- Radar Identified
- Moderator
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
- Location: Toronto
Hmm... that's interesting.
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
Will add that to the "checklist."
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.
hwybear wrote: qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
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.)
Radar Identified wrote:hwybear wrote: qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
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.)
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.
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.
- Radar Identified
- Moderator
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
- Location: Toronto
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.
Would be $6 well spent. (Note to self: Carry $6 35mm camera next time driving through Chatham. Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com.
)
Thanks For The Info However,
I am bit confused now. I have the photos of the location taken from different angles by a professional photographer named Bill Knudsen (link= ://buytelescopes.com/imagegallery.aspx?c=16193) but by no means there is a date and time stamp on it. He shoot them and copied over to his hard disk and gave it to me. Can I make a CD of it as a raw data? Disclosure is yet to be received.
Now the photographer will have to be available for questioning in court, or the photos won't be admitted.
Adjourned Till November 10
Well, today was my date and I got adjournment for not providing me a disclosure. So it is now set to November10. However, the prosecutor and cop gave me a copy of Cop's notes and said that he gave me a disclosure. It is just few lines about the incident. Is it called a disclosure? Shouldn't I get something more in more details?
Very perplexed what to do?
At a minimum, there should also be a copy of by-law that had that sign put up there .
"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 Section 182 (2) Disobey Sign
by TREX in Failing to obey signsLast post by bend Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:23 pm
-
-
-
New post Disobey sign HTA section 182(2) - COURT JULY 22!!
Last post by Radar Identified Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:35 pm
-
-
-
New post defence for disobey sign 182(2) - no u turn sign
Last post by itsvince Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:56 pm
-
-
-
New post Disobey Sign-Section 182(2) No Left during specific hours
by AD3231 in Failing to obey signsLast post by FyreStorm Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:52 pm
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests