I don't know what would give me that thought you said that. Maybe I was wrong or mis-read

or

Perhaps it is the title "Reducing fines: police stop car for no reason or made-up one

northexposure wrote:

I acknowledge your desire to help but I would suggest his best option is to ask for a reduced fine based on ability to pay. ? think we can agree too that when an officer doesn't know the answer, that he or she shouldn't pretend to know the answer. What the officer said placed pressure on my relative to plead guilty and pay immediately so that he wouldn't have to wait long to reinstate his license. If the officer knew that to be untrue, that is misconduct. If he was unsure of the truth, he should have simply suggested going to the MTO.

Or your relative, who you admit will need a translator misunderstood. You have to admit, surely, that this is a possibility. It is true that if convicted the fine would have to be paid prior to reinstatement. Perhaps this is what was said and language got in the way.

OPS Copper wrote:

I don't know what would give me that thought you said that. Maybe I was wrong or mis-read

or

Perhaps it is the title "Reducing fines: police stop car for no reason or made-up one

Maybe it was too much trouble for you to read more than the sentence in the subject line, which must be condensed because of space. Here's are the highlights of what I wrote of the officer so you won't have to bother with the 30 seconds it would have taken to read the thread:

"Please understand I am asking these questions not knowing the answers; perhaps my suspicion is incorrect."

"So my question is a factual inquiry: When police check their computer for a driver's license and see that it is expired, would that officer also see on the same screen whether the license was suspended?"

"I also have some doubts about the officer"

"Perhaps the officer was telling the truth and the computer screen he checked first only stated that date of expiration"

"The Court has not ruled, yet, on whether an officer can stop a motorist for a made-up reason. Whether or not that is what happened here, I hope to find out"

"In any case, I would not go after an officer unless I obtained strong evidence of wrong-doing. All I have now are questions."

argyll wrote:

northexposure wrote:

I acknowledge your desire to help but I would suggest his best option is to ask for a reduced fine based on ability to pay. ? think we can agree too that when an officer doesn't know the answer, that he or she shouldn't pretend to know the answer. What the officer said placed pressure on my relative to plead guilty and pay immediately so that he wouldn't have to wait long to reinstate his license. If the officer knew that to be untrue, that is misconduct. If he was unsure of the truth, he should have simply suggested going to the MTO.

Or your relative, who you admit will need a translator misunderstood. You have to admit, surely, that this is a possibility. It is true that if convicted the fine would have to be paid prior to reinstatement. Perhaps this is what was said and language got in the way.

I requested the interpreter for my relative because it may be a challenge for him to fully understand some of the legal terminology. As for understanding a simple instruction from a police officer, both my relative and his wife, who was in the car with him, managed to work nearly 40 years in Canada because of their ability to to understand and follow instructions. So no, I don't think what you suggest is a possibility.

OK. Well you are obviously going ahead with this so keep us posted.

I don't think you have demonstrated any intentional deceit or misconduct on the part of the officer - at best perhaps providing some information that was incorrect about a different agency and that, regardless, you got cleared up right away.

As for the charge, he drove a car and didn't have a valid licence. It's as simple as that.

I'm failing to see what you hope to achieve at trial but good luck and do come back and let us know.