Automotive

What happens to scheduled traffic court dates during this pandemic?

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 9th, 2020 12:37 pm
[OP]
Member
Jun 4, 2016
230 posts
59 upvotes

What happens to scheduled traffic court dates during this pandemic?

They're rescheduling them and sending out new notices when things are back up and running. But I can't help and think that even if they do, the backlog and delays will be massive.

And let's say the cases do advance at some point, Wouldn't it be more difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt after such a long time. The officer won't be able to actually remember events on his own accord.

Thoughts?
26 replies
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 5, 2004
25423 posts
4524 upvotes
As you said, they're rescheduling them.
Your second point is an argument for court. Considering officers write everything down though, they will be able to refer to their notes to jog their memory. If they didn't write anything down, then you will have an argument.
Newbie
Jul 9, 2017
62 posts
176 upvotes
molombian wrote: And let's say the cases do advance at some point, Wouldn't it be more difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt after such a long time. The officer won't be able to actually remember events on his own accord.

Thoughts?
They write all the important details down and have dash camera footage. They will also be more likely to attend court, as they'll miss the overtime pay.
[OP]
Member
Jun 4, 2016
230 posts
59 upvotes
After something like this, and a long time from now I doubt someone will be able to remember details of something written down. Which is why I say it's going to be difficult to prove reasonable doubt. Notes are not sufficient to win a case in court, that's why in a defense you poke holes in the disclosure through questioning.
Shaner wrote: As you said, they're rescheduling them.
Your second point is an argument for court. Considering officers write everything down though, they will be able to refer to their notes to jog their memory. If they didn't write anything down, then you will have an argument.
[OP]
Member
Jun 4, 2016
230 posts
59 upvotes
OPP officers don't have dash cam footage actually.
en3rgy wrote: They write all the important details down and have dash camera footage. They will also be more likely to attend court, as they'll miss the overtime pay.
[OP]
Member
Jun 4, 2016
230 posts
59 upvotes
BeaverLiquor wrote: I wish McDonalds had their full menu all day like A&W, instead of just all day breakfast.
Me too but we're talking traffic tickets here. Maybe you should post this in the food and drink forum.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 5, 2004
25423 posts
4524 upvotes
molombian wrote: After something like this, and a long time from now I doubt someone will be able to remember details of something written down. Which is why I say it's going to be difficult to prove reasonable doubt. Notes are not sufficient to win a case in court, that's why in a defense you poke holes in the disclosure through questioning.
That's your opinion, but you're wrong. If you were right, murder trails, which take years, would never result in a finding of guilt, or at least would never rely on eye witness testimony or statements given to police at the time of the crime.

The officer doesn't need to remember all the details if it's written down. If his notes say it was sunny and clear, then unless you can definitely prove otherwise, that's what the court will believe. If the officers notes say he calibrated his radar and that you were speeding, then you better be able to poke a hole in that somehow, or the court will consider it fact. The officers notes will absolutely be used to convict you unless you can somehow cast doubt on the evidence being provided. Simply claiming the notes aren't sufficient and the officer can't remember won't get you very far
[OP]
Member
Jun 4, 2016
230 posts
59 upvotes
Apples to oranges. Murder trials are the other end of the spectrum and would most certainly be taken seriously. You basically just repeated what I said, you have to poke holes in the officers testimony. If you are speeding you should question things like the device used to measure your speed, how accurate it is, the amount of traffic on the road at that time. Pull up data based on traffic reports etc.

But what I'm also saying is that if this takes too long with a backlog there is a limitation period on traffic cases where they get thrown out after 18 months. This could very well last a long time and a backlog of cases will probably cause many cases scheduled to now go over the 18 month period.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
12097 posts
8408 upvotes
Edmonton
molombian wrote: Apples to oranges. Murder trials are the other end of the spectrum and would most certainly be taken seriously. You basically just repeated what I said, you have to poke holes in the officers testimony. If you are speeding you should question things like the device used to measure your speed, how accurate it is, the amount of traffic on the road at that time. Pull up data based on traffic reports etc.

But what I'm also saying is that if this takes too long with a backlog there is a limitation period on traffic cases where they get thrown out after 18 months. This could very well last a long time and a backlog of cases will probably cause many cases scheduled to now go over the 18 month period.
The 18 month benchmark was set based on what was a "reasonable" length of time for a trial to occur. It would be foolish to assume that benchmark won't be adjusted, depending on how long the court shutdown lasts.

C
Deal Fanatic
Sep 1, 2004
6363 posts
4983 upvotes
molombian wrote: Apples to oranges. Murder trials are the other end of the spectrum and would most certainly be taken seriously. You basically just repeated what I said, you have to poke holes in the officers testimony. If you are speeding you should question things like the device used to measure your speed, how accurate it is, the amount of traffic on the road at that time. Pull up data based on traffic reports etc.

But what I'm also saying is that if this takes too long with a backlog there is a limitation period on traffic cases where they get thrown out after 18 months. This could very well last a long time and a backlog of cases will probably cause many cases scheduled to now go over the 18 month period.
If people are actually staying at home, where's the additional volume backlog is going to come from?

