Speeding and Follow Too Closely

argyll wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head Zatota with your last sentence. Your issue is with the actions of the officer and if so then it is your right to make a complaint about him. But the JP won't care and will shut you down very very quickly which is only going to make you pissed off with life. I've seen it so many times. The court is only interested in your actions and, as I mistakenly posted in another thread, miscarriage of justice for police actions are reserved for very egregious things.

I agree with many that our justice system, while not perfect, is generally well balanced. However, if what you said is true, that JPs really don't care what police officers do, perhaps our system is more flawed than I thought. Now I'm really curious to know what caused that officer several years ago to plead guilty to improper operation of an emergency vehicle.

" that JPs really don't care what police officers do"

That is NOT what I said. But you have my point of view so no need to flog a dead horse.

I probably oversimplified that. But, you're right, there's no use flogging a dead horse.

At this point, I'll just wait for my trial date to arrive so I can start the disclosure process.

I was reading another topic last night, where the issue of location shown on the ticket was briefly raised as a potential fatal error. That made me wonder whether the information the officer showed on my tickets is sufficient. All he indicated was "Highway 407." I've attached the two tickets. Is what he indicated sufficient?

Speeding: https://www.dropbox.com/s/47g9vg6tx1lsr ... t.JPG?dl=0

Follow Too Closely: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7thy6yib5yik ... t.JPG?dl=0

Yes, that's normal.

As long as there is some kind of location then it is acceptable. If they left the location area blank then that would a problem.

That's what I thought, unfortunately.

I'll just wait for my trial date so I can request disclosure. I still think we were in Brampton, not Vaughan, and that the Brampton Court, not Newmarket, should have jurisdiction. But it will take several months before I know that, based on the pace at which Newmarket works.

The trial has been set for July 17. I've requested disclosure; I'll keep you posted.

I finally heard from the Prosecutors office. My trial is Monday and I had requested disclosure in a timely manner. After several messages, someone called me today to say the office still has not received disclosure from the officer. She went on to say that, unless I hear something further, I should still show up for my trial Monday and the Prosecutor will "instruct" me on how to proceed.

My guess is the Prosecutor will suggest I go outside with the officer to review his notes. Unless I see something nice and juicy (e.g., the officer has not recorded the times at which he tested the radar before and after the stop, and has something that will work in my favour on the Follow Too Closely charge), I will use the "this does not give me enough time to make a full answer and defence" argument for an adjournment that should be attributed to the Prosecution.

I'll keep you posted.

Questions to ask:

1) Were WE speeding that day?

2) I thought I was just keeping up with traffic and wasn't looking at my speedometer. Are you sure you were going that fast and if you are why didn't you have your lights on?

3) Approximately how far behind you was I?

4) How long did you observe me for?

5) Can you typically make rear view observations while driving 135km/hr without your lights on? Was that part of your police training?

6) How much closer do objects appear as you observe them in a rear view mirror? How did your police training tell you to account for that factor?

7) Did you slow down quickly? For what reason?

How many times did you look at your speedometer while these events unfolded and how far behind you was I at each point? (Sometimes with math you can prove contradictions and I'm fairly sure the officer who probably isn't that bright will start to make stuff up.)

9) How far behind you was I after you slowed down quickly?

10) What is a safe distance to be following? Could it be the distance needed to stop quickly if the person in front of you slows down quickly?

11) How was it that even though your car has better breaks than mine I was able to slow down quickly without hitting you if I was travelling 135km/hr at an unsafe distance?

Thanks, Speedtaxed. I have a bunch of other questions I'm prepared to ask as well. There's no way I'd ask Q2, though. That shows irresponsibility and suggests I was speeding.

