Search found 888 matches

At this point just wait until the day. The prosecutor will have a stream of people waiting to see them. There will be many deals being made as there is no way they could run trails for the number of people on the docket.

Exactly. They will testify that they have been trained. They don't necessarily need to prove that. The judge can choose to believe them or not as they do with all other evidence. If you have grounds to believe he is lying then you get to attack him in cross examination.

The testimony is that he attended a course and was certified in the use of the radar. He has 'foundation' because he was there for the course knows he passed it and will testify that he did his checks. And he doesn't need to be an expert - that's the instructor who you would have to call as a witness.

You are asking a judge to basically throw out ...

Did you contact your insurers through a number that you found yourself or did you just call the number that they gave you. This does not sound like a professional way to do business and it could be that it is scam.

I would call your insurance using a phone number on your insurance documents and check that they have a record of this. If it is them ...

Courts will accept an officer's testimony that he has been trained.

First thing is to call them and get more details.

The first ticket won't affect your insurance too much. By pleading not guilty and going to trial you are basically going all-in; you'll either be found not guilty or guilty and the ticket will be ratcheted up to the full amount. Do you have any reason to think you might have an avenue to be found not guilty ? You will want to get disclosure and ...

....and I would suggest that by posting such clear details of your case on an open forum there is a good chance that it could be known you speak English. Tread carefully.

No

Might as well ask for a dismissal. Say that you've done your bit by asking for disclosure and that, had you received it, you would have been ready to proceed with a trial. By the crown not providing it you are now disadvantaged due to your relocation. Unlikely it will work but it won't if you don't ask.

It's not uncommon to carry both devices. One is vehicle mounted and used while driving. The other is handheld and therefore used when parked.

Jsherk ??

Speed limits not set by scientific data are an affront to Liberty as defined within the Constitution :)

Many roads have critical curve speed well above posted limits.(URL)

Larkin described how Kovach was travelling at 115 kilometres per hour when her cruiser spun out — just one kilometre per hour shy of the critical curve speed for that ...

Sound advice.

There are many shades of blue and the spectrum of light blue comes very close to grey. This will not assist you. The officer will presumably testify that the vehicle he pulled over was the vehicle that the radar clocked.

If the defendant does not show up at trial, under the POA, a section 9.1 is conducted and without a hearing or the officer being on the stand a conviction is registered if the certificate of offence is regular on its face.
The offcer is not required to be there for this process.

Not where I worked. Ex parte trials definitely occurred - very ...

No, if you've set a trail date then the trial has to go ahead even if you are not there to give evidence on your behalf. The officer would take the stand and give evidence of the charge and you'd be convicted (except in one legendary case when the officer messed up the testimony and lost an unopposed trial !!). So, no, the charge was withdrawn ...

I'd check with the court house. Sound like it might have been withdrawn.

I don't think you're going to get any traction saying that is a 5. It's just poor handwriting.

Careless has become the go-to charge for police. Firstly because it does kind of fit in that if you drive off the road you weren't driving with care. Secondly supervisors, in my experience, say to lay it and thirdly because it scares people into accepting a plea deal. If you were charged with something else like failure to turn out to avoid ...

Personally I think this was the right decision. You were looking for a loophole. You weren't actually prejudiced because you knew what you were being charged with. That's the point of the process.

My spouse has 2 driving under suspension and 1 driving disqualified convictions within a year and a half originating from a dui conviction over 80. He keeps driving. What are the consequences to him for another disqualified conviction? And what would be the consequences to the owner of the vehicle, me?

You need to get him to stop driving your ...

+ 2

If noone answers they will not give up. They'll go to your work, or whatever else works. Not answering your door is a not a good option. These things don't go away.

You might - might - be able to get the insurance dropped if you plead to the reduced speeding. That's 1 ticket in instead of 2.

With red lights there will be a stop line. That's where you need to stop. I'm not quite sure I'm following what you're asking.

Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals
144 (1) In this section,

Exception – turn
(19) Despite subsection (18) and subject to subsection (14), a driver, after stopping his or her vehicle and yielding the right of way to traffic lawfully approaching so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard, may,

(a) turn to ...

Personally I think it is ludicrous that they can put in a system that does not work for legal users of the roads. They need to either go to timed light changes or, as in the UK, cameras to detect vehicles.

What you did was wrong. From your description can we assume that your right tires were on the shoulder ?

It's certainly not the most henious of manoeuvres so I would suspect you could plead down to a lesser offence.

Not knowing where you are going is certainly no defence.

I've seen that charge laid before without much success.