So I was pulled over a few days ago by an undercover police officer and ticketed for having no Mudgaurds on my truck

Based on the stop, I was originally pulled over for having my windows tinted to dark but after a simple test and letting him know they were tinted like that right from the dealership the officer seemed to move on. Next he decided he was going to test the e-brake on my truck, and with that working perfectly he seemed to really start looking for things. His next step was to actually get down on the ground and look under the truck and then double check with me that everything was mechanically sound, it's a 2015 GMC 2500 with 15000km on it. I'm assuming in a last ditch effort the only possible thing he could think of was that there's no Mudgaurds on my truck. I should mention the truck is lifted which I'm assuming is what originally caught his attention.

So after seeing that he charged me under section 66 (3), and considering it was a sunny dry day when he pulled me over, I'm not even really sure how he can hand out a ticket considering the section clearly states splash from water. The irony of this is I do actually have Mudgaurds for the truck but I mean the tire barely sticks an inch out past the fender andbased on that section I really wouldn't require to have them on unless the ground was wet?

I sent the ticket in with the early resolution box marked off but after reading on here I may have been better just to take it to trail. Do I have a good chance of beating this ticket? I'm just not sure how I can prove it was a sunny dry day, I had two other people in the truck with me that can vouch for me, I'm not sure if that's good enough though.

Sorry about the novel, any help is appreciated.

The section does not specify that you only have to have mudguards if it's raining. You need them all the time.

Okay so that would be a terrible approach for me to take, so my best bet is to just show up with the Mudgaurds on the truck and go the route of I fixed the problem?

The way I read that section was wheel spray or splash from water, thinking that meant it must be wet to be ticketed.

Thanks for your help

It reads:

Mudguards

(3) Every motor vehicle and every trailer shall be equipped with mudguards or fenders or other device adequate to reduce effectively the wheel spray or splash of water from the roadway to the rear thereof, unless adequate protection is afforded by the body of the motor vehicle or trailer or by a trailer drawn by the motor vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 66 (3).

So in my opinion the elements that have to be proven in court by the prosecutor are:

- You were driving a motor vehicle

- The motor vehicle did not have mudguards (or another device) equipped that adequately reduce wheel spray/splash from the roadway to the rear of vehicle AND the body of the motor vehicle does not offer adequate protection from wheel spray/splash from roadway to the rear of the vehicle.

So you can certainly put mudguards on and then attend the early resolution meeting and show pic to prosecutor and maybe they will drop it. But if they don't drop it and offer a plea, I would say "Can I get disclosure before I decide?" and if they do not even offer a plea then I would say "I would like disclosure and a trial date."

When the officer gets on the stand and testifies, he will say whatever was in his notes provided to you in disclosure. So you will know if he has properly noted everything that needs to be proven or not.

Now did you notice the "AND" I put in the elements that need to proven? So the officer can testify that you did not have mudguards, but he must also testify that the body of the truck itself was not sufficient to reduce the spray. Now he could have his opinion on this of course, but if it was not raining and there was no water on the road how can he prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?

We need to see the disclosure first to see the officers notes, but this would have a good chance of being won.

Okay, so I'll try he Mudgaurds pictures and hope it gets dropped. If not then I'll ask for disclosure and a trail.

Basically my angle will be to show that he had no real way of seeing whether or not the truck blocks the spray from the road because there was no spray at the time. In which he's basically just making assumption and opinion based decisions.

I'm betting his notes are not that great considering I was only pulled over for about 5 minutes total from the time he flipped his lights on to the time I drove away from the stop.

Again thanks a lot for the help, it's really appreciated

Is the tire size the same one that is listed on the manufacturers plate affixed near the drivers door? If the tires are stock then you can get a letter from the dealer confirming that the truck does not cause spray.

Typically if the tire tread sticks out passed the fender then you will cause spray. If the officer didn't see spray but officer testifies that the tread is exposed past the fender then your chances at trial aren't great.

No the tires aren't factory, and I'm realistically hoping that providing pictures of the mudguards on at the early resolution are enough.

Don't count on the notes not being good based on the length of the stop. The notes will have been made after you drive away. If he testifies that the tire extended past the body of the vehicle then you're in trouble at trial.

Hopefully for you the prosecutor is in a good mood. Proving you've corrected the problem doesn't cancel out the ticket of course.

Ya I agree with you except for the fact that he handed me he ticket, jumped in his truck and drove past me before I could put the ticket in the centre console and drive away.

I'm not counting on it but the officer himself actually told me if I can show a receipt or proof that I've put Mudgaurds on the prosecutor should drop it. As a matter of fact the officer was actually the one who told me to check early resolution and just fix the problem. Obviously when I meet with the prosecutor, what the officer told me at my window will have no effect.

Basically I'll just wait and make a decision based on what the prosecutor decides, if he offers me a plea I'll ask to see the disclosure. And go from there.

Again thanks for the help everyone

The officer has no say at all in whether the prosecutor drops the charge or not.

Ya I know that, he's just saying whatever it means nothing. Well I'm hoping I catch the prosecutor on a good day, whenever the meeting is I'm sure it'll be a while before I find out

I wish officers wouldn't say that. I think it's very poor policing saying something to placate someone now knowing that it may not, in fact, be true. As mentioned before, far better to have a driver come to the station within 48 hours showing the issue to be rectified and then not file the ticket - although we've already discussed how e-tickets prevent that.