Speedtaxed wrote:

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.

Once again you bestow upon yourself the ability to know why other people do and say things. That is a halmark of extreme arrogance. You seem to think everyone has an angle and only do things to try to get one over on you. Consider that the vast majority of police and judges are simply doing their job and aren't plotting in dark corners how to screw Mr Speedtaxed.

As to your other questions we need to see the disclosure for this case before meaningful discussion can occur. Was the officer using RF radar ? Was he matching speed ? We don't know yet. If the interaction went down exactly as the OP relayed it then I am disappointed by the officer's demeanour but I wasn't there, nor were you, and there are always two sides to every story.

As for your daughter, if you choose to put her on the stand then you open her up to cross-examination. In your post you said that you would object if crown went to ask her questions but you cannot do that. It is all or nothing. As with all witnesses the JP will decide how much weight to put on a witness's testimony. Certainly the argument will be made that you have great influence over her and have had months to suggest testimony to her. I'm not saying you did but expect that to be an argument put forward. I would never put my 7 year old niece on the stand in court unless it was a very serious case and it was critical testimony. But you will have to make that decision yourself. Just as your job is to cast doubt on crown evidence so the crown will try to cast doubt on your evidence so you can't get upset if they question any witness you call. How will she feel if you lose the case ? Will she hear your inevitable frustration and anger and blame herself for letting you down ? As I said, I never would put her on the stand.

argyll wrote:

Speedtaxed wrote:

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.

Once again you bestow upon yourself the ability to know why other people do and say things. That is a halmark of extreme arrogance. You seem to think everyone has an angle and only do things to try to get one over on you. Consider that the vast majority of police and judges are simply doing their job and aren't plotting in dark corners how to screw Mr Speedtaxed.

I rest my case with regards to my argument that we are both bias the only difference is that I can see mine and will admit to it. Ironically, arrogance comes from not understanding yourself and at least being able to admit your bias and understanding how that affects your judgment and perspective.

I'm not sure how you are trying to help others by trying to paint me as some nut job conspirasist. I just believe that officers have quotas and the system benefits from handing out tickets as the tickets support the system of law. When people stand to benefit from some outcome you can't expect them to be objective. That's just human nature.

The whole enforcement system mentality is about respect for power, brotherhood and blind obedience to authority and rules to various degrees. I am not in the minority in my opinions except when one wonders into the isolated bubble that is law enforcement. The vast majority of people don't see you as community serving community. Surely you are cognizant of the outside mindset as it relates to you.

However it is not a court of Public opinion. ARGYLL, you help prove the advise I was giving. To win the case against you it really has to be a big win since most people are going to see the punches you land as the officer battering your fists with his head. The situation is completely devoid of outside reality.

Ah so apparently you didn't want to get back on track and discuss the cases under discussion. OK.

I believe the officer has to record his notes no later than one week after the incident. His notes are basically the disclosure you will be given. Ask officer when he wrote his notes and prosecutor reason for delay. There really shouldn't have been a delay there.

Wow! Has this thread ever gone off the rails!

I haven't had a ton of tickets in my lifetime, but, like most drivers, I have had some. Some I've simply paid. I've fought most of them because that's my right. Even when I've known I've been guilty, it's still up to the Crown to prove it. I won the last one when the Crown still hadn't provided disclosure as of my second appearance, so the Prosecutor withdrew the case. I won the one before that by creating, as the JP put it, some doubt as to the officer's version of events with my questions and with my testimony. I've both won and lost when I've testified and I've both won and lost when I haven't testified.

I agree with some of the people here that the system appears to favour the Crown. For example, I still maintain that a police officer has no business driving 135 km/h simply because he wants to. If he's pursuing someone, rushing to an investigation, etc., I'm all for that. That's "legal performance" of his duties. I don't think that speeding "just because" or putting on the lights to advance through a red light and turning them off right away are things police officers should be able to do. But the courts say they can. I have to work within that reality. That said, I also agree with those who say that police officers are simply doing their jobs. If writing speeding tickets is one way to promote public safety, then they should be writing them. If I'm one of the people they catch, that's my matter to deal with. Yes, I always drive somewhat over the limit, except in 30 or 40 zones. That's my vice. But I've also received thumbs-up from police officers when I come to a full stop at a stop sign or at a red light before turning right. Yes, my wheels do come to a discernible stop. I never use my phone other than in hands-free mode. I can listen to incoming texts via Bluetooth. If something needs immediate attention, I find a safe place to pull over before replying or I call the person. Do I take it personally when an officer gives me a ticket? No.

I'll get something Monday. My guess is I'll have a chance to see the officer's notes. I'll probably be asking for an adjournment so I can make a full answer and defence and so I can receive full and proper disclosure. At that point, I'll be able to plan exactly how to handle these matters. I may continue to fight them. I may seek a deal. In the meantime, let's keep this thread on-topic.

I agree with you that there is no reason to be driving at 135 unless, well, there is a reason ! Having said that people do strange things when they have a cruiser come up behind them with lights on so sometimes I would drive faster than the limit but without my lights on to get to a call quicker. It may be that a victim is in distress after an incident although the incident is over (or lights would be in order). The same goes for putting lights on to get through an intersection and then turning them off - it's to get somewhere quicker to help someone but without a full on emergency situation where lights and sirens would be called for with all the resulting panicked driving from others on the road. But just cruising at 135 for no discernible reason or using lights to get through an intersection for no reason would not be tolerated in my service. The trouble is that the public don't know what the reason is for an officer's actions and all too often assume the worst. Yes there are some muppets in uniform but, in my career, the vast majority of people with whom I have worked have does things for the right reasons. But no-one discusses good cops - just the bad ones. It is one of the reasons I left the police.

