1) As you identified, the officer didn't have to tell you how he measured you. This point is irrelevant to the case.RobB84045 wrote: ↑Feb 21st, 2019 12:10 amHello,
I received a speeding ticket driving westbound on the 401 in the Napanee area. I was driving in the left lane and about 30-40m in front of me was a police vehicle driving in the right lane. Upon noticing that it was a police vehicle, I checked my speedometer and the needle was in between 115-120 km/h. About 1km later I was level with the police vehicle and once I had passed him, he immediately pulled behind me and pulled me over. The first thing he said to me was, "What's the rush Mr. 135?" At this point I was perplexed because I did not think I was going that fast based on when I looked at my speedometer. I told him that I was driving to Toronto and did not think that I was speeding but apologized if I was. He then said that he would be be back with my ticket. I was charged with going 135km/h in a posted 100km/h.
My first problem is that the officer did not provide me any information as to how he determined my speed. It was an incredibly vague conversation. I know that he doesn't have to tell me, but it makes my situation all the more difficult. When I went to my Early Resolution Hearing to meet with the prosecutor, he told me he could only bump the charge down to 120km/h and 3 points, to which I rejected because I still did not have any evidence against me that I was in fact going 135. I have been given a trial date in early May and requested disclosure. I informed the prosecutor that I can't accept the deal because I didn't think I was speeding and I wasn't provided with any information about how my speed was measured, at which point he told me that Genesis II was used.
My second problem is that there are posted signs all over the 401 stating, "Slower traffic keep right." The officer in the right lane was the only car in front of me for some distance so I was gauging my speed in the left lane based off of his. So by passing him, I did not feel I was committing any offence. I didn't blow by him or anything, I knew he was a police vehicle so I passed him with caution. I have driven the 401 between Kingston and Toronto 100's of times and feel comfortable in saying that there is no way I was travelling more than 10km/h faster than him (and even that is being generous). So if I were clocked at 135, the officer in the right lane must have been going 125, which is why i feel it's unfair to be given a ticket for going 35 over and that the ticket wasn't at least brought down. I don't actually want to say this for fear of sounding arrogant because the officer is significantly older than I am and will probably bring up that he is actually trained to visually estimate speed and I am not.
I know that this sounds incredibly subjective and a, "you had to be there moment," but can this be a substantial argument in my defence? Is it possible to question the officers speed in a trial and state that by passing him with caution I did not feel I was committing an offence? Furthermore, I plan on contesting the use of his radar and if it was calibrated properly because, again, based on my speedometer, I was not going that fast. Does anyone have experience in the use of Genesis II radar use in moving police vehicles and how accurate they are? Are police officers consistent in calibrating them properly? I apologize for the long winded post I just want to be as elaborate as possible to receive solid advise. This is my first speeding ticket on the 401. I had another speeding conviction back in 2016 for going 80 in a 60.
2) The speed of the officer is irrelevant. Him being able to visually estimate your speed is irrelevant.
Basically, what matters is that the prosecution proves that you were exceeding the speed limit. That means they have proof of your speed, and they have proof of what the speed limit was where you were tagged. You can attack either of those two points. You can try to attack their calibration and testing procedure, but in order to do that, you'd need to know what the correct procedure is, and you'd have to extract from the officer what they did. And then you'd have to argue how that raises doubt in your speed. Once you get disclosure, you can go from there.
As far as the moving vehicle thing... I'd think it's generally accepted by the JP's doing traffic court that the radar guns are accurate for their purposes. If you're going to argue they're not, you're going to have to provide some sort of expert testimony to discredit the officer's statement that they are accurate. Good luck with that one.
In summary, you might as well have taken the deal the prosecutor offered, unless you want to take your chances in going to court and hoping the officer is a no-show. Because if you go to court as it is now, you'll probably lose.