What I plan to use in my favour on both charges is the officer's ability to identify a car in his rearview mirror (as in your Q5), particularly 15 minutes after sunrise in November, when the sun is still very low in the sky and every vehicle in his rearview would appear black (or, at least, the same colour). Similarly, for the follow too closely charge, I plan to ask him if his rearview mirror was dimmed (his vehicle has a sensor-based rearview, as many vehicles have these days). If he doesn't know, or if he says no, I couldn't have been tailgating him. My lights were still on (they were still required at that time), so my car would have caused his rearview to dim.

Either way, I don't think much is going to happen Monday.

The officer probably doesn't have you with radar. I think that is the reason for non-disclosure.

Do you think the officer wants to admit he was doing 135km in front of you, without his lights on and obviously going for entrapment? For a JP to take the officer's testimony for a conviction he has to be convinced of his judgment and integrity. You can ask him all kinds of damaging questions after that admission. Do you think you were lacking extreme judgment to be going 135km trying to pace someone through your rear view mirror and without your lights on? Did your training indicate this should be done? (He'll have to say no).

Why did you put the person in the car in front of you at risk by not watching him to make pacing observations in your rear view going 135km/hr? Does that not indicate you care more about issuing traffic tickets rather than the issue of safety and that you don't have any credibility when it comes to judging what is safe and what is not safe? If you would put the person's life at risk ahead of you to issue a ticket does that not indicate you would do anything to get a ticket in which case why should the JP believe in your judgment and testimony?

In your conclusion to JP state officer wasn't trained to make speed observations from rear view mirror going 135km/hr. Not only that it was ill advised and put multiple lives at risk by not paying attention to the traffic in front of him. One has to severely question not only the officer's judgment but also his motivation for issuing a ticket by becoming a worse hazard than the Offence he was trying to ticket. Not only did he not follow correct training protocol and attempt to make a visual observation that was both unsafe and for which he didn't have training, he didn't follow protocol along with the prosecutor and I was not given adequate disclosure in a timely fashion. Since the officer did not follow proper protocol and showed severely impaired judgment you can not put any faith in his person or testimony and must therefore acquit.

Don't worry; I've thought of all those angles. I'm just not going to speculate until I've seen the disclosure.

FYI officers in Ontario are allowed to speed without their lights on, so the officer will have no problem admitting this in front of the JP and the JP will not care that the officer was speeding because the law says they can. The officer is not on trial, the defendant is. The officer will say they saw the defendant speeding, and the JP will say "the officer said it, so it must be true" and will find defendant guilty regardless of whether or not the officer did something unsafe.

I do not agree that this is how it should be, but will be surprised if the outcome is different.

Exactly this. What the officer was doing is completely irrelevant to the trial of the accused. If you feel the officer's behaviour was wrong then make a complaint through the OIPRD but the JP is only interested in what the driver was doing. The line of questioning as suggested will be shut down immediately.

What the officer does is very relevant. As I posted in another thread I won a speeding case because I absolutely shredded the officer's character. When I asked him if he ever fabricated evidence or committed perjury I caught him in a lie about lying in another case that had nothing to do with mine.

I constantly accused him of being a liar in my own testimony. The best and only real defense is acharacter assassination. This is because the playing field is rigged in the officer's favor and their character is held in way higher regard than it deserves.

People are missing the point about an officer going 135km/hr without his lights on trying to pace someone in his rear view. It might be legal but it is a dumbass move that shows severely impaired judgment and a disregard for everyone else's safety. Not only that he isn't trained to do that, it would be frowned upon by most people who take public safety seriously, and the officer can't properly assess speed in that kind of situation on top of it all.

The JP has to be convinced of both the officer's ability to make a speed observation/estimation and of his sound judgment/character. His actions, while legal, make him look really bad as sole witness and accuser.

Actually you didn't win your case because of that. The appeal never went ahead when Crown decided not to proceed. Both the trial judge and the pre-appeal judge thought there was a case against you. There can be many reasons why Crown decides not to go ahead with a case but your assertions that a judge said that the officer's actions were relevant to the finding of guilt in your actions is simply not borne out by the facts that you have presented.

I agree that it sucks that I can't use the fact the officer was driving 135 against him, but it is what it is. I'll have to see what's in the disclosure before I decide what to do.

Argyll,

Your point that you can't trash the officer's judgment and character is completely untrue.

The JP allowed me to read the perjury case against him in court and to repeatedly trash him as a liar and evidence fabricator when I took the stand. The prosecutor wasn't able to stop me as I was presenting testimony that spoke to the character of the officer which a JP/ judge has to account for in his decision.

Why do you think the manager of prosecutions for Waterloo dropped the charges after the case? ( In the end the why doesn't matter only that he did.) He stated the JP erred in his conclusion of facts which was the basis of my appeal. He called it a WD case and stated there was reasonable doubt. The WD case if I remember correctly is actually a rape case where the guidelines for a conviction are the judge can't just believe/think the defendant is guilty he has to have no reason to doubt the accuser which includes his character.

Slamming the officer in the way I indicated should be done creates doubt in the officer's judgment, ability to make the visual observation and motivation for issuing a ticket if the Offence was way less egregious than what the officer did himself.

To me it's more of a honey-versus-vinegar thing. If I need to show that an officer may have erred, mistaken a fact, etc., I'd rather do so by asking a series of questions that bring into doubt the reliability of the evidence than by slamming the officer personally.

The JP allowed you to read it because citizen's defending themselves are given a large amount of latitude due to lack of legal training. It would not have been considered by the JP because you did not have copies to submit as required. The prosecutor probably didn't stop you because why should he ? He can let you rant on in the full knowledge that what you said is not going to be considered. He was probably reviewing the notes of the next case to cone up.

I speak having been a court officer and acted as crown counsel in JP court and criminal code show cause bearings. I'm afraid that you are a perfect example of why all court staff sigh deeply when people defend themselves: they know that there will be a lot of words, allegations of evil police officers, demands for people to lose their jobs and little substance.

But you will disagree with all of this and continue with your rant about how all police officers are liars and JPs corrupt. I would pay to come and watch you at work in the courtroom.

I wish you a peaceful life.

No fooling...I would love to know when and where this trial is going to be...

You keep missing the point badly Argyll. The manager of prosecutions didn't just decide to not try the appeal case because he is a nice guy or felt sorry for a raving lunatic as your logic would have us believe. He dropped the case as the Senior prosecutor because he couldn't convict based on how I portrayed the officer and his evidence.

You wish me a peaceful life, huh? Officer's never lie, right?

I wish everyone a peaceful life. Absolutely no word of a lie. You need to get that massive chip off your shoulder. We disagree but what's wrong with that. I don't know you, you don't know me. Why would I not wish you a happy life?

Zatota,

The first appeal I had I lost. I proved mathematically that the officer's observations severely contradicted the radar gun reading. The judge took over 3 hours to deliberate but stated the reason I lost was because I didn't take the stand to declare my innocence. I stated math is the ultimate proof basically and therefore didnt need to testify

but the judge wouldn't budge and stated I needed to take the stand.

The system is very rigged as you probably know. It is meant to convict and collect tax revenues under the guise of Public Safety.

You will have to take the stand and either state you didn't know what speed you were doing and keeping up with traffic in a safe manner or testify you weren't speeding (much better option). You will then have to create a massive amount of doubt in the officer and you can't do that by being nice. While you have the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt on your side according to law you really don't and the JP/judge wants to convict you since it makes his life easier and he won't be criticized by his peers. To win you have to make everything about the officer look bad. If he looks good you don't win because he is going to say he observed you doing 135km/hr and the fact that his dimmer rear view didn't come on could just mean he wasnt giving it any thought or didn't have on.

Totally not surprised you get tickets speedtaxed .

Speedtaxed wrote:

You wish me a peaceful life, huh? Officer's never lie, right?

Speedtaxed wrote:

The system is very rigged as you probably know. It is meant to convict and collect tax revenues under the guise of Public Safety.

