Looking for a heads up deciphering the disclosure attached
I was not going as fast as the officer claims. Plan on attacking calibration or training/certification.
Thanks in advance
- image.jpg (127.58 KiB) Viewed 887 times
- Stalker II (the type of radar used)
- Your car type maybe? 2012 Red Chrysler 200
- Ã¢Â€ÂœWe were just talking I didnÃ¢Â€Â™t realise itÃ¢Â€Â
- Where the officer was situated (school parking lot on a Colebrook Road)
- You were travelling westbound - FTPSC???
- Obtained a speed reading of 72 km/hr at 300 meters
- No sight of your vehicle lost
- Roads ??? dry and straight
- IDÃ¢Â€Â™d with Ontario Photo licence
- Ã¢Â€ÂœThank you. You just made my dayÃ¢Â€Â
- Radar tested at 07:35 a.m. and 3:52 p.m.
What I would do is make another request for disclosure, and say that the officers notes are mostly incomprehensible and that you would like a typed copy of the notes with explanations of the short forms used. Remember that you need to do everything possible now to set yourself up to win at an appeal if you lose at the trial. You might get a typed copy or might not. They might wait until trial day and tell you to go talk to officer and get him to explain them to you. If you don't get them before trial it's a good reason for an adjournment at least, and maybe a stay if you asked far enough in advance (and followed up once or twice as well).
What is the actual charge? I assume it is speeding!
Going into court and trying to prove that you were "not going as fast as the officer claims" is almost a useless argument. If you take the stand then it is simply your word against the officers testimony and his radar and guess who will probably win! You can exercise your right to NOT testify against yourself (so don't take the stand) but instead go after the officer in cross examination and try and bring reasonable doubt to the elements of the case the prosecution is trying to prove.
One point I see you can mention during closing submissions (not during cross examination) is that the officer noted the times he tested the radar, but did not write down the outcome of the tests (pass or fail?). This is NOT a full on case winning point, but it adds a "little bit" of doubt. You want to find as much "doubt" as you can to hopefully get to the point of "reasonable doubt". And also make note of what the officer says on the stand about the radar tests... does he actually say that he "tested it and it passed" both times? If he mentions that he tested AND it passed both times, then you simply want to point out (in closing submissions) that he did not write it down in his notes whether or not it passed which causes some doubt ("little bit of doubt"). However if he mentions that he tested it, but does NOT mention that it passed BOTH times (unlikely to happen, but possible), then you have a "LOT" of doubt. So in this case you mention in your closing submissions that the officer only testified he tested the units but did not testify whether or not they passed and therefore this does cast reasonable doubt on whether the unit was functioning properly or not. In any case you may NOT want to question the officer about this in cross examination because he could end up saying something like "Oh I always just write down the times I tested it when it passes. If it did not pass the test then I would have made a note of that in my notes." so this could hurt your case. Now of course you may want to actually question him about the test procedure and how he tested it so just be careful and try and think of what you are trying to get him to say versus what he could actually say and how his answers may affect the point I just brought up above.