Automotive

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

Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
RP2017 wrote:
Jan 7th, 2018 1:03 pm
I have two questions:

1. Is there any way to reopen a speeding ticket trial after a conviction? (we failed to show up at the hearing)
2. How late is too late to ask for disclosure? The trial is scheduled for January 25, 2018
1) Yes. In Ontario, go to provincial offences office and request a re-opening for a new trial and give them your reasons why you think you should get it.

2) Never too late. However u probably wont get it by trial date and will need to show up and ask for another trial date.
--
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
hoy2hoy wrote:
Jan 7th, 2018 3:30 pm
Hi Shrek,

I made a right turn at an intersection at 8 am and there was a cop car camping, which stopped me and gave me a ticket for disobey signs. It was a snowy day and the previous night, it snowed at least 15 cm. The vehicle in front of me did not brush off their snow off the roof of the car, so I was unable to see the "do not turn right, 7-9am, mon-fri" signs. I requested disclosure and did not receive it until the court date, which the judge was able to postpone the trial date. When I requested the disclosure, I did not provide a phone number, but I was not given any notice to come pick up the disclosure in person. The disclosure reads as follows:

Southbound and turns right at intersection
I'm in a grey car parked opposite
2 signs Clear, Slush -2
Signs checked

It was light snow at the time, with 20 cm of snow on the ground, which I have records from climate.weather.gc.ca. I've never had a traffic ticket before and I was wondering if you could offer any advice. Thank you very much in advance!
Pretty weak defense. The car in front would have had to turn before you stopped and turned meaning you would have had an opportunity to see signs.

These are the hardest tickets to beat because it is simply the officers word against yours... who do you think they will beleive?

Take it to trial for the experience but dont expect to win.
--
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
Jul 20, 2009
599 posts
93 upvotes
Toronto
ShrekTek wrote:
Jan 6th, 2018 11:18 am
No you dont contact the officer. But you can send another request to the prosecutor requesting more specific information on either what certain abbreviations means or what those numbers mean. At trial date, they may have you speak directly to officer so you can ask him what they mean.

From the officers notes, the radar appears to be a vehicle mounted radar and he used the front antenna in same direction mode. Vehicle mounted radars are either pointed straight forward or straight backwards so they can not pickup vehicles coming from the side and can only pickup vehicles coming at or moving away from the vehicle. Front means it was a front mounted antenna pointing forward. Mov means it was in moving mode. Same means it was in same direction mode which means it can only pickup a vehicle moving the same direction as the police vehicle and would NOT pickup a vehicle coming towards it.

Whats confusing to me is it says "passed sign app veh" which to me I think means that your vehicle was APPROACHING the officer so it was going in the opposite direction. If the officer had the radar is SAME moving mode then the device would NOT pickup an approaching vehicle.
Thank you for the reply. I've looked into the manual and it looks like the unit self tests itself and doesn't say it needs to be tested before and after so unless the OPP mandates it, doesn't look like I can use that as a defence. I've figured out that the 2000 and 2035 are times. My offence time was 2032 so possibly those times are when the unit was tested or when he pulled me over to when he finished making notes? IDK

"MPH recommends that you follow your court -proven department guidelines for performing tuning fork checks."
"When the BEE III is turned on, it will go through a complete self test. The radar will first perform a light test, in which all of the display's indicators will light, and then the radar will perform a speed test on the internal circuitry"

I'm struggling to word my defense and not sure if anything here even helps
I was stopped at the light 750m before Lawson (The first half of this distance is a large curve in the road) and the notes indicate he clocked me west of Lawson so really it was less than that distance. However he didn't signal to pull me over for another 1.2KM down the road. (Got the distance measurements from Google) If that 100km speed is believed to be true that's a very aggressive acceleration which is not indicated in his notes. I have a tiny 4 cylinder jeep. He wasn't behind me at the light and based on the radar notes he must have radar from behind me. It doesn't say in the manual what distance the radar is valid. I wasn't the only car on the road either so how do I know it would get me and not someone else. Do you have any insight to that? He must have been really far because it took 1.2KM to catch up and he had to speed to catch up. I was behind traffic that turned onto Kingston at Lawson and was following the flow so when he pulled me over I was no where near that speed.
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
P0rkchop wrote:
Jan 8th, 2018 9:57 am
Thank you for the reply. I've looked into the manual and it looks like the unit self tests itself and doesn't say it needs to be tested before and after so unless the OPP mandates it, doesn't look like I can use that as a defence. I've figured out that the 2000 and 2035 are times. My offence time was 2032 so possibly those times are when the unit was tested or when he pulled me over to when he finished making notes? IDK

"MPH recommends that you follow your court -proven department guidelines for performing tuning fork checks."
"When the BEE III is turned on, it will go through a complete self test. The radar will first perform a light test, in which all of the display's indicators will light, and then the radar will perform a speed test on the internal circuitry"

