Search found 556 matches

Part of the reason we trust technology and accept it as evidence because we view it is impartial. If what the OPP said in the news story is true, it is very disturbing that they would opt to pressure the manufacturer to remove a test that physically verifies the device is working correctly rather than better police training.

Even though you can switch to a booster at 18kg, you're supposed to use car seats until they grow out the of them as per the manufacturers weight (20kg or so) though the law says you use a booster.

You can be charged with a violation of Ontario regulation 613 (8) made under the authority of the HTA.

If the person who stopped you and asked you the ...

You have a decent chance of a stay based on a charter violation of your right to a speedy trial. 11b
A stay means no conviction or fine whatsoever.

Did you get a paralegal speak to the prosecutor or was that all you?

The existence of the sign creates the presumption that it has been erected legally and in accordance with all applicable laws. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

At this point I would hire a lawyer to review your case and seek out a plea. (You should have done this from the start). I wouldn't expect much, but, if there is a good result to be had it will come from a pro.

You can attend the court and fill out the paperwork to ask for a reopening of the case. Then request disclosure when you have a new court date.

I don't know that I would touch this one if I had Johnny Cochran reincarnate on my defense team.

No but in essence the notes say:
You were going 77 over the limit.
You said you were late for work he cut you a break because of your record.
That the device was tested before and after.

The notes look good. I would personally plead guilty on this one. 49 over is considered a minor offence by many insurance companies.

The time from charges being laid to trial is less than six months. You need to understand that you are playing with fire here. You could try to game the system and show up and hope the officer doesn't show up. They ...

An officer can write as little or as much as he wants in the notes. He is not gaming you by not giving away his hiding spot in the notes. BTW if you were hoping to fight the charge based on his vantage point don't waste your breath. The officer will testify that he was positioned so that he could clearly see you commit the act.

It's no secret that bad notes lead to all sorts of acquittals and withdrawals of the charges and that good notes will do just the opposite. I know it's subjective but can we agree basically to what the notes must include to help "refresh" the officer's memory to the extent where he can testify in such a way where he can demonstrate that he has a ...

If the officer doesn't have good notes he will not make a great witness unless he has an exceptional memory. What color was the car? How many occupants? What was the weather like? These details make the officers testimony more credible are usually in the notes. In the absence of detailed notes he can only depend on his recollection. How good can ...

It's 11 months minimum. 15 months looks good.

If the ownership says FIT and the officer did not pull your plates because the vehicle was unsafe then you should be able to take the ownership into a service Ontario and buy new plates without a recertification. Drive clean test is good for a year so if you did one it is still valid.

Were you charged with a HTA s.180 or a municipal bylaw violation? Either way the person who made the video will have to attend court to secure a conviction.

I really don't think at your age and level of experience that you should try to handle any of this on your own. Hire someone good that will get you the best possible outcome. Anything you pay to a lawyer with a good outcome is in my opinion well worth the money. Funny how things change in my day the charges were the least of your worries compared ...

I personally would make no further disclosure attempts go straight into trial and object to the introduction of the video only if they try it introduce it at trial based on the fact that it wasn't disclosed. At trial get the officer to testify from his notes then pick apart the officers testimony based on the errors in the notes.

You have nothing to lose but time and everything to gain by requesting a trial. If the court house is far away you might want to hire a local paralegal to represent you and let them deal with it.

Unfortunately willful blindness to your circumstances cannot be used to reduce your liability in this situation. The system is set up so that ultimately it is up to you to find out the outcome of cases that are pending against you and pay the fines or deal with the consequences. It is extremely unlikely you will be able to reopen any of these cases ...

I believe that the law is actually a half hour before sunset and after sunrise.

Restrictions in lighting apply to specifically to flashing certain colours like red or blue. To be honest as noble as your intentions are, with your record I would try to be as inconspicuous as possible.

Just to build on what bend said... IF your license in Ontario is suspended for non payment of fines, then you cannot drive at all in Ontario even with an Alberta licence. You will be charged with driving with a suspended license. You cannot say in your defense that I wasn't aware because I never got a letter.

The testimony of both officers are needed to secure a conviction. Each plays a critical role in establishing elements of the offence. You will not need case law to back this up.

If you testify that you weren't speeding and the officers contradict one another your chances are good.

At trial you can exploit that ticketing officers testimony will be that he believes a laser was used to measure your speed. If he testifies otherwise then you start to have reasonable doubt. Ask him why he believes it was a laser. Answer will be ...

So the story I am getting is this: (Please confirm)

1. You got a ticket that was reduced.
2. The officer who pulled you over and gave you a ticket was not the one who measured you speed and they were in hidden somewhere else.
3. You got disclosure showing that the unit was tested at the start for the shift (presumably by the officer who measured ...

You will not be able to show proof over the phone but it might be a good idea to have your father with you when you make the call in case the prosecutor wants to talk to him as well. (I doubt they will)

You basically say how your dad is sorry for what happened and he would be willing to plead guilty if the fine is substantially reduced. Be sure to ...

I think it's a good call. Keep a copy of the ticket in case you are recharged it could be used to undermine the officers credibility.

Make sure you post the outcome.

The officer who issued the ticket and the officer who clocked you with the laser both have to be in attendance. Were you given notes from both officers?

Any evidence found in notes that are used in court and were not presented to you ahead of time qualifies incomplete disclosure. (You have to object) The usual remedy is the notes are provided to ...

If you are sure you had a fatal error on 1 ticket (since your DOB in on the ticket) I would have forced the fatal error on 1 ticket and fought the other one in court. Too late now they can in theory amend attempt to amend the charge before the trial starts.

I really don't think showing your stripes at the roadside is smart.

When pulled over there are ways to be sociable and apologetic without admitting the offence or signaling to the officer that you intend to fight the ticket. Ideally you want the officer to think you are just some regular idiot that is going to seek out a plea bargain or pay the ...