bend wrote:

Officers are allowed to lose sight of a vehicle. To suggest two different vehicles with different body styles made the old switcharoo while he checked his mirrors is grasping. It also happens frequently that an officer will write down black for a blue car or black for a dark brown car. There's a million different paint codes available and this argument doesn't go very far at a trial.

Good luck but you're probably going to need more.

The thing is if they view the footage from the QEW camera not sure if that is possible they would know it wasn't me. It is unfair that I will get convicted for something I didn't do. It is like the officer can claim whatever they want and get away with it.

if you can get the footage from a QEW camera that shows it was not you, then you will win. But getting that video footage will not be easy. Most likely if you ask for it in disclosure they will just say it does not exist.

jsherk wrote:

if you can get the footage from a QEW camera that shows it was not you, then you will win. But getting that video footage will not be easy. Most likely if you ask for it in disclosure they will just say it does not exist.

I am going to try and see if I can get that footage, I have a cousin that works for city tv maybe he may know how to get that footage. If I can't get that footage I am just going to tell the judge the truth and what happened, whether he/she want's to take my word over the officer is a different story. I will also hire an attorney my meeting is tomorrow with him, I will post back what he tells me. The justice system should treat both parties equally the cops testimony should not be more credible vs my testimony if I am telling the honest truth. I just find that aspect a little unfair it seems like the cops can get away with so much stuff if they choose too, and I mean we all know cops are not always honest. Their is plenty of good honest cops out their but their is also a lot of cops that seem like they just want to ruin your life so they can get a promotion.

Yes you definitely should testify in this case and tell your side of the story as it will help bring doubt to officers testimony.

But if it is just your word against the police officers word, 95% of the time they will believe the police officer. I agree this is not right, but it is how our great Canadian unjustice system works.

But if you do a good job of cross-examination and show officer had two different colors for the car and show that the officer could have lost sight of the original car and could have pulled you over by mistake then these points along with your testimony may swing the decision in your favor.

My point is this... any one of these things on their own will not get you a win. But putting them all together could bring enough reasonable doubt for you to get a win.

jsherk wrote:

if you can get the footage from a QEW camera that shows it was not you, then you will win. But getting that video footage will not be easy. Most likely if you ask for it in disclosure they will just say it does not exist.

If you ask them they will ignore you, because disclosure doesn't work that way. They are not using video from these cameras as evidence and the police have nothing to do with those cameras.

jsherk wrote:

Yes you definitely should testify in this case and tell your side of the story as it will help bring doubt to officers testimony.

But if it is just your word against the police officers word, 95% of the time they will believe the police officer. I agree this is not right, but it is how our great Canadian unjustice system works.

But if you do a good job of cross-examination and show officer had two different colors for the car and show that the officer could have lost sight of the original car and could have pulled you over by mistake then these points along with your testimony may swing the decision in your favor.

My point is this... any one of these things on their own will not get you a win. But putting them all together could bring enough reasonable doubt for you to get a win.

Thank you I appreciate it. I will definitely testify and use the points you mentioned and hopefully my lawyer tomorrow brings up the same points.

Johnny wrote:

jsherk wrote:

Yes you definitely should testify in this case and tell your side of the story as it will help bring doubt to officers testimony.

But if it is just your word against the police officers word, 95% of the time they will believe the police officer. I agree this is not right, but it is how our great Canadian unjustice system works.

But if you do a good job of cross-examination and show officer had two different colors for the car and show that the officer could have lost sight of the original car and could have pulled you over by mistake then these points along with your testimony may swing the decision in your favor.

My point is this... any one of these things on their own will not get you a win. But putting them all together could bring enough reasonable doubt for you to get a win.

Thank you I appreciate it. I will definitely testify and use the points you mentioned and hopefully my lawyer tomorrow brings up the same points.

I am having second thoughts on the lawyer maybe it is best that I just pay him for advice and represent myself in court.

Paralegals are cheaper than lawyers so that is an option to consider as well.

Here is a link to a post on the Red Flag Deals forum regarding how to go about getting a copy of the traffic camera footage.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/there-an ... t-1471016/

I find it odd that one would have to submit an FOI application for these tapes.

Last time I checked, the plates could not be read with these cameras, so I don't see why the red tape? MTO should simply process the request for the fee they charge.

Especially since they only keep the video on file for 5 weeks, sending in a FOI application can delay the process and therefor the recording being erased.