I'm struggling to word my defense and not sure if anything here even helps
I was stopped at the light 750m before Lawson (The first half of this distance is a large curve in the road) and the notes indicate he clocked me west of Lawson so really it was less than that distance. However he didn't signal to pull me over for another 1.2KM down the road. (Got the distance measurements from Google) If that 100km speed is believed to be true that's a very aggressive acceleration which is not indicated in his notes. I have a tiny 4 cylinder jeep. He wasn't behind me at the light and based on the radar notes he must have radar from behind me. It doesn't say in the manual what distance the radar is valid. I wasn't the only car on the road either so how do I know it would get me and not someone else. Do you have any insight to that? He must have been really far because it took 1.2KM to catch up and he had to speed to catch up. I was behind traffic that turned onto Kingston at Lawson and was following the flow so when he pulled me over I was no where near that speed.
Was the manual given to you as part of disclosure or did you download it from the internet somewhere?

The only way to know for sure more specifically about what happened, is to cross-examine the officer while they are on the stand. The downside of this is that you don't know what they will say and you don't know if it will help you or hurt you.
So did the officer lose sight of you and then catch up? If yes, then good chance it was the wrong vehicle.
Was the officer travelling the other direction when they clocked you? If so, then it could not have been you because they said the device was in SAME direction mode.
How did the officer test the unit? Did they follow the manufacturers instructions?
How did they test the unit? Need to ask them specifically to go thru the steps they followed.

There is caselaw for Ontario (unfortunately I don't know it off the top of my head) that does suggest the officers need to test device both before and after. My guess is that those times are test times, but you should ask that question in another letter to prosecutor for further explanation of what those times are (if they are even times).

Radar does NOT tell you what vehicle it is picking up. Radar has two modes... strongest and fastest mode.
- In fastest mode, the unit displays the speed of the fastest signal it is getting. This could be any of the vehicles that are in it's beam, so usually the officer will say something like "I observed the vehicle travelling at a high rate of speed compared to other vehicles, and the radar unit displays the fastest speed of all signals it is receiving and this vehicle was faster than the other vehciles and the speed indicated on the unit matched my estimated speed of the vehicle."
- In strongest mode, the unit displays the speed of the strongest signal it is getting (not the fastest). This is usually the closest vehicle, but not always. For example if a car is close but there is a large transport truck that is a little further away, the truck could be strongest signal. Again the radar does not indicate which vehicle the signal is coming from, so offciers testimony should say something about the estimated speed of the vehicle matching the reading on the display.
--
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.
--
Member
Jul 21, 2007
457 posts
8 upvotes
Toronto
I was at court this morning.
Prosecutor offered me 2 pt disobey sign (originally stop sign, going 69 at 40 zone (which i highly doubt i was at this speed), and unable to provide ownership), and $200 (plus 40 court) and they used a dash cam recording and showed me what i did.
The officer arrived at like 9:15am. All officer didn't show up except for mine. Lol

I took the 'offer'. Was this the right decision or could i have squeezed out by going through the trial?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
6412 posts
3519 upvotes
Edmonton
Carzzz wrote:
Jan 8th, 2018 2:01 pm
I was at court this morning.
Prosecutor offered me 2 pt disobey sign (originally stop sign, going 69 at 40 zone (which i highly doubt i was at this speed), and unable to provide ownership), and $200 (plus 40 court) and they used a dash cam recording and showed me what i did.
The officer arrived at like 9:15am. All officer didn't show up except for mine. Lol

I took the 'offer'. Was this the right decision or could i have squeezed out by going through the trial?
If they had video evidence of you doing what they said you were doing, and the officer was there, odds are very good that you would have lost your case. And got convicted of all the charges. Without seeing the video and the disclosure notes, nobody can say whether you did the right thing or not, though.

C
Newbie
Jan 6, 2018
2 posts
ShrekTek wrote:
Jan 8th, 2018 9:41 am
Pretty weak defense. The car in front would have had to turn before you stopped and turned meaning you would have had an opportunity to see signs.

These are the hardest tickets to beat because it is simply the officers word against yours... who do you think they will beleive?

Take it to trial for the experience but dont expect to win.
Hi Shrek,

Sorry but I need to clarify that this was at a light, the car in front of me drove straight through the intersection, while I made the right turn at the green light. Does this change the strength of my defence? I was more focused on not drifting while making the turn and also to not hit any pedestrians. My girlfriend was in the passenger side next to me while this all happened. Would it help for her to be my witness?

