Automotive

Ask me anything about fighting your traffic ticket (Speeding, Parking, etc.)

Deal Addict
User avatar
May 8, 2002
3899 posts
319 upvotes
Happy2017 wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 2:29 pm
@ShrekTek & all,
I passed the stop line (white line) on yellow light. Will the prosecutor argue that I failed to stop for the amber light during the Trail?

Thanks and appreciate your help!
Was the light yellow before or after you crossed the stop bar (line)? That is the key fact in issue, and without any witness or contrasting evidence to present, it will be your word vs officer's...

The prosecutor will argue for whatever evidence the officer testifies to
Newbie
Nov 19, 2017
12 posts
Thanks joshmxpx.

The light was still yellow after I crossed the stop bar(line). I am wondering if they will argue that I failed to stop at amber light during the Trail as well. I am still debating if I should testify because I feel very stressed. I saw many people mentioned that they felt very intimidate by the prosecutor when testified.

The officer was facing opposite direction than me. In the police notes, he mentioned 3 red, 2 yellow. I don't understand what that means. He did not mention how he come to the conclusion that I run the red light. It is hard to defense my case when they don't provide how they come to the conclusion.

I went to the middle of the intersection (about where the police car was), I couldn't see the stop line (that I passed) from this location because
there is a downhill slope.
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
Happy2017 wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 2:29 pm
@ShrekTek & all,
I passed the stop line (white line) on yellow light. Will the prosecutor argue that I failed to stop for the amber light during the Trail?

Thanks and appreciate your help!
They can not change the charge during your trial and can not charge you with something new.

If the charge is that you ran a RED light, but you can prove that you passed the white line while the light was still YELLOW, then you are NOT guilty of the red light charge and they can NOT charge you with running a yellow light.
--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
superfunkey wrote:
Nov 28th, 2017 1:29 am
i donno if you guys can help but anything is better then nothing.
so i got a red light ticket (non photo kind) but it was still mailed too me i was not pulled over and with the ticket is a letter stating the cop saw me do it but couldnt pull me over im like 99% sure i did not run a red light never done it before and not starting anytime soon the ticket has a street name and a date but no time and i just have no idea wtf even is going on and where too start im going too fight it but i mean i dont even have a defence cause i have no idea what i did too get it or how?

theres a spot on the ticket "the offence notice" is checked but the part where it says he handed it too me is crossed out????
any thoughts ??????
In Ontario?

Can you scan and post the ticket you got (black out persona and officer info)?
--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
porkchop79 wrote:
Nov 28th, 2017 1:57 pm
Send help.

I am from BC and I have my court date this week for using my phone while driving. First off, how am I even going to know if my officer is present? They can attend through video conference/phone call or even submit a written statement is they don’t want to show up. So how would I plead in this case? I really just want to dispute the fine amount but I unknowingly put dispute allegation and it’s too late to change that. I would accept plea deal if offered.
 
I have attached the pic from the disclosure. Now before I get berated for admitting anything, I was using my GPS in my car. I said this b/c he told me I had been looking up and down so I told him I was just using my GPS. But in his notes he did not indicate I was using my car GPS. Do they have audio/video evidence that can prove how the conversation went down that day? But he would've included it along with the disclosure that I requested for right? He said he saw clear blue and white text bubbles but I really was not texting at the time so I don't know how he could've seen that. I had been charging my phone over the centre console so it didn’t even have battery. How can I even text? What did happen was I did look down to check if it had been back on yet and he knocked on my window right at that moment. I wanted to make a phone call as traffic didn’t move for a good 10mins. I have handsfree enabled in my car to do so.

Are they going to ask to hear the officer's side of the story first and I'm supposed to ask him questions during the cross-examination? What can I even ask in this scenario? Am I going to perjure/get myself convicted by telling my side of things? Cause I did look down for a brief second and touch my phone but I don't think I deserve this fine amount (and he claims I was texting when I was not but my word against his so I can't win here).
I am only familiar with Ontario charges and Ontario court system, not BC.

In Ontario, you need to ask the prosecutor if the officer is there or will be coming.

In Ontario you would request a trial and ask for disclosure and then at trial you could discuss a plea deal with prosecutor before the trial starts and decide whether to accept the deal or try and fight it. Probably in BC it is similar so if you tell prosecutor you are looking for fine reduction they may offer something to you.

In the end the officer will testify whatever is in their notes (the disclosure that you got). You can give your version of events as well, but 99% of the time, they will beleive the officer UNLESS you cross-examine officer and get the officer to admit that what they said may not be accurate (but this will rarely happen as well).
--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
Newbie
Nov 19, 2017
12 posts
Thanks so much ShrekTek.ca. This is very helpful.

I am still debating if I should testify. I will be able to say " I am sure the light is still yellow when I passed the stop line" when I testify. But I read some forum, they mentioned that it's better not to testify because the prosecutor has more experience and people fight the tickets normally have no experience at all. If I had a good feeling that I have proved there is reasonable double during cross examination, may be I should not testify. If I did not do well during cross examination, maybe I should testify. Any advise on this?
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
Happy2017 wrote:
Nov 29th, 2017 8:37 am
Thanks so much ShrekTek.ca. This is very helpful.

I am still debating if I should testify. I will be able to say " I am sure the light is still yellow when I passed the stop line" when I testify. But I read some forum, they mentioned that it's better not to testify because the prosecutor has more experience and people fight the tickets normally have no experience at all. If I had a good feeling that I have proved there is reasonable double during cross examination, may be I should not testify. If I did not do well during cross examination, maybe I should testify. Any advise on this?
Most people that testify end up convicting themsleves, so most of the time you are probably better not to testify.

However, you definitely SHOULD testify when you can absolutely 100% say that you did not do what they say you did.

So if you are charged with running a red light and you are absolutely 100% sure that the light was yellow when you passed the line, then yes you should testify.

The prosecutor will cross-examine you and will try to get you agree that maybe the light was red "so is it possible that the light may have turned red just before you crossed the line?"
BAD ANSWER: "Well it's possible but I am pretty sure that it was yellow"
GOOD ANSWER: "No it's not possible. I am absolutely sure the light was still yellow because I passed the line and then looked up at it and saw it was still yellow."

So if your testimony is "I am pretty sure it was yellow" or "It might have been yellow" or "I think it was yellow" then do not testify.
If your testimony is "I am absolutely 100% sure it was yellow" then yes you should testify.
--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
Newbie
Nov 19, 2017
12 posts
Thanks so much ShrekTek. This is very helpful. I will probably testify then. I will let you know if I win the case. If I did not win, I probably will not be in the mood posting anything. LOL.
Member
User avatar
Aug 13, 2004
422 posts
26 upvotes
Toronto
Happy2017 wrote:
Nov 29th, 2017 9:33 am
Thanks so much ShrekTek. This is very helpful. I will probably testify then. I will let you know if I win the case. If I did not win, I probably will not be in the mood posting anything. LOL.
You should post either way - the results help others in the thread! Good luck!
Newbie
Dec 28, 2009
11 posts
1 upvote
Toronto
Hi. Here is my situation and I hope someone can advise.

My wife got a speeding ticket for going 70 in 50 zone and due to nervousness was unable to find the insurance card that was in the car. We got a trial date coming up and have got a disclosure as per below. Can you give some advise on how to tackle this situation. I am not worried about the insurance card as we have been paying insurance forever with no missed payments and have the insurance card that shows we had insurance coverage. Can you find any mistake in the disclosure? If they correct something on their notes, do they need to have their initials on it?

(removed the date in pic1 due to privacy reasons)
Your text to link here...

Thanks.
Newbie
Dec 28, 2009
11 posts
1 upvote
Toronto
Vicky2010 wrote:
Nov 29th, 2017 9:48 pm
Hi. Here is my situation and I hope someone can advise.

My wife got a speeding ticket for going 70 in 50 zone and due to nervousness was unable to find the insurance card that was in the car. We got a trial date coming up and have got a disclosure as per below. Can you give some advise on how to tackle this situation. I am not worried about the insurance card as we have been paying insurance forever with no missed payments and have the insurance card that shows we had insurance coverage. Can you find any mistake in the disclosure? If they correct something on their notes, do they need to have their initials on it?

(removed the date in pic1 due to privacy reasons)
Your text to link here...

Thanks.
Edit: Ticket was issued in Ontario.
Newbie
Nov 19, 2017
12 posts
Hi ShrekTek,
Do I need to show that I made reasonable effort to stop but I could not so I passed the stop line on yellow light? I think they may ask why I did not stop for the amber light. Will this impact my defense even though the charge was failed to stop at red light? Any suggestions on how to answer these type of questions.

Thanks a lot!
Jr. Member
User avatar
Oct 2, 2016
190 posts
23 upvotes
Snoozee wrote:
Nov 23rd, 2017 8:56 pm
My dad got a ticket for looking at his cellphone while driving. Is there a chance that the fine will be reduced at trial or should he just pay the full fine?
Drive With Handheld Communication Device offences in Ontario do come with a significant fine ($490 total payable). However, the fine while important is generally the smaller concern in contrast to licencing and insurance. Historically this section of the act carried 0 demerit points, but was later amended to now carry 3 demerit points. While this likely does not apply to your father, novice drivers (ie. G1/G2) are subject to escalated sanctions penalties (suspension or revocation of licence) upon conviction. A conviction may result in a high risk assessment for his insurer and he may wish to seek out feedback on this issue from his insurance broker. If the broker's feedback is that a conviction would result in a significant increase to his rate for the next few years or that he will have to get a high-risk insurance policy, then a simply reduction in the fine is largely inconsequential by comparison.

A reduction in fine is not generally done at trial as a conviction applies the set fine plus court cost plus victim fine surcharge. Such discussions would be done with the Prosecutor's Office in advance of trial.

Originally most Prosecutors in Ontario would not resolve these charges to alternate lesser offences. However, things have loosened up in recent years where some Prosecutors in some jurisdictions are open to lesser offences assuming that an outright defence to the charge can not be found through the standard early resolution process.
OTD Ticket Defenders Legal Services. The content of this message is not meant to be legal advice.
Jr. Member
User avatar
Oct 2, 2016
190 posts
23 upvotes
davka wrote:
Nov 26th, 2017 3:26 am
I got a ticket on 401 around Kingston. I was speeding and the undercovercope tailgated me for a while, I initially thought it might be a cop, but he was so aggressive, I decided to speed even more to be able to change my lane to the right , only after managed to change the lane and slow down a bit he turned on his lights and pulled me over. 146km/hr. I told him i got scared and he said it makes no sense.
I work in addiction field since 2010 and I am an expert in it, This cop had a very distinct odor of pot, and I am 99.9% sure he was high. I called his boss in Napanee and left messages twice describing the situation but got no response.


The prosecutor offered me to reduce the speed and fine for the ticket but I pleaded not guilty and my trial is on March 23, 2018 . Technically I did fear for my life and did speed more because of that, but was driving close to 130 prior to this cop started to tailgate me. I wouldnt be surprised if he ends up not showing up.
Speeding offences are absolute liability. The actual reason for exceeding the posted speed limit is generally not a defence. There may be some argument to be made regard duress, but not necessarily a strong one. The scenario is certainly a frustrating one that understandably can leave a bad taste in your mouth regarding law enforcement and the nature of the law. However, try to set aside any personal investment and emotion attached to the issue to make your best decisions. Generally, trials are difficult for self-represented defendants and they often sink themselves due to becoming a witness and therefore open to cross-examination and subsequently convicting themselves on the stand. If the Prosecutor's offer is to a lesser demerit point offence, you may want to impartially consider if that bird-in-the-hand is worth accepting versus a potential conviction of the original offence at trial plus the cost of a lost day of work and the stress of attending court. Alternately, if you are set on arguing the matter at trial, you may wish to seek out a paralegal licenced through the Law Society of Upper Canada to represent you. Generally, speeding cases are relatively inexpensive to hire legal representation for and will give you a better chance of winning your trial or negotiating a better resolution.

Expect the Officer to be in attendance at court. That is their job to be there. Pretty much every week I'll speak with multiple defendants who believe, for whatever reason, that the Officer indicated that they will not be at trial. These days you likely have a significantly less that 1% chance of the Officer not being present. Even then, the Prosecution may successfully argue to have the matter adjourned or simply hold your matter down until the Officer arrives.
OTD Ticket Defenders Legal Services. The content of this message is not meant to be legal advice.

Top