-
Radar Identified
- Moderator
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
- Location: Toronto
Will add that to the "checklist."hwybear wrote:- photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program
Only issues I've seen here in T-dot are:
- Photo is trying to show sign/view was "obscured" by something other than a building or permanent fixture;
- Photo is trying to show road conditions caused by weather (it was snowy, wet, etc) but the photo was not taken almost immediately at scene of the offence;
- Defendant did not have originals (if using old roll film) or did not have the camera with data card and originals on the data card to verify no tampering had occurred;
- Photographer was not present in courtoom.
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.)hwybear wrote: qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
I can not use a simple point an shoot digital camera and enter it as evidence. JP will not accept that I am not trained to use a camera for taking pictures of a crash. I would have to call out a officer trained in the use of a camera. Our prosecutor takes the same stance towards defence and it works.Radar Identified wrote:That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.)hwybear wrote: qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court. All this makes no sense when digital will imprint date/time....but arguement is ability to distort the digital images with a photoshop program.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
-
Radar Identified
- Moderator
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
- Location: Toronto
Would be $6 well spent. (Note to self: Carry $6 35mm camera next time driving through Chatham.hwybear wrote:We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court.
Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. )
Very perplexed what to do?
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com
-
- Similar Topics
-
-
New post Disobey Sign 182 (2) - Mississauga - turn and no turn signs
Last post by jsherk Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:42 am
-
-
-
New post Disobey Sign HTA 182(2) No Right Turn 7-9am
Last post by billiards15 Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:07 am
-
-
-
New post Disobey Sign: Illegal Right Turn
by HMRCAF in Failing to obey signsLast post by HMRCAF Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:37 pm
-
-
-
New post disobey no left turn sign
by JeffCP in Prohibited turnsLast post by daggx Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:36 pm
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
Help us, Help You!
Hello, we notice you may be using an adblocker...