Thanks for your help and reply!
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
Carzzz wrote:
Jan 8th, 2018 2:01 pm
I was at court this morning.
Prosecutor offered me 2 pt disobey sign (originally stop sign, going 69 at 40 zone (which i highly doubt i was at this speed), and unable to provide ownership), and $200 (plus 40 court) and they used a dash cam recording and showed me what i did.
The officer arrived at like 9:15am. All officer didn't show up except for mine. Lol

I took the 'offer'. Was this the right decision or could i have squeezed out by going through the trial?
So you took the one charge of disobey sign instead of not stopping at stop sign, and he dropped the speeding charge and the no ownership charge?

That's a great deal!

Good job.
--
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
hoy2hoy wrote:
Jan 8th, 2018 7:07 pm
Hi Shrek,

Sorry but I need to clarify that this was at a light, the car in front of me drove straight through the intersection, while I made the right turn at the green light. Does this change the strength of my defence? I was more focused on not drifting while making the turn and also to not hit any pedestrians. My girlfriend was in the passenger side next to me while this all happened. Would it help for her to be my witness?

Thanks for your help and reply!
To me it still sounds pretty weak.

What would your girlfriend testify that would be helpful? She most likely was not paying any attention to whether the sign was visible or not because she was not driving so a good prosecutor would ask her questions to that effect.

And the charge is probably an absolute liability charge anyways which means you either did it or you did not do it. Why you did it is irrelevent (unless you can prove you did it because your life was in danger). I do not believe there is a due diligence defense on stuff like disobey sign.
--
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
Apr 12, 2010
2 posts
Toronto
Question...If the officer Blacks a line or two out in his notes is that good or bad? or what about the adobe please wait message? seems like they didnt print my disclosure probably or even checked since the last pages is just a print out of that
Member
Jul 21, 2007
457 posts
8 upvotes
Toronto
ShrekTek wrote:
Jan 8th, 2018 7:24 pm
So you took the one charge of disobey sign instead of not stopping at stop sign, and he dropped the speeding charge and the no ownership charge?

That's a great deal!

Good job.
I guess it is dropped as a package. $200 + 40 court fine is still hiffy imo.
When i discussed with the prosecutor, the officer hasnt arrived. So this might lead to a deal/offer.

ShrekTek, with the police dash cam, do i get a chance to walk out with no conviction if the cop doesnt show up?
The prosecutor showed me the video, and he says everything is so obvious and you get nowhere around it.
This cop is just too dedicated. He caught me on a rainy day and go to trial on a snowy day. I guess these two days wasnt my day.
Sr. Member
Feb 20, 2002
793 posts
206 upvotes
vader_slri wrote:
Jan 4th, 2018 3:42 am
Thanks for this great thread - very useful.

I got a speeding ticket 65 in a 50 last spring. I requested a trial date which is set for Tuesday Jan 9. Back in November, I requested disclosure (officer’s notes). In December, I received a letter in the mail saying that there was a DVD ready for me to pickup from the court offices. I was just able to pick it up yesterday (been crazy busy). Turns out it’s just dash cam footage with some audio recording. No notes from the officer were included even though I requested them. Should I submit another request, even though I likely won’t get the notes before the trial? What should I ask for at the trial?

Also, is it the prosecutor’s responsibility to provide me with all the evidence or can they divert me to police services to get the notes?
Update to my case: I went to court this morning. When I checked in with prosecutor, she immediately offered to reduce the charge to 60 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. I didn't accept the deal. She then threatened that if I went to trial, she would be seeking the full/non-reduced charge of 73 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. She then said I had been given disclosure to which I responded that I had only received a DVD. She found the officer's notes in her folder and gave them to me on the spot. She told me to look them over and let her know what I wanted to do.

At this point I was feeling a bit anxious from her pressure tactics. I sat down and looked over the officer's notes. They seemed fairly detailed and included a photocopy of the manual for the laser device that the officer used. At this point I wasn't feeling too confident but I made up my mind to at least ask for another trial date to give me enough time to prepare my defense. In the meantime, the prosecutor was making deals with other people. Reduced charges seem very easy to come by.

I took a look around the room to see if the officer that gave me the ticket was present. I must've looked 10 times. I didn't see him, though I wasn't 100% sure. I studied the faces of all the guys in the room (none of which were wearing police uniforms). Every time someone came in the courtroom, I immediately took a look to see if it was him. Then the JP entered and court started (about 5 minutes late). The prosecutor whipped through the prearranged deals. After each one, the clerk read through the charge, the JP asked the defendant if they understood the charges, and then they were processed. After about 7-8 cases, the prosecutor asked for a 15 min recess. During the commotion, I overheard my officer's name - the prosecutor was looking for him and asked for the recess to give him time to show up to court! I immediately grew more confident but was really annoyed that they asked for a recess so quickly. I think it had only been about 10-15 minutes of court time before the 15 min recess was requested.

