Hello, My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB). She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My mother waited almost 40 minutes and was the last one to leave. She provided her information to the fire department who arrived. A cop came 2 days later and, without asking for her side of the story, gave her a ticket stating Improper Left Turn 141(6). Questions. (1) As there was no intersection within the vicinity, was 141(6) the proper charge? (2) Can a police officer lay a charge like this without having even spoken to my mom and without even attending the accident scene to ascertain where the accident happened? I truly thank all those who read this and take a moment to reply!
Hello,
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My mother waited almost 40 minutes and was the last one to leave. She provided her information to the fire department who arrived.
A cop came 2 days later and, without asking for her side of the story, gave her a ticket stating Improper Left Turn 141(6).
Questions.
(1) As there was no intersection within the vicinity, was 141(6) the proper charge?
(2) Can a police officer lay a charge like this without having even spoken to my mom and without even attending the accident scene to ascertain where the accident happened?
I truly thank all those who read this and take a moment to reply!
I hate to break this to you but if she was turning left into a side street then it is an intersection. The officer can lay a charge based on what the cyclist or other witness said to them without taking a statement from your mom but it isn't great procedure. In order for your mom to be convicted at trial the witnesses who spoke to the officer will have to testify.
I hate to break this to you but if she was turning left into a side street then it is an intersection.
The officer can lay a charge based on what the cyclist or other witness said to them without taking a statement from your mom but it isn't great procedure. In order for your mom to be convicted at trial the witnesses who spoke to the officer will have to testify.
So I recommend that your mom should NOT give any statement or try to explain what happened to anybody. Most likely it will just incriminate her further. She should use her right not to incriminate herself and say nothing about it to anybody. I would plead NOT GUILTY and ask for Trial with Officer present. Once you get notice of trial, I would request disclosure (officers notes, witness statements, witness will-says, etc). Once you receive the disclosure, post it here (with personal info blanked out) and we will advise if there is a good course of action to pursue.
So I recommend that your mom should NOT give any statement or try to explain what happened to anybody. Most likely it will just incriminate her further. She should use her right not to incriminate herself and say nothing about it to anybody.
I would plead NOT GUILTY and ask for Trial with Officer present. Once you get notice of trial, I would request disclosure (officers notes, witness statements, witness will-says, etc).
Once you receive the disclosure, post it here (with personal info blanked out) and we will advise if there is a good course of action to pursue.
I don't think your mother was charged under the correct section. Section 141(6) deals with the requirement for drivers to use the left most lane when making a left turn (which your mother did). I believe the correct charge would be under section 141(5) or 142(1), both of which lay out the requirement for drivers to yield right of way to approaching vehicles (which your mother did not).
I don't think your mother was charged under the correct section. Section 141(6) deals with the requirement for drivers to use the left most lane when making a left turn (which your mother did). I believe the correct charge would be under section 141(5) or 142(1), both of which lay out the requirement for drivers to yield right of way to approaching vehicles (which your mother did not).
I re-read the sections in question and though I'm not an expert, I believe that Stanton is correct! Section 141(5) is titled Left turn, across path of approaching vehicle. My mother has asked for a trial. Would this would be a fatal error in the charge? Once again thanks to all who have commented :D
Stanton wrote:
I don't think your mother was charged under the correct section. Section 141(6) deals with the requirement for drivers to use the left most lane when making a left turn (which your mother did). I believe the correct charge would be under section 141(5) or 142(1), both of which lay out the requirement for drivers to yield right of way to approaching vehicles (which your mother did not).
I re-read the sections in question and though I'm not an expert, I believe that Stanton is correct! Section 141(5) is titled Left turn, across path of approaching vehicle.
My mother has asked for a trial. Would this would be a fatal error in the charge?
Fatal error is not the right word in this case. But remember that within 6 months of the event, they can re-charge her with the correct charge. So do NOT tell the prosecutor that it is the wrong charge ever... do not even mention it right before the trial if you are talking with the prosecutor. You have to wait until the trial starts and then show that the officer has no evidence of the charge she was charged with. Hopefully the trial is more than 6 months after the event so they can not re-charge her.
Fatal error is not the right word in this case.
But remember that within 6 months of the event, they can re-charge her with the correct charge. So do NOT tell the prosecutor that it is the wrong charge ever... do not even mention it right before the trial if you are talking with the prosecutor. You have to wait until the trial starts and then show that the officer has no evidence of the charge she was charged with. Hopefully the trial is more than 6 months after the event so they can not re-charge her.
You basically go to court, keep your mouth shut, let the trial begin and watch them try to prove the essential elements of the offence and when they fail introduce a motion of non-suit. A motion of non-suit is essentially asking the JP to rule that the prosecutor has not and cannot prove the case with the evidence they presented. Before adopting this strategy I would review the ticket to make absolutely sure it says the 141(6) and also review disclosure to ensure that no witnesses plan on testifying that you were not in the left lane when making a left turn.
You basically go to court, keep your mouth shut, let the trial begin and watch them try to prove the essential elements of the offence and when they fail introduce a motion of non-suit. A motion of non-suit is essentially asking the JP to rule that the prosecutor has not and cannot prove the case with the evidence they presented. Before adopting this strategy I would review the ticket to make absolutely sure it says the 141(6) and also review disclosure to ensure that no witnesses plan on testifying that you were not in the left lane when making a left turn.
I got a speeding ticket on the 401 by Cornwall. The officer said I was going 140 initially then dropped it to 130 (for the record I don't believe for a second I was going 140, that's way faster than I would ever intentionally drive). I filled out the info on the back of the notice to request a…
I was recently charged with stunt driving on a 60kmh road. When I was pulled over, the officer told me I was going almost 100kmh (still 40kmh above the limit) but was charging me for stunt driving because I accelerated quickly from an intersection on an empty road (in a straight line). I know…
what to do about a an illegal right turn onto steeles from staines rd
got the ticket around october of last year
put it to trial
so there is a big mess of cars at this intersection and I see a cop outside standing directing traffic with a huge row of cars pulled over to the side, through…
Are any non-domestic vehicles "pursuit-rated" in North America? Also have the Michigan State Police (this is relevant because apparently they have the most accepted selection/testing process) tested any of them to see if they meet their criteria? Just curious...
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for…
A friend got a ticket Jan. 9th of this year for doing 110 kph in a 90 kph zone, so 20 over.
What should the set fine and total payable read?
It's confusing to me, as the prescribed fine under HTA s.128 is different than the set fine enumerated by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.
An OPP officer ticketed me claiming I was going 40km/h over the limit (140km/km) on my way home with a few friends on the 401. This is my first ever speeding offense. Although I am sure I was over the limit, I am almost certain that I was not going 40 over, more realistically closer to 30 over. The…
Yesterday night I was charged for stunt driving (excess over 50km/h) and I have a few inquiries. I'm sure you've all heard the same story, but the unmarked cop in an SUV was tailing me for a good 2-3 minutes as I was travelling 120~135 km/h. Then as he came close I decided to boot it up…
I had a speeding ticket in May 2013 which brought me to 9 demerit points out of 15. I received a letter and had to attend an interview. Due to a history of speeding tickets and a previous interview a few years prior, the interviewer decided to put me on zero tolerance for a year. Meaning if I…