I've made a terrible mistake of driving under the influence. I didn't have much to drink but still I shouldn't have drove. I was driving 143 on 90 km/h at DVP. Cop pulled me over and asked to do a breathalyzer. Once I did the breathalyzer, it said "ALERT" (i dont know what that means). He then gave me two tickets: one that says: Speeding 139 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, and another: "fail to show insurance". For some reason, the insurance paper my dad put in the dashboard was not up to date. I also got a pink slip thats titled: "Notice of Suspension" my license was suspended for 3 days. Also, there's nothing on my ticket that mentions demerit points. Does that mean the cops didn't give me any points?
SO I'm guessing he did not charge me for DUI but he did call a tow car at the scene and had the car towed to my preferred location. He also suspended my license for 3 days.
What is my next best course of action? I really don't want this speeding ticket as it will affect my insurance. Last time I got a speeding ticket was on June or July of 2010, so it has been over 3 years now. That ticket was received at 83 on a 60 zone (reduced to 65 on 60 by the cop on the day of).
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks a lot.
The officer did not charge you with DUI, Alert means that the breathalyzer said that your breath reading was between 50mgs and under 100mgs. When they get the Alert reading they just caution you and suspended your drivers licence for 3 days. To get your drivers licence back you have to go to the MTO, pay 150 dollars and they will reinstate your drivers licence.
The officer gave you a speeding ticket for 49 over the limit. The ticket has 4 demerit points on it. You have a choice to pay the 359 dollar fine, or fight it. If you have a G2 licence the speeding ticket has an additional 30 licence suspension attached to it.
Retired Toronto Traffic Officer, Hit & Run Squad Detective,
Breathalyzer Tech, Radar/Highway Patrol
If the OP contests this ticket - does he risk that the charge will be INCREASED back to the original speed (143 kph)? If so, this seems like a huge risk to take... and it would seem to make sense to pay the ticket as is and move on.
Just curious, as there seems to be limited downside to fighting a ticket, but perhaps this case in an exception?
That being said I certainly wouldn't proceed to trial unless I had a viable strategy to defend against the charge.
Thanks for the info.
As stated above, be cautious going to trial, since the implications for being convicted of 53 over instead of 49 over are huge. ItÃ¢Â€Â™s not just the fine, but the insurance implications.
Do you think I should just pay for the ticket and plead guilty or set up a trial date, seek officer's disclosure and if the officer comes through then plead guilty to 49 overt in court?