hi all, i've read through the red light camera topics and i think this is a unique angle

according to reg 277/99 on red light camera evidence:

(5) In order to be received in evidence, an enlargement of a photograph must clearly show the number plate of the vehicle that is the subject of the photograph and as much of the rest of the photograph as is necessary to show that the enlargement is of part of that photograph. O. Reg. 569/00, s. 3.

available at: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o ... 77-99.html

see my ticket below

you can clearly tell that the enlargement is not from the photo above it, as is required ... for one thing, the driver brake light is off in the enlargement and on in the original ... so my question is: is there grounds to fight it based on this part of the reg? without the enlargement, the image is too blurry to make out my license plate, at least on the offense notice ... can the prosecutor bring additional evidence aside from that provided on the notice?

i also read about requesting disclosure in advance of trial ... does that apply to red light cameras? i don't want to try and have it quashed for lack of evidence, only to have the prosecutor pull out more evidence ... would it be smarter to just try and plea down to 50%? if i go for the defense, and new evidence is submitted, can i then try and plea bargain or will they refuse (for good reason)? thanks for any help, i am steeped in student debt and would like to minimize the damage ... i am not a reckless driver, literally 0 speeding tickets in 8 years driving, i drive a buick for goodness' sake ...

don't think there is brake lights on in original as there is no idiot light activated (third upper light so idiots don't rear end you). All I see is regular tail lights

thanks hwybear, but i don't need to show that the brake lights were on/off, i just need to show that the enlargement didn't come from the picture above it, right? so in the bottom picture, the driver tail light is not activated, i'm assuming because i was signalling a left turn (i think mine signals a left turn by deactivating one tail light intermittently) ... in the original, it is definitely activated (same as passenger side) ... so i know they are two separate photos

I'm not 100% sure. I blew up both photos (with pretty crappy software -- I'm sure theirs is much better). I think that it is possible that they took the upper picture and cropped it (on the left side) just slightly to the left of the trunk deck lid. The part of your tail light that glows is to the left of that (and would be excluded from the lower picture if I'm right about where they cropped the picture.)

That should not stop you from fully defending yourself including challenging the blown up photo. Keep us posted about how this turns out.

hk111 wrote:

I'm not 100% sure. I blew up both photos (with pretty crappy software -- I'm sure theirs is much better). I think that it is possible that they took the upper picture and cropped it (on the left side) just slightly to the left of the trunk deck lid. The part of your tail light that glows is to the left of that (and would be excluded from the lower picture if I'm right about where they cropped the picture.)

That should not stop you from fully defending yourself including challenging the blown up photo. Keep us posted about how this turns out.

thanks hk111 ... i took a tip from your method, see pic below

i took the right tail light, mirrored it horizontally, and placed it above the left tail light ... you can clearly see that the left tail light is not activated, and it is activated in the above photo, meaning that they are not the same photo ... my real question i guess is if people think it's worth fighting, or should i just try and plea down? thanks for any advice