Hi all, I got ticket this morning to disobey the Sign U turn. I was going down an airport road and took a U turn right before the Bresler drive and the undercovered officer pulled me over and gave $110 ticket. He put 09 in year field on the ticket. Is that for the plate# or the vehicle year? If it for vehicle, then it is wrong. I was reading through different forums and ticketcombat.com and learned that if there is a fatal error on the ticket, the case will be dismissed. What are my options to fight and defend the case? Thanks in advance for help
Hi all,
I got ticket this morning to disobey the Sign U turn. I was going down an airport road and took a U turn right before the Bresler drive and the undercovered officer pulled me over and gave $110 ticket. He put 09 in year field on the ticket. Is that for the plate# or the vehicle year? If it for vehicle, then it is wrong. I was reading through different forums and ticketcombat.com and learned that if there is a fatal error on the ticket, the case will be dismissed. What are my options to fight and defend the case?
Do I have to go to the same location as on the ticket or file a trial in any other location? Also, how are the chances of dismissal as I really don't want to pay fine and loose 2 demerit points. I am really worried about my insurance rate.
Do I have to go to the same location as on the ticket or file a trial in any other location? Also, how are the chances of dismissal as I really don't want to pay fine and loose 2 demerit points. I am really worried about my insurance rate.
Your best bet is to go through the process and see what technicalities are out there. That could include 11b, lack of disclosure, the cop not showing up etc etc etc. Check out the Ticket Combat site as it has a great primer. I wish I could lose demerits every time I get ticketed :D Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates. Unless you get nailed for something SERIOUS like going 49+km/h over the limit, careless driving, drunk driving, the insurance companies treat all convictions the same, regardless of the demerit points. That's why it usually doesn't pay off to accept a lesser charge (even if it doesn't carry demerits) after going through the trouble of showing up in court. And yes it is the location noted on the ticket. You can't have your Toronto West case heard in Sudbury.
Your best bet is to go through the process and see what technicalities are out there. That could include 11b, lack of disclosure, the cop not showing up etc etc etc. Check out the Ticket Combat site as it has a great primer.
I wish I could lose demerits every time I get ticketed Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates.
Unless you get nailed for something SERIOUS like going 49+km/h over the limit, careless driving, drunk driving, the insurance companies treat all convictions the same, regardless of the demerit points. That's why it usually doesn't pay off to accept a lesser charge (even if it doesn't carry demerits) after going through the trouble of showing up in court.
And yes it is the location noted on the ticket. You can't have your Toronto West case heard in Sudbury.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
I am posting an image to show exactly what happened. The cop was looking in the door mirror waiting 25meters ahead of me and as soon as I made a Turn and entered in the side street, he made a U turn and caught me on the side street. Looking at the image and the details of what happened, wht are my options?
I am posting an image to show exactly what happened.
The cop was looking in the door mirror waiting 25meters ahead of me and as soon as I made a Turn and entered in the side street, he made a U turn and caught me on the side street.
Looking at the image and the details of what happened, wht are my options?
From your diagram it looks like you made a big left turn. A u-turn is You originally posted that you made a u turn. Did you? Did you completely reverse your direction of travel or did you make a wide coat hanger left turn? This makes all the difference. And it also looks like you can turn left into that parking lot which is not prohibited (unless there's a sign). If you made the u turn farther ahead, went back and then made a right hand turn, that would be prohibited. But if you made a wide left turn, that is not illegal.
From your diagram it looks like you made a big left turn. A u-turn is
a turn, made by a vehicle, in the shape of a U, resulting in a reversal of direction.
You originally posted that you made a u turn. Did you? Did you completely reverse your direction of travel or did you make a wide coat hanger left turn? This makes all the difference.
And it also looks like you can turn left into that parking lot which is not prohibited (unless there's a sign). If you made the u turn farther ahead, went back and then made a right hand turn, that would be prohibited. But if you made a wide left turn, that is not illegal.
Thanks for your reply ticketcombat. You are right. I did not make a U-Turn. It was a wide left turn and at any point I was not in a reverse direction. I made a Left turn and entered in the parking lot. The cop was standing ahead of me observing everything in his door mirror. I am also sure that people always take that turn to enter the parking lot. If you can give me some wordings to fight, I will greatly appreciate. Thanks again.
Thanks for your reply ticketcombat. You are right. I did not make a U-Turn. It was a wide left turn and at any point I was not in a reverse direction. I made a Left turn and entered in the parking lot. The cop was standing ahead of me observing everything in his door mirror. I am also sure that people always take that turn to enter the parking lot.
If you can give me some wordings to fight, I will greatly appreciate.
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Unlike certain MPPs who want to change the law because of one accident or fatality? *************************************** Wilchris, I think your diagram and what I posted (the definition) should be more than enough to beat the ticket. Although it would be fun to cross-examine the cop and then have him read a definition of "u turn" from a dictionary, you should take the higher road. Just monitor his testimony to make sure he doesn't say you reversed direction. Get him to state you went "around" the sign onto the parking lot. Then when it's your turn, show the diagram, testify as to what you did and read the definition. That should be enough. Good luck and good fight!
hwybear wrote:
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
Unlike certain MPPs who want to change the law because of one accident or fatality?
***************************************
Wilchris, I think your diagram and what I posted (the definition) should be more than enough to beat the ticket. Although it would be fun to cross-examine the cop and then have him read a definition of "u turn" from a dictionary, you should take the higher road.
Just monitor his testimony to make sure he doesn't say you reversed direction. Get him to state you went "around" the sign onto the parking lot.
Then when it's your turn, show the diagram, testify as to what you did and read the definition. That should be enough.
Yeah, Mississauga and Brampton don't let the grass grow under their feet on many different levels... Toronto is the opposite... on many... yeah that's what we get for voting in David Miller. :evil: Anyway you've got a good chance of beating this at trial. You didn't commit the offence as charged. You've got a good diagram of what you did. Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence. TC already gave you a good foundation to fight it and he knows more than I do, so no point in repeating that. Even better: Go back to Airport Road, park in the parking lot with your camera, and take photographs of people making the same turn. :shock: That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You didn't disobey the sign and you should not have a hard time convincing the JP of that. By the way has your disclosure package been made available to you yet?
Yeah, Mississauga and Brampton don't let the grass grow under their feet on many different levels... Toronto is the opposite... on many... yeah that's what we get for voting in David Miller.
Anyway you've got a good chance of beating this at trial. You didn't commit the offence as charged. You've got a good diagram of what you did. Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence. TC already gave you a good foundation to fight it and he knows more than I do, so no point in repeating that. Even better: Go back to Airport Road, park in the parking lot with your camera, and take photographs of people making the same turn. That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You didn't disobey the sign and you should not have a hard time convincing the JP of that.
By the way has your disclosure package been made available to you yet?
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
Radar Identified wrote:
Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc. On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
hwybear wrote:
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc.
On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc. On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed? - time/date must be the same as offence date as person can not prove things were identical on another date (even growth of vegetation changes daily, etc.) - photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program - qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training) Basically all the same things defences have hammered on police for years, working in reverse against the defence.
Radar Identified wrote:
hwybear wrote:
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc.
On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
- time/date must be the same as offence date as person can not prove things were identical on another date (even growth of vegetation changes daily, etc.)
- photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program
- qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
Basically all the same things defences have hammered on police for years, working in reverse against the defence.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Hmm... that's interesting. Will add that to the "checklist." :D 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.) :shock:
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.)
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.) :shock: 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 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.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
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. :shock: )
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. )
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.
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.
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?
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?
The fine is not the issue but I am worried about insurance rates. First speeding ticket in my life Any suggestions on how to handle this? I can't afford to spend a day at the court
So was at court today in Orillia for a friend, and I had submitted a couple notice of motion a couple weeks ago that I wanted to deal with before arraignment. I met with prosecutor before hand, and it went something like this:
Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law?"
Me: "What do you mean?"
Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law for your motion?"
Me: "All the case law is quoted in the motion that I…
1)failure to change address on license (i got married a couple of months earlier and moved)
2) license plate not fully visible
I got pulled over because I had 2 letters peeling off my license plate. I know ignorance isn't a defense, but I really had no idea that this was an issue. Plus, you see many cars on the road with peeling plates. I got both tickets and…
I was driving around 140km/h on a 100km/h posted on the highway. I was in the fast lane. The officer was very nice and reduced it to no points and just 15km/h over.
I only have my G2.
1. Will this affect me taking the G test next month?
2. I am very grateful for the officer lowering the ticket... should I just pay the 52.5$ and leave it as is.. I am a secondary driver under my dads name and we have…
Hi, thanks in advance for the help. Been driving for 10 years, clean record until today when I got slapped with two tickets. First: going 135 at 100 on the 401, second: not having a valid sticker (I recently moved and completely forgot about it)
My friend tells me I should fight the speed ticket, if anything to reduce the fine and points. Would be alot of help if anyone could walk me through…
My wife, who has never had a traffic ticket in her life, just got 11 points.
Two tickets: "following too closely" and "failure to stop"
She was on a residential street and was behind a car at a crosswalk waiting for a pedestrian. Pedestrian crossed, they continued. Cop was drivig towards them down a side street , and as they passed he went after my wife.
I was driving in mid lane and was following a line of cars around speed limit.
The vehicle in front of me was large and I decided to change to the left lane to get better line sight.
As soon as I entered the left lane, I saw the car in front of me approximately 200m away stopped dead (for some odd reason, there was more traffic on the left lane).
Over the last few months I have received several parking tickets from the City of Kitchener. I haven't paid any of them and have attempted to dicuss the situation with the parking authority of the City, however, they're very unreceptive and defensive.
I work at a downtown construction site....ironically a Court House. The site takes up a whole city block, of which ONE side has 2 hour parking…
I was driving on a teusday night in the rain and fog at whites and highview by St. Mary CSS in Pickering, ON. At the time I was waiting at a red light to make a left north onto whites. There was also a car on the opposite side of the intersection making a left. The cars beams were pointed almost directly at my face and as a result, with the combination of the rain and fog, I…
I am new to this website and this is my first post so please forgive me if I've put this question in the wrong place. Please bear with me until I learn the ropes a bit.
So here are my questions:
Antique cars and hot rods (1930's- early '60's) and seat belt use in Ontario. If these vehicles never came from the respective factories with any seat belts, do they have to be retrofitted ?
OK so Jshreck has been taking some heat for the concept of providing the DL as being not required and therefore inadmissable in court. Personally, I think that argument would fall on deaf ears in the lower court and any chance at victory would have to be in the highest court. That would be quite something. When pigs fly I think, but along that line of thought, allow me to continue.......
I have a court date soon and am wondering whether the officers just read off their disclosure notes when interrogated.
Basically, according to the disclosure notes and the said distances and speeds quoted, by doing some simple math it just doesn't add up. My concern is whether the officer can change his story when on the stand after maybe realizing this?
Last week I was driving home from college in the sauga area. I drive a 1995 Chevy Monte Carlo v6 which I've owned since 2000, I really haven't done anything to the car except tinted windows (not completely darken) and some rims, and Nothing Engine wise. Anyway I look in my rear view mirror and out of no where i see cherry flashing. When pulled over the officer asked do you…
I was charged 2 days ago with RED LIGHT - FAIL TO STOP and set fined $150 and I guess 3 points. I was driving turning left on the intersection with a traffic light, and when I jst about to turn left the light turned to orange and I didn't have enough time to stop. Once I turned I saw the light turned to red and 2seconds later I saw a police beacon flashing through my rear-view mirror. It…
I figured pleading not guilty is the same as saying it was signed which is stupid. A friend of mine told me I could plead guilty with explanation and try to get the fine reduced when I come in.
So this Friday I was stopped by a local officer for going 110 in a 80zone. He also claims I was going 105 in a 50zone,which we literally passed when he stopped me as I was braking. It has been 3 days already and I can't seem to locate my ticket on their Internet site "pay ticket". Is there a way to determine if he has filed for certificate of offence to the courts? It has been 3 days I presume…
My trial date is in a couple days for a speeding ticket (york region) and i am nervous it is my first ticket ever as well as first trial
I did notice my ticket was filed beyond 7 days, 10 days after the day i got the ticket to be exact, which is stamped on the ticket. is this enough to have it dismissed?
If you look close enough, beside the drivers' side "A" pillar you will see a white circle = front antenna of Genesis radar......plus look above the dash pad...there is the Spectre RDD.
Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates.
That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested.
Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. 
Any suggestions on how to handle this? I can't afford to spend a day at the court 
