Search found 2576 matches

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2007/2007oncj489/2007oncj489.html
- officer refer to his notes only for the purposes of past memory recorded, that he must read the notes verbatim and he proceeded to ask that the notes be submitted as evidence

- The officer was further examined by defence on issues as to where he was standing and the use of ...

RI - not going to hijack the other thread...copy/paste over to here

Radar Identified wrote:

hwybear wrote:That is what the notes are...an independent (made on my own) recollection (made them after the fact)

Here's some boring case law on "independent recollection" for an HTA case:

R. v. Kassam, 2007

Fyre - I'll take care of this....just send a msg to any "mod".

this thread will be locked. Keep all discussions on one thread at
http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2136.html

Radar Identified wrote: - Officer asks if they can use notes. JP will ask if you object - ask if officer has "independent recollection" of the events. Yes - no problem. No - object to use of notes.

That is what the notes are...an independent (made on my own) recollection (made them after the fact)

I never knew an area where there was 2 lanes on the 400. I learned something new...where is this?

I may have been driving at 110km/hr and tried to speed up when he was behind me flashing me and i kept changing lanes to let him go.
The "changing lanes" was a huge part of your perceived thought that the officer was scaring you. Was probably trying to get you to the right most lane by flashing the highbeams and then once you got to the right ...

siriusone wrote:Quite frankly I think the fact that people get arbitrarily detained without probable cause is one issue that we should not be dealing with, let alone having them snoop in our glove boxes at will..

Probable cause = good ole USA TV stuff

rancher wrote:Post more details...was there a sign?

google maps - street view = shows a sign of "no right turns on a red light"

Sounds like the lawyer is saying that since the person is suspended, they do not have a licence, should never have been on the road, is therefore a violation of the insurance policy (fine print stuff) and is not covered?

And the other driver had a licence, but was impaired by alcohol, thus that insurance policy is probably void and is not covering ...

getting kind of confusing when you have 4 threads open....if this is all for the same thing.....let us know and we can merge or copy them together, otherwise it is a dogs breakfast

28APR09
http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic993.html

18JUN09
http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1131.html

08FEB10
http://www ...

Keroba wrote:This sums up the caselaw around Careless Driving quite nicely:

http://dynamiclawyers.com/DL_blog/careless-driving/28/

and no way is this marketing to buy into what they are trying to sell

kind of like stats published by whatever company, how is it going to benefit them?

Just an FYI, the speed can only go up to the number given as evidence from the officer in a trial.

since I don't live in the GTA area...phew...(I have a 6min/1.7km drive to work) what is the cause of all this?

- traffic volume?
- improper use of merge on and off at hwy speeds?
- follow too close, causing all the merge problems?
- too many licences out of bubble gum machines? (terrible drivers)

I remember the time a few years back it was ...

What if your notes are missing a piece of info (such as the actual clocked speed vs reduced speed that's shown on the ticket). Does this mean you have no recollection of it and can't bring it up in court?

what i'll guess has happened is that you got targeted at 89km with the lidar. While catching up the officer used radar and obtained a reading ...

But memory is the entire point...notes alone are useless, the officer MUST testify from memory as does the defendant.

I have soley used my notes for testifying. Here is how/why. We are asked if we have an independent recollection. As soon as practicable after the stop I made an independent (my own) recollection (remembered what happened) of the ...

Hey Cool,

You might like this...I usually give a complete break (no ticket) or full whack. I rarely ever give a half way ticket (reduced speed).

Anyway, stopped a vehicle one night for speed (think 122 in a 100). Spoke to driver and the typical usual point to speedometer, I had cruise set at 110 BS. So while speaking with driver (has female ...

Radar Identified wrote: Aside from the occasional traffic ticket, I've also never attracted unwanted police attention. I wonder why that might be.

Simple...you were "flying under the radar"

Ill take it to extremes here, but if youre driving along on the highway, and a tractor-trailer blows up in the opposite lanes, of course its going to grab your attention. If in those moments of inattention you have a collision, it is NOT careless driving.

Rubbernecking describes the act of drivers trying to view the carnage resulting from a ...

FyreStorm wrote:I've never seen a speeding bridge, but if I do, it's getting a ticket!

Maybe a swinging bridge over a canal, with the wind causing too much wake on the water? Now would we catch that one with a vessel or cruiser...hmmm

Anyone try driving in 401 at a constant speed of 100km/hr and watch people tail gate you , show you fingers, try to knock you over and then change lanes and take over you with very short distance. Where is cops then?
Please ask for us to be given true "unmarked cars" to enforce this driving behaviour, people put on their "halo" whenever a marked ...

speed can be ammended up.... here is the post under "courts" as a "sticky"
http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1393.html

The only reason I wanted to fight this case was because the cop chased me inappropriately and scared me. I changed lanes two times to let him, he changed lanes behind me and kep flashing me in middle of no where and pitch dark. Honest to God, I once thought to race and keep moving but he turned his lights on. Very inappropriate!

Already posted ...

No need to dig anything up Reflections, you obviously know the difference. Those that want to question, should learn what they are talking about, prior to grasping at straws.

What i'm looking for, is, if car "B" has complied with subsection (1) and has been waiting (not approaching) the intersection as well as Car A for the north/south traffic to clear, would this still give Car A right of way?


Yes it would.

1. Please clarify - So long as Car A was still the first to comply with Subsection (1);

-or-

If Car B ...

siriusone wrote: Also leaving a glove box open for them to look in equates to illegal search. !

An open glove box is not an illegal search. If it's open I look, if not, I don't. I would be looking for weapons that could harm me, hence why we carry use of force items, to protect ourselves.

siriusone wrote: You cannot guarantee that radar is infallible !.

I have never ever seen an inaccurate reading from the equipment we use.

Actually if they were to solely rely on the radar it would not carry much weight. Simply because a machine can be WRONG. They have the officer state that he 'believed' that the vehicle was going at a high speed to have an actual witness to the alleged 'crime'. Only a man or woman can bring a complaint into court, A piece of radar equipment is ...

Many thanks folks, but I truly believe officers should be more trained not to chase people at night in deserted place, i mean he wanted to give ticket, he should have turned his car lights on right from beginning.

Turning lights on immediately is dangerous to do, unless exigent circumstances.
For many reasons:
- we want to check the plate prior ...

GPS no good either....NEXT excuse

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic620.html

FiReSTaRT wrote:

maybe you can let us all know what road, Municipality so we do not run into this situation?

Dundas (HWY5), Toronto (Etobicoke)..

is there a cross road to help narrow down, thanx