Vague Disclosure (attached) 60 In A Posted 50 Zone, Reduced From 80

Moderators: Reflections, admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Decatur, bend

kkmonkey
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:33 pm

Posting Awards

Vague Disclosure (attached) 60 In A Posted 50 Zone, Reduced From 80

by: kkmonkey on

I was pulled over by an officer from behind (I think I drove past her). She said I was speeding but didn't tell me how fast exactly, said she reduced the ticket to 60 in 50 zone. I had a feeling that she didn't catch me on the radar so I asked for the disclosure.

It says "the acc was driving a xx car xx road accelerated pace my speedo was 80 km/he in posted 50"

I think she wanted to say that she was driving at 80 and I drove past her. But it's not clear on the disclosure. It didn't really say what I did or how fast I was going. Do I have a fighting chance?

Btw, I don't believe I was anywhere close to 80, pass 60 yes cause I forgot it's a 50 road. :?

Thank you for helping!

Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 3.08.47 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 3.08.47 AM.png (114.25 KiB) Viewed 716 times
Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 3.10.23 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 3.10.23 AM.png (56.73 KiB) Viewed 716 times
User avatar
highwaystar
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:46 pm

Posting Awards

by: highwaystar on

The officer paced your vehicle; she did not use a radar or laser device to get your speed. Her notes don't give a lot of detail as to how long she actually paced your vehicle (i.e. time/distance) but she says she was going 80 in a 50. Pacing is perfectly acceptable by the courts. While it is possible that you could cross-examine her on specific details and challenge the accuracy of her speedometer, if she is good at testifying and can satisfy the court on the accuracy of her speedometer, it could backfire for you. After all, you run the likelihood that the charge will be amended back up to 80 in a 50 zone (a 4 point offence with a total price of $265) if you go to trial. Seems like quite the risk to take, but its your decision.

kkmonkey
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:33 pm

Posting Awards

by: kkmonkey on

highwaystar wrote:
Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:24 pm

The officer paced your vehicle; she did not use a radar or laser device to get your speed. Her notes don't give a lot of detail as to how long she actually paced your vehicle (i.e. time/distance) but she says she was going 80 in a 50. Pacing is perfectly acceptable by the courts. While it is possible that you could cross-examine her on specific details and challenge the accuracy of her speedometer, if she is good at testifying and can satisfy the court on the accuracy of her speedometer, it could backfire for you. After all, you run the likelihood that the charge will be amended back up to 80 in a 50 zone (a 4 point offence with a total price of $265) if you go to trial. Seems like quite the risk to take, but its your decision.


Thanks a lot for your reply! If the officer didn’t write things down on her notes. How could she recall the details like (time/details) on the court date months later? Unless she has great memory. Any officer could write notes like that then make up a story during trail. It doesn’t make much sense to me... :(

kkmonkey
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:33 pm

Posting Awards

by: kkmonkey on

Does anyone have experience challenging an officer's memory?

One more thing I've noticed is that that the road I was on is slightly curved so she should have paced me in the same lane. Judging from the picture, do you think this is enough of a curve to use this argument?

Screen Shot 2020-06-10 at 2.07.39 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-06-10 at 2.07.39 AM.png (202.66 KiB) Viewed 604 times

I recall that I was driving in the left lane, then switched to the right lane right before she turned on her lights from behind. I think she was pacing me from the right lane. But I'm not 100% confident about it. I doubt she remembers everything either. Any thoughts?

bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:44 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

by: bend on

You're overthinking the idea of pacing.


The officer maintains an equal distance between vehicles and looks down at the speedometer.


Keep in mind speeding is what they call an absolute liability offense. That means during a trial they will only consider whether you were doing the speed limit or not.


At the minimum, you've already admitted to doing 60km+, which would be enough for a conviction on its own.

kkmonkey
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:33 pm

Posting Awards

by: kkmonkey on

bend wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:25 am

You're overthinking the idea of pacing.


The officer maintains an equal distance between vehicles and looks down at the speedometer.


Keep in mind speeding is what they call an absolute liability offense. That means during a trial they will only consider whether you were doing the speed limit or not.


At the minimum, you've already admitted to doing 60km+, which would be enough for a conviction on its own.


Well, from the disclosure, the officer did not state that she maintained an equal distance for a period of time when she recorded the speed. She could have been recording the speed while trying to catch up with me. We do not have that information. Therefore I want to challenge if she can recall such details without writing it down on her note months after the incident.

