I know this is essentially a glorified parking ticket but there are principles here. I'd really appreciate some input into this one.
Westbound Lakeshore at York under the Expressway at 3 PM though from the dark photo you would think it was 3 AM.
Even though in all photos the light is clearly red. It is my feeling that photo cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because:
1) The photo does not clearly show the front of the vehicle in relation to the stop marker. Half of the truck is over the stop marker and half is not. Am I correct to assume that that if you are partially past the stop marker when the light turns red you are considered in the intersection and may proceed. Any thoughts?
2) If the vehicle waiting to make a left turn would (1) be any more valid?
3) I think the equipment might be faulty. The 2 snapshots are 0.9 seconds apart at 55 kph. I should have traveled just under 14 meters (45 feet) in 0.9 seconds. Can these photos be reasonably viewed to show a distance traveled of 14 meters?
1st picture: Half of the truck is over the stop marker. 2nd picture: Rear of vehicle is just beyond the pedestrian crosswalk.
Even if the distance traveled in the 2 pictures is 10 meters (almost 3 lane widths) I feel that there are 4 missing meters to explain.
Could I make an argument that if part of the speed sensing equipment is faulty then the whole system is faulty in this case? Particularly the 0.8 seconds the machine claims to have elapsed from when the light turned red.
Here is the math: 55 kph x 1000 m/km = 55,000 m 55,000 / 3600 sec/hr = 15.27 m/s 15.27 x 0.9 sec = 13.74 meters
- redlightticketmod.jpg (235.22 KiB) Viewed 1700 times
1) I agree that the photo (at least your scanned copy) is quite dark. However when I boost the brightness, it still looks to me like your front wheels are behind the stop line. Youre correct in that if you've already entered the intersection its no longer a red light offence. I`m not sure how far in Court you'd get arguing the photo isn't clear enough.
2) Again, if you entered the intersection prior to the light going red, it's no longer a red light offence regardless if you're turning or proceeding straight through.
3) That will probably not be an error with the equipment. To the best of my knowledge red light cameras in Ontario measure speed through sensors embedded in the roadway. The sensors only measure your speed when you first cross the stop line, not continuously. Therefor the second photo would not be real time speed data, just your initial speed repeated. I think if you look at other photos on the forum you'll see the speed is always the same, even in photos with cars braking, etc.
Thanks for your input. The scanned image looks just like the one that was mailed to me. Will the JP allow the image to be altered by brightening to scrutinize the image.
I guess it boils down to if this image as is illustrates reasonable doubt.
Essentially my problem is this: A red light camera in my opinion should clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt show a vehicle behind the line and then inside the intersection. I am certain the technology exists to take far better images that this one that would leave no doubt my mind and that of the JP if this offence took place. If a police officer was testifying that it was kind of dark and he couldn't be absolutely sure if the vehicle entered the intersection then I have a hard time believing that their testimony would be accepted.
Does anyone have any idea what the wait time for a trial at old city hall would be?
If you think that the photos don't make out the offence you may be able to apply to a Justice of the Peace to issue a summons for the officer who certified the photographs pursuant to s. 205.20 of the HTA and s. 39 of the POA so they can be cross examined at your trial. According the 2004 case of Yan from the Ontario Court of Appeal the onus is on you, the defendant, to show (on something less than a balance of probabilities) that there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for crossing examining the officer.
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.
Thanks Simon. So basically does the law dictate that the JP cannot consider my point that the photo does not clearly show the exact position of the front of the vehicle in relation to the stop marker unless I can convince him/her to issue a summons to the of the officer who certified the offence occurred based on the photo?
The officer who certified the offence is only identified by a number with an electronic signature that is illegible.
So how do I get the mystery officer in court? I am completely unfamiliar with the process of having a summons issued. Is this something I can ask the JP to do on my behalf at pretrial motion on the date of trial by the requesting they issue the summons? I would have to be familiar with Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Yan, 2004. Or is there paperwork and extensive lineups involved on my behalf?
As a curiosity would requesting the summons of the officer at a by way of pretrial motion stop the 11b clock as an institutional delay?
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests