Search found 2654 matches

Once you get the trial date, make a disclosure request and ask specifically for the officer's notes - typed if not legible. That's about all you should ask for in this case - none of this garbage about "witness will-say statements" and "statements made by the defendant" and "names, occupation and criminal records of people providing such ...

The radar is accurate to within +/- 0.1 km/h. However, as hwybear says, the radar cannot read 89.9 km/h, so it rounds down to 89 km/h in that case. And actually hwybear's statement about "accuracy being based on a unit of measure" comes directly from the radar manufacturer: Decatur's statement is the radar is "accurate to within +/-1 unit of ...

Soon you'll be all set to go. Once all of the fines are paid, you can then get your licence re-instated ($150 reinstatement fee). Looks like that will happen reasonably soon.

When you are in a collision with a parked car, you must find the owner of the vehicle and exchange insurance information, or at least have the police attend the scene so they can track the owner down.

This is a clear violation of a right to privacy and what makes it all the worse is that MTO would be doing it for nothing more than profit.

It is not a violation of your right to privacy. No one has a "right" to drive. The insurance companies are authorized to obtain that information under the Insurance Act. Don't want insurance companies having ...

Say for the first meeting? You could see if they offer you a reduced charge. If you want to fight this, you have three witnesses who were in your vehicle who could all testify that you did slow down and proceed with caution. The first meeting (or "First Attendance") is simply to try to resolve the issue without a trial. If a resolution is not ...

14 months should easily put you in 11B territory. Check over the success stories that we've had here, or, if the Old City Hall court system gets too complicated, you could also look at hiring a paralegal. I think you're in good shape to get this charge stayed one way or another.

FYI, although Terry v. Ohio prohibits "random stops," the Michigan State Police have acquired "data extraction devices" which can pull all kinds of data out of iPhones and some other smartphones, without the knowledge of the user, during a traffic stop.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/us-michigan-cellphones-idUSTRE73K5CB20110421

No. She has to swear the statement in front of the Commissioner. If she's not present, the Commissioner cannot verify that she is actually making the statement.

As for the Cosine Error, I found something interesting about the Gun that is being used. In a flyer they state that the slope, and horizontal distance and height are available with a "tilt" sensor. Could I use this as a means to say that the device should have had this sensor on due to the slope of the hwy? In terms of the means of it being used ...

Unless you've gone over 12 months since the date of the offence, probably not worth filing an 11B.

They can conduct random stops in places like Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Australia, among others. The US prohibits random stops due to the Terry v. Ohio case; the officer has to have "reasonable suspicion" that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed, however, the intepretation is extremely vast and "reasonable" seems to ...

Submit the disclosure request when you get your trial date.

What reason did they give for excluding the video evidence?

Well it sounds like you're starting off on the right track. And I'd also add that you are doing the responsible and respectable thing going about it in this manner.

Keep us posted on how it goes.

3206 would be a TPS cruiser number.

Interesting that he did not write down "stopped vehicle without sight lost" or words to that effect...

Case law says before and after the stop but does not specify a time frame... so it could be before and after the stop itself, or beginning and end of the shift.

I'm guessing I can't use the gun going on a downward slope as a reason for an inaccurate reading, even if its in my favour?

Unless there's something in the manual that says not to use ...

If you turned into the corresponding lane (ie turned from the left-most lane in to the left-most lane) or whatever, then you have been improperly charged. The correct charge would have been Disobey Sign, as Stanton indicates. Section 141 (6) only refers to how to properly make the turning motion.

1. You can probably get it reduced to "fail to proceed as directed" or "disobey lane light."
2. Usually you would ask for disclosure after you get a Notice of Trial.

Basically the first step is to file the paperwork to set up the trial date.

Disclosure may reveal some sort of deficiency in the officer's notes - didn't observe the traffic lights ...

I'd think that since the penalty is being applied to a fully-licenced driver, there should be no suspension in this case. But, that's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

To my knowledge in Quebec you have to complete your passing manoeuvre on the broken line.

Go pick up your disclosure. I wouldn't ignore the message. It won't help you.

Take a look and see if they've provided you with proper disclosure and go from there.

I think the key here is that, if the circumstances you described met the "exemption" under the HTA, you want to get the officer to testify to that during the trial. He may unwittingly provide you with your defence. Ask questions to get him to confirm what you've said. Then you can either make a motion of non-suit, or in closing you can provide the ...

Take the photograph - although it's no guarantee of being helpful. When you make the request for the trial, just submit the Notice of Intent to Appear. You do not need to do anything further until a court date is scheduled.

For the disclosure request, what you want to ask for is a copy of the officer's notes, and any photographic/video evidence ...

The problem is that in Quebec, passing on a double yellow line is illegal, whether the move is safe or not. So from a purely legal standpoint they were justified in stopping you.

As far as fighting tickets in Quebec, their system is much different than Ontario. You get surcharges and fees for going to court, and they have a complicated system ...

All depends. What were you charged with?

Usually the camera flash is bright enough that you'll know if you've been caught, even it it's daylight. If you had stopped fully and didn't nail the gas to get out of the cop's way, you probably didn't get nabbed, as Stanton says.

If the insurance company still keeps his rates up, point them to the bulletin issued by FSCO. If they still refuse, ask them if they would like to deal with FSCO; if they still refuse, file a complaint with FSCO and let them deal with it, or, better yet, simply change insurance companies.

You go out and kill someone your innocent until proven ...

Just make sure that you request disclosure and get a copy of the officer's notes. (See our "Courts and Procedures" section for that.) From there, put your case together. If you were charged under section 3, your cross-examination of the officer would go a little something like this:

You: "Was a valid insurance card surrendered to you?"
Officer ...

And then there's situations like this

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Lu5uaZa5Q[/youtube]