There was a car in front of me that duped me because he stopped - then pulled forward and stopped again - he was turning left - but noticed a pedestrian crossing there. I assumed he was passed the stop line and his car was over the stop bar (which from my vantage point I could not see one) - In my opinion I was stopped immediately before the intersection - and that the guy in front of me was stopped too far in front.
Based on due diligence - I did everything reasonable (including the actual stopping part )
Is this offence still classified as absolute liability or can I go to trial under strict liability (where I would have a better chance of winning).
Anybody have any luck with this?
I believe the actual video footage has to be included in the disclosure package.
Someone please confirm this.
I stopped - but the law says at the white line - not the stop sign. Regardless - those are points that need to get defined and clarified in the Act - as the language is ridiculously too confining. As if everybody makes an exact perfect landing every time at the white line! Besides the white line is meant as a guide to help motorists so one doesn't protrude their car into the cross walk.
Some provinces say that you should be behind the white line (enough so that you can actually still see the line). Ontario Act needs to get updated.
It will be a long shot - but I'm going for it. Any interesting case law out there?
Also I want to get a copy of the police "guidelines" on setting up traffic monitoring. It seems to me the cop should at least set them up so that they see the entire intersection including the stop sign - which this one did not. I want to know if he violating any rules.
I told him, he didn't have a full view of the intersection and he said - "you won't win". I didn't even mention that I was going to fight it. But, that made me do it.
Also I understand that the officer doesn't have to orally testify if he has a video - correct me if I'm wrong.
Very unlikely. Some police services may have general safety guidelines recommending members wear reflective vests, etc. when conducting enforcement, but nothing that would dictate specifics about where/how they should set up for various types of enforcement.penny wrote:Received my court date in the mail yesterday. I am going to request the disclosure this week. Does anyone know if the officers have some sort of "guidelines". "manual" or "rulebook" outlining procedures for setting up road side stop traps? They must have certain procedures that must be followed, such as distance, view of intersection etc.
I've never heard of such a thing - imagine how cumbersome it would be with the myriad of intersections that exist. Then you'd have to do the same thing for other situations. We're trained to use our common sense and then, if required, to defend that in court.penny wrote:Received my court date in the mail yesterday. I am going to request the disclosure this week. Does anyone know if the officers have some sort of "guidelines". "manual" or "rulebook" outlining procedures for setting up road side stop traps? They must have certain procedures that must be followed, such as distance, view of intersection etc.
Seriously, here is some common sense. Every company has procedures regardless - especially the police force . If you get arrested, they have "procedures" on how to do that. When they set up a stop sign trap, perhaps they have some procedures too when they set up the video camera - such as must have view of entire intersection, must have white marker and stop sign in camera view, must be able to see two car distances minimum etc etc etc.
Agreed. It's one thing that procedures are needed for something like a radar gun. If an officer is relying on a piece of technology to give him a reading down to the kilometer, there needs to be procedures to make sure that piece of machinery is up to spec and functioning properly.argyll wrote:All I'm telling you is I've never heard of it. The officer would have to have enough evidence to proceed with a charge. The system allows you to challenge that in court. We have many policies and procedures but not for every conceivable action that we might take. That's where common sense comes into play.
An officer doesn't need a procedure to witness you rolling a stop sign. The video is a bonus, but it is not needed. You either did, or you didn't. The fines don't change depending on how you rolled it. He doesn't need sophisticated equipment to prove his case. If he is claiming he didn't witness the violation but it's on camera (which he won't), then you could argue what's on the footage.
Despite requesting disclosure 2 times, when I got to court, the judge didn't care if section 7 or 11 of the charter was violated. When I TRIED explaining other issues with ticket, location officer wrote does not exhist in Toronto as well no video given for disclosure, judge says " fine, she will adjourned my case until the police finds the icc video I refused to see, and asks me why I want to see video now, if I didn't want to see it in March 2013..
Judge starts asking me questions, and basically made me tell her, and the prosecuting attorney what my defense will probably be, giving them a heads up..
I was told things in Toronto court are a lot more strict than 4 months ago.. when I could defend myself years ago.. judge assumes everyone was guilty prior to giving their plea..
Good luck Penny...