I do think that traffic enforcement is too heavy handed in Canada and I have had several arguments with officers who set up at fishing holes as opposed to actually targeting areas where public safety is actually being put at risk due to poor driving. I also think the insurance companies should take a great of the blame for people's anger at speeding tickets as it isn't the $110 fine which is the issue but the huge increases in insurance premiums that come as a result. Dangerous driving, serial speeding?...sure, the guy or gal deserves an increase in premium but for failing to remember to put your new insurance slip in your car ? That's just nonsense. It caused me to write far more warnings than tickets as I couldn't justify to myself a thousand dollar hit for a few kilometres over the limit - which is what it is when all the extra premiums are added up.

I live in the UK now and almost all intersections are Give Way (Yield) and they seem to work exceptionally well. There is no reason that an intersection in the middle of nowhere with good visibility needs to have a stop sign....nor does it need an officer camped out at night ready to catch a rolling stop. That is enforcement for enforcement's sake and it is no wonder that people's opinions of the police is getting worse.

We're finally seeing more and more UK- or European-style roundabouts here. Hooray! Fewer stop signs where they just aren't needed.

I think you've summarized the issue well, Argyll. And it's a shame that the officers who do things like put their lights on momentarily just because they don't want to wait at a red light make officers like you look bad. It's true that we don't always know the officer's intent, and I generally give police officers the benefit of the doubt, but it is sometimes obvious when the officer is taking advantage, for lack of a better term.

Police officers deserve our respect. They do an extremely difficult job. Some literally put their lives on the line every time they go on duty. Police officers are human and make mistakes; when they do, the mistakes are generally dealt with appropriately. But, most of the time, they are simply doing their job. Just give someone else the tickets!!! (Last sentence said with tongue planted firmly in cheek)

I was responding to a lights and sirens call with a rookie who was doing the driving. En route, the call was cancelled so we canned the lights. Right ahead was a Tim Hortons and the rookie said he wanted a coffee. I made him drive past and we doubled back because what would people think if we were thundering along with lights and sirens and then killed them only to turn into Tim Hortons. I can only imagine the comments ! And yet, the action would have been entirely justifiable.

argyll wrote:

I was responding to a lights and sirens call with a rookie who was doing the driving. En route, the call was cancelled so we canned the lights. Right ahead was a Tim Hortons and the rookie said he wanted a coffee. I made him drive past and we doubled back because what would people think if we were thundering along with lights and sirens and then killed them only to turn into Tim Hortons. I can only imagine the comments ! And yet, the action would have been entirely justifiable.

When I go tomorrow for the trial that won't happen, I presume the Prosecutor will suggest I meet with the officer to look at his notes. If I look at the notes, is that considered disclosure? Am I then obligated to photograph or take notes of what the officer has so I have a copy? Or is the Crown still required to provide actual copies of the officer's notes? I suspect the notes will be electronic, given that the tickets are.

They have to provide them to you. Just showing you is not sufficient.

You have the right to make full answer and defense. Simply reviewing the notes right before trial does not meet that right. Even if they give you a copy of the notes right before the trial, this still does not mee that right. Some JP's will try to tell you that it is sufficient but make sure you complain if JP does that because you would then be able to win on an appeal.

Thanks, Argyll and ShrekTek. I have no intention to proceed tomorrow (because of my right to make a full answer and defence) unless the officer's notes show something so wonderfully in my favour that I think I can beat both charges. I've used the full answer and defence argument in the past when disclosure has been handed to me on the spot. I just wanted to make sure I was still entitled to receive an actual copy of the officer's notes (and anything else the Crown may have) and that I wouldn't have to copy them myself or photograph them. I assume, though, that if I'm handed a copy of the notes, that would count as disclosure.

If I'm only shown the Officer's notes, I'll make sure to ask for full disclosure in front of the JP. I'll say something like "Your Worship, the Officer has shown me his notes; however, simply seeing his notes minutes before the trial does not allow me to make a full answer and defence, nor to consult with a paralegal or lawyer should I choose to do so. I requested disclosure in a timely fashion (I'll have a copy of my fax with me) and followed up with telephone messages, but still have not received disclosure from the Prosecutor's office. The only communication I received was a voice mail on my cellphone last Tuesday informing me the Prosecutor's Office still had not received anything from the officer. Accordingly, Your Worship, I am requesting an adjournment to allow the Prosecutor's Office to provide proper disclosure and to allow me to make a full answer and defence and, possibly, to seek legal representation. Said adjournment should, of course, be noted as attributable to the Crown."

I'll try to get quick turnaround. I'm a teacher, so I'd really like to avoid having to use a sick day or a personal day to attend again once school starts. I assume that if the Court tries to give me a date while I am away on holidays (a trip that's already been booked and paid for), requesting a later date is not held against me. After all, it's not my fault that disclosure has not been given.

Take a shot by adding that your first option would be to have the case withdrawn, then the next option would be to have an adjournment attributable to the prosecutor.

You can't get a hit if you don't swing.

You do have a point. I guess it doesn't hurt to try.