Form 4 Offence Notice - content

Hi everyone,

I would like to know if anybody could tell me what "V" stands for on the Code section of the Form 4. I think that it will be useful to understand what information is on this form in order to make a decision on what option we should chose.

Can you scan it and post so we can see what you mean?

Jsherk, I believe he's talking about the part of the ticket where for example, an officer reduces a speeding ticket, they put "R" in that code box.

What was the offense for? Maybe it's a hand written ticket and the R looks like a V?

jsherk wrote:

Can you scan it and post so we can see what you mean?

I prefer not to scan it for privacy concerns but ...

The offence was "Proceed contrary to sign at intersection"

The "code" that I'm asking it's on the first page of the offence notice on the left side right under Contrary to: Highway Traffic act Sect/144(9) - in my case.

There is a table with 3 rows containing following fields from left to right.

First row: Plate Number; Juris.;Commercial; CVOR; NSC; Code

Second row : Provincial offences officer; Officer #; Division& Platoon

Third row: Set fine of; Total Payable

Here a link to a blank form http://du0tsrdospf80.cloudfront.net/ima ... age010.jpg

I have to mention that i have also a speeding ticket that I will fight in court but there, the V letter, is not present in the code field. So ... it makes me wonder...

Thanks!

Every ticket I have ever seen it is blank. Seems to me it is related to COMMERCIAL drivers licenses.

Regardless of it being there or not, and what it might mean, in my opinion it will not help you at all beat the ticket.

UnluckyDuck wrote:

Jsherk, I believe he's talking about the part of the ticket where for example, an officer reduces a speeding ticket, they put "R" in that code box.

What was the offense for? Maybe it's a hand written ticket and the R looks like a V?

Thanks for trying to help me. The offence was Proceed contrary to sign at intersection HTA 144 (9)

So on a speed ticket is an "R" in that that can stand for (R)adar or reduced. In my case the cop said that i was recorded so i'm afraid that V stands for (V)ideo and here rely my problem. If they have proof of video is quite futile to go in court. The same could be if you have a speed ticket that has a R meaning probably Radar. It's possible that the Prosecutor eyes on your Offence Notice and they know instant if they have a proof or not. I was caught myself in a speed trap but there is no R on code which makes me hope that i have a chance in court.

Hence I would like to know if anybody knows what V is standing for....

Thanks again

R means Reduced, not Radar

You can still plead Not Guilty and request a trial, and then request disclosure (officers notes AND video). If there is video they are going to use, then they have to provide a copy to you.

Just because the Officer has Video and Audio does not mean you should not fight it and that it would be futile.

I've had a ticket where I was caught doing 80 in a 60 and the Officer almost forgot to tell me I was being recorded!

When it came time to court, the Officer was present and there was sufficient evidence for a conviction as charged.

My representative in court was able to get the speed reduced from the 3 point area to 75/60 (no points).

argyll wrote:

R means Reduced, not Radar

Do you know maybe what V stands for? I do have an air brakes endorsement...

Air Brake endorcement is "Z" and it is on your driver's licence, not on the ticket...

@screeech - I know Z is on my driver licence and not on my ticket. I'm asking about a V found under Code on the ticket. I mentioned Z because jsherk said that it may be related to Commercial and I was asking argill because he was an Ontario Police Officer

There are no set or established codes being used in Ontario. It varies across the province. The only consistent one is the R for a reduced speeding charge. The R in our case is to let the prosecutor know at a glance that the ticket was reduced at roadside.

One more thing about video, based on what happened with my wife's trial.

Just because the officer says there is video recording of you, it does not mean that is the case or game is over.

I requested the video of my wife's alleged infraction and it dd not exist, even though she was told by the officer he had such evidence.

In case you are wondering, that charge was dropped.

The law says that if you lie to police you can be charged. However it is perfectly okay for them to lie to you. Different rules for different people... this is our great Canadian un-justice system at work!

You come at this from the point of view of a law-abiding citizen dealing with minor traffic matters. Misleading and, yes, lying when trying to gain evidence against some of the most heinous members of our society is a critical part of criminal police work. Don't forget that the same police officer who may stop you for a burnt out tail light could well, the very next day, be interrogating someone who has been abusing children. I used to get very frustrated with people who only saw police from their very peaceful part of the planet without realising the horrors, and horrific people, that we deal with - mostly behind closed doors of residences so it isn't seen by the public.

I am all for police protecting us from crime and criminals. But when there is no harm, no injury or no damage then there is no crime and the police should not be involved.

If, for example, speeding laws are there to keep us safe, then why does the prosecution not have to prove the speeding was unsafe in order to get a conviction? Because it would be a big loss of revenue for the Province, that's why!

There are detachments of the OPP where the majority of what they do is chase down speeders on the 401. And they get paid over $100,000 a year to do that?

Maybe my issue is more with government than with the police, but the "just doing their job" excuse does not really work for me.

Go catch somebody that has done some harm/injury/damage and I am all in support of that.

Ah were closer together than you might think. I've always said that the entire HTA should be thrown out for just one offence - driving like a moron. Then it would be up to the officer to present why the driving behaviour was a problem. I have seen officers sit in the 'fishing homes' and I agree that it is nothing but a cash grab.

jsherk wrote:

I am all for police protecting us from crime and criminals. But when there is no harm, no injury or no damage then there is no crime and the police should not be involved.

If, for example, speeding laws are there to keep us safe, then why does the prosecution not have to prove the speeding was unsafe in order to get a conviction? Because it would be a big loss of revenue for the Province, that's why!

I hate to sound contradicting, but I agree and disagree. I agree that they pick on minor things (i.e. 120km/h on the 401 e.t.c.) where it is safe to do so, but technically illegal.

But at the same time, lets say that I am a qualified race car driver, and have a certificate stated I completed training on how to maneuver vehicles at high speeds, as well as safety and accident prevention (MoSport offers these lessons). Then going back to your statement "Why does the prosecution not have to prove the speeding was unsafe in order to get a conviction?" So lets say I get caught stunt driving at 267km/h in a 40 zone. I can argue because of my certificate, I am properly qualified to operate a vehicle at that speed, therefore it was not unsafe.

Just my 2 cents.

No because then I can argue that the road is not designed for that speed, people do not expect you to drive that fast etc etc