Much to my chagrin, after about 20 min, the JP came back in and court resumed. By this time, I had been in court for about 40 min. The officer still hadn't shown up. The prosecutor started calling up people that were apparently charged by the same officer. Their cases were withdrawn. I had to sit through probably 20 more cases, some of which were assisted by interpreters, some of which were represented by paralegals, many of which were withdrawn because this one officer hadn't shown up. I overheard someone say that this officer usually shows up to court and they were surprised that he wasn't there. FINALLY, I got called up, seemed like I was one of the last remaining cases. I stated my name and the charge was withdrawn. I ran out of there!

Anyway, thanks ShrekTek for the advice and this thread for arming me with the right tools/knowledge. I totally lucked out with the officer not showing but felt pretty well prepared regardless.
Sr. Member
Nov 3, 2009
759 posts
239 upvotes
Calgary
ShrekTek wrote:
Jan 4th, 2018 10:07 am
NEVER lie to police or lie on the witness. Never!

You have the right not to testify against yourself, so you are better to say "no comment" than to lie. You also have the right NOT to take the witness stand and therefore you do not have to answer any questions that they ask you if you are not on the stand.

As far as disclosure, you MUST get this as there is the only way to know what their actual case is against. Officers are required to come to trial whether or not you asked for disclosure.
CNeufeld wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2018 6:53 pm
When you request disclosure, you will get any evidence they intend to introduce at your trial. It could be video, but it's often just the officer's notes that they make regarding the stop. If it's not in the evidence you get, then they can't mention it in the trial. If you get handwritten notes that you can't read, you can request a typed version of them.

C
Hi,

I've got my disclosure report.

Here's what the police says:

- observed lone F occ in white toyota Approaching the intersection at ogden Rd SE and 69 Ave SE where the light was RED.
- vehicle did not slow down and stopped at the intersection.
- driver truned fast on 69 Ave SE and came into CP campus.
- asked for warning
- explained to driver the importance of being careful in winter conditions.

And a drawing:
F|/
/|/

In the form also filled:
Traffic Conditions: Moderate
Road: Paved and Wet
Weather: snowing, -1C, Wet

She also wrote down my hair colour is black, however it isn't. Not sure if this can be used for anything.

First, I stopped and of cause I slowed down (Otherwise, how do I make a turn without slowing down). So that's a lie.

Second, the traffic condition isn't moderate. It was most like no traffic.

Lastly, her description is vague. She didn't mention I was making a right turn from Ogden Rd northbound into 69 AVE eastbound. She also didn't mention she actually followed me for a while then pulled me over.

She makes the report sounds like I was red light on a straight traffic. But it was for a right turn. I stopped a little not for a full second though.

Any suggestions to fight this ticket?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
6412 posts
3519 upvotes
Edmonton
ibuddler wrote:
Jan 9th, 2018 11:22 am
Hi,

I've got my disclosure report.

Here's what the police says:

- observed lone F occ in white toyota Approaching the intersection at ogden Rd SE and 69 Ave SE where the light was RED.
- vehicle did not slow down and stopped at the intersection.
- driver truned fast on 69 Ave SE and came into CP campus.
- asked for warning
- explained to driver the importance of being careful in winter conditions.

And a drawing:
F|/
/|/

In the form also filled:
Traffic Conditions: Moderate
Road: Paved and Wet
Weather: snowing, -1C, Wet

She also wrote down my hair colour is black, however it isn't. Not sure if this can be used for anything.

First, I stopped and of cause I slowed down (Otherwise, how do I make a turn without slowing down). So that's a lie.

Second, the traffic condition isn't moderate. It was most like no traffic.

Lastly, her description is vague. She didn't mention I was making a right turn from Ogden Rd northbound into 69 AVE eastbound. She also didn't mention she actually followed me for a while then pulled me over.

She makes the report sounds like I was red light on a straight traffic. But it was for a right turn. I stopped a little not for a full second though.

Any suggestions to fight this ticket?
How do you "stop a little"? Either you stopped or you didn't.

In any case, it's going to be a "she said/she said" if the officer shows up for your trial, and there's nothing in what you've said or in the officer's notes that seem like it will save you, from what I can see. You don't have video footage of your own to prove your claim. So your best bet might be to show up and try for a deal. Or hope the officer doesn't show up. Maybe CP officers are less likely to show up; who knows...

C
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
clone702008 wrote:
Jan 8th, 2018 8:02 pm
Question...If the officer Blacks a line or two out in his notes is that good or bad? or what about the adobe please wait message? seems like they didnt print my disclosure probably or even checked since the last pages is just a print out of that
Usually if there is blacked out lines it's because those do not pertain to your ticket. If it is a couple lines right in the middle of all stuff relating to your ticket then I might question why it was blacked out.

I don't really know what you mean by adobe please wait message... You seem to be saying you got a printed page that says "please wait"?

Anyways, I would send another request to prosecutor asking why certain lines were blacked out, and why they sent you the "please wait" page (include a copy of the please wait page when you send it).
--
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.
--

Top