I'm definitely not admitting doing any speeding on court unless this post can be used against me :P

User avatar
highwaystar
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:46 pm

Posting Awards

by: highwaystar on

I think you'll be in for quite the lesson if you go to trial. Remember, the officer does not have to write down everything in her notes; the notes aren't evidence; they are only used to refresh her memory. She just has to have an independent recollection of events and can't simply read off her notes. In your case, the officer will likely say she recalls seeing you approaching her from behind in either her lane or in an adjacent lane and then recalls you passing her at a speed that was well above 50km in the adjacent lane. She'll state that she herself was going 80km because she looked at her speedometer. She'll then provide your ID from your driver's license, vehicle description and describe whether it was sunny, the visibility, the road conditions and the speed limit on that stretch of road. That's all that is needed! After all, if you pass a car that is going 80km, the laws of physics say you can't be going 50km per hour! Its an absolute liability offence so that proves the case of speeding at least for 80km. Either way, good luck on your case. Let us know how it turns out for you!

kkmonkey
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:33 pm

Posting Awards

by: kkmonkey on

highwaystar wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:27 pm

I think you'll be in for quite the lesson if you go to trial. Remember, the officer does not have to write down everything in her notes; the notes aren't evidence; they are only used to refresh her memory. She just has to have an independent recollection of events and can't simply read off her notes. In your case, the officer will likely say she recalls seeing you approaching her from behind in either her lane or in an adjacent lane and then recalls you passing her at a speed that was well above 50km in the adjacent lane. She'll state that she herself was going 80km because she looked at her speedometer. She'll then provide your ID from your driver's license, vehicle description and describe whether it was sunny, the visibility, the road conditions and the speed limit on that stretch of road. That's all that is needed! After all, if you pass a car that is going 80km, the laws of physics say you can't be going 50km per hour! Its an absolute liability offence so that proves the case of speeding at least for 80km. Either way, good luck on your case. Let us know how it turns out for you!

What you describe is pacing? From what I've found online, pacing is following a vehicle at a steady distance for a period of time. Doesn't she need to describe exactly how she did it to proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Why shouldn't I question her pacing technique? Especially on a curvy road. She could have been reading the speedo while she's trying to catch up with me from far away. She could have been recalling a memory from another incidence. Hypothetically speaking, she could have make something up on the spot. She could have put down the 80 to deter me from going to court.

User avatar
highwaystar
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:46 pm

Posting Awards

by: highwaystar on

There's nothing preventing you from challenging the officer's testimony and going to trial. Its always beneficial for people like you to take matters to court when the odds are significantly against them. That's how the law gets better clarified. Since its your money, time and driving record on the line and only a few extra hundred dollars of YOUR money, don't let anyone dissuade you if you want your day in court.


Just know that the officer will have very little difficulty establishing time/distance since she can easily say she saw your vehicle approach from behind, pass her car and still be above the speed limit as you passed her. Assuming she says she saw your vehicle from 4 car lengths back and got behind you when your car was 4 car lengths ahead, that's a total of 9 car lengths (counting the length of her car that you passed). The average car length is about 15 feet; so that yields 135 feet which equals about 41 meters. Keep in mind that the officer's vehicle is moving at 80km/h which is 22.2 meters per second. Make sure you understand the concept of relative velocity.


Pacing can be done by several methods---yet, you seem to be fixated on the more common version of the officer following the vehicle for some period at a constant distance as your basis for dispute. That's not an essential element to pacing.


Remember, in your case, the court will have to grapple with how it was possible for your vehicle which was going 50km/h to be able to pass the officer's vehicle that was going 80km. :D

kkmonkey
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:33 pm

Posting Awards

by: kkmonkey on

highwaystar wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:30 am

There's nothing preventing you from challenging the officer's testimony and going to trial. Its always beneficial for people like you to take matters to court when the odds are significantly against them. That's how the law gets better clarified. Since its your money, time and driving record on the line and only a few extra hundred dollars of YOUR money, don't let anyone dissuade you if you want your day in court.


Just know that the officer will have very little difficulty establishing time/distance since she can easily say she saw your vehicle approach from behind, pass her car and still be above the speed limit as you passed her. Assuming she says she saw your vehicle from 4 car lengths back and got behind you when your car was 4 car lengths ahead, that's a total of 9 car lengths (counting the length of her car that you passed). The average car length is about 15 feet; so that yields 135 feet which equals about 41 meters. Keep in mind that the officer's vehicle is moving at 80km/h which is 22.2 meters per second. Make sure you understand the concept of relative velocity.


Pacing can be done by several methods---yet, you seem to be fixated on the more common version of the officer following the vehicle for some period at a constant distance as your basis for dispute. That's not an essential element to pacing.


Remember, in your case, the court will have to grapple with how it was possible for your vehicle which was going 50km/h to be able to pass the officer's vehicle that was going 80km. :D


Well, I appreciate you taking the time to reply me. I'm just like a lot of people on this forum, exploring options, learning about laws before making a decision. I feel some unfriendly vibe here keep saying oh if you go to court, you will learn your lesson. Doesn't that sound familiar to you???

How could the police describe the 4 car plus 4 car story if she could not remember anything else? That's my argument. How could she recall any detail from more than half a year ago. How could she claim she has independent recollection of that incident? How can we know her story didn't get mixed up. I don't know how to do it, so I'm seeking advice here. No matter how perfectly your story telling skill is, how can you proof it was what happened on that day?

Yes I understand the concept of relative velocity. So I understand she could have made an mistake pacing me from the outer lane on a curvy road.

pacing-on-a-curve.png
pacing-on-a-curve.png (60.66 KiB) Viewed 428 times

Lastly, I belive it's not my job to convince the court I did not speed. I just need to raise a reasonable doubt to her testimony, isn't that right?

Post a Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests