement that you don't want to waste any more of the courts time than necessary (you're time isn't important). They have a job to do and aren't out to screw anyone. The more cases they get through the better for them.
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