Lets not derail thread after thread with this. Enough with the ranting.

I'm giving good advice. To adequately prepare for a trial one should realize what they are up against.

Even if you look on this website most people that have radar gun equipment logos or are former police officers arent sympathetic to your viewpoint. No matter the situation they deep down want you to lose and will look for arguments to confirm your guilt and their personal bias rather than your innocence. This is the same mentality you will find in court (actually maybe more unfortunately) even though that mindset is the complete opposite of what justice needs to be.

As logical and as damning as your arguments appear to the outside world, especially if you work in a highly mathematic or scientific environment, you will get resistance. I brought Google GPS evidence to court and the prosecutor whined so badly about it being unproven. I had to fight hard for it to be admissible even though every day people, including probably the prosecutor and JP, use GPS technology and believe in its accuracy. Again, I brought a court case showing another judge had ruled the sole witness/officer an evidence fabricator and the JP refused to dismiss the case because I didn't have the full printout and wouldn't look it up on his computer. That's another piece of advice: bring 3 printouts of everything you plan to use in court.

You really have to think of a lot of ways to disprove or cast doubt on the officer and his testimony and hope you can gain traction on a few arguments. Hammer down on each point you make because half the time the JP is trying to summarize his guilty conclusion which is his zone of comfort if not personal bias. I am also fairly sure you need to take the stand and declare your innocence, if you can, to realistically win. Then in your conclusion you really have to list multiple reasons why there is sufficient reason to doubt the officer and his testimony, stress your innocence and remind JP the presumption of innocence is yours and you have provided reasonable doubt which means he can't convict. If you can do that really well the JP will be pissed and declare a long recess so he can find some rule of law to hang you on and toss the idea of just how bad a guilty verdict that he wants will make him look. However, in the end, contradicting evidence and rEason able doubt is your friend and the JP can't foolishly just back the officer if you have made the officer look extremely incompetent or untrustworthy.

Some of what you say makes sense however it is clouded by your ever present chip.

I don't care if you win or lose. I didn't even care when I was the charging officer. My job was to present the facts as I saw them. If they weren't enough to convict in the eyes of the court then so be it - no skin off my nose.

The JP refused to accept your case law because you didn't present it in the required manner. It's not advise to bring 3 copies, it is a requirement which you failed to follow. The only person to blame is you but accepting of any blame doesn't seem to be in your make up.

JPs are not looking to convict - in fact quite the contrary from what I have seen in court and I've been in court for many many more hours than you I would guess.

By all means fight your tickets and try to cast doubt on the crown's evidence - that is what the trial process is for. What is tiresome are your repeated and unsubstantiated claims that all police officers lie and all judges will do anything to convict. Your assertions simply aren't true. Defend your case(s) and cast doubt on the evidence from the other side but lighten up on the conspiracy theories - you'll give yourself an aneurism. Oops there I go looking out for you again.

In reality Argyll, as it relates to bias, we are both very biased. However, I am upfront about mine. I don't wish personal harm to befall officers but I don't wish them a nice day or a peaceful life so that I can look objective or to irritate them whatever the case may be.

I could go on and on but believe it or not I don't really want to as I find the whole justice process to be extremely aggravating and I would probably pay for most tickets if it wasn't for the money grubbing insurance companies that come next to take their cut.

Why don't we get back on track and utilize your objective expertise? What is the best defense here? Does an officer have training to make the visual observations he did in the situation he did? What are some problems with the case the officer will have to make? What do you make of the lack of disclosure?

With my thread that is closed tell me what you know about child witnesses and the obstacles encountered when their testimony contradicts an officer? Have you seen a successful defence utilizing a family witness in the car? What will the prosecutor try to do when my daughter states she clearly remembers me putting on my seatbelt? How will he try to stop her from becoming a witness and what steps do I have to follow to make sure he can'T block her as a witness and her testimony is heard?