If anything 1-2% of cases will drop because defendants are going to die from COVID19 and lightened the court's load.
[OP]
Member
Jun 4, 2016
230 posts
59 upvotes
Xtrema wrote: If people are actually staying at home, where's the additional volume backlog is going to come from?

If anything 1-2% of cases will drop because defendants are going to die from COVID19 and lightened the court's load.
That's so disrespectful to say, you shouldn't say that.
And if you haven't kept up with the news there are more people speeding and street racing now than the same period last year. So yeah there are always new cases and there will be a backlog.

As for them extending the 18 month period to throw cases out. Yeah I'm sure they will but that isn't going to make it easier to convict based on the time period elapsed. You can't expect an officer to recall everything in his notes and beyond after more than 18 months.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 1, 2004
6363 posts
4983 upvotes
molombian wrote: That's so disrespectful to say, you shouldn't say that.
And if you haven't kept up with the news there are more people speeding and street racing now than the same period last year. So yeah there are always new cases and there will be a backlog.

As for them extending the 18 month period to throw cases out. Yeah I'm sure they will but that isn't going to make it easier to convict based on the time period elapsed. You can't expect an officer to recall everything in his notes and beyond after more than 18 months.
Cold hard truth. projection is 1600 by end of Apr and 6000 by this time next year just in Ontario. Scarey part is Ontario and Quebec has so much US traffic, I think that projection is on the low side.

Even if there are a lot of punks out there doing stupid shit, I believe the volume should still a lot less than pre-lockdown.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 8, 2007
9006 posts
10283 upvotes
Way Out of GTA
If govt can allow tenants to live rent free without threat of eviction. I’d hope you can do whatever you want on the roads.

I’ve added an nice 10kph to what I normally drive. Gotta escape the virus you know.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 8, 2007
9006 posts
10283 upvotes
Way Out of GTA
BeaverLiquor wrote: I wish McDonalds had their full menu all day like A&W, instead of just all day breakfast.
I’m happy I have a coupon for $3 McChickens that I can use over and over again since they don’t take them from you. Social distancing FTW!
molombian wrote: Me too but we're talking traffic tickets here. Maybe you should post this in the food and drink forum.
With money saved not worrying about paying stupid tickets... McD and A&W sounds pretty tasty no?
Deal Fanatic
Apr 11, 2006
8973 posts
3336 upvotes
Mississauga
molombian wrote: After something like this, and a long time from now I doubt someone will be able to remember details of something written down. Which is why I say it's going to be difficult to prove reasonable doubt. Notes are not sufficient to win a case in court, that's why in a defense you poke holes in the disclosure through questioning.
Reasonable doubt does not apply for traffic cases. The onus will solely be on you to prove that you are not guilty... that's it.
[OP]
Member
Jun 4, 2016
230 posts
59 upvotes
kenchau wrote: Reasonable doubt does not apply for traffic cases. The onus will solely be on you to prove that you are not guilty... that's it.
WOW! You should message the admins of these reputable websites and ask them to change their resource then because you seem to know it all.

https://www.ontariotraffictickets.com/s ... g-tickets/

https://fightthecharges.com/offenses/traffic-tickets/
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 5, 2004
25423 posts
4524 upvotes
kenchau wrote: Reasonable doubt does not apply for traffic cases. The onus will solely be on you to prove that you are not guilty... that's it.
Not entirely true. The prosecutor still needs to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they just don't need to prove intent. It doesn't matter if you intended to speed or not, all that matters is you did speed.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 11, 2006
8973 posts
3336 upvotes
Mississauga
molombian wrote: WOW! You should message the admins of these reputable websites and ask them to change their resource then because you seem to know it all.

https://www.ontariotraffictickets.com/s ... g-tickets/

https://fightthecharges.com/offenses/traffic-tickets/
Shaner wrote: Not entirely true. The prosecutor still needs to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they just don't need to prove intent. It doesn't matter if you intended to speed or not, all that matters is you did speed.
Put it this way. If you got a speeding ticket and walked into the court room and all the police officer says is you were speeding according to the radar or laser gun, and you have nothing to say, you're going to get convicted.

They don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They merely quote the speed on the gun and the area and corresponding speed limit.

The onus is on the defendent to disprove those facts or prove that they are not credible.

As i said before, the onus is on OP. OP thinks he can just sit there and say nothing and the judge is going to decide whether police officer's testimony is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt? Keep dreaming.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 5, 2004
25423 posts
4524 upvotes
kenchau wrote: Put it this way. If you got a speeding ticket and walked into the court room and all the police officer says is you were speeding according to the radar or laser gun, and you have nothing to say, you're going to get convicted.

They don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They merely quote the speed on the gun and the area and corresponding speed limit.

The onus is on the defendent to disprove those facts or prove that they are not credible.

As i said before, the onus is on OP. OP thinks he can just sit there and say nothing and the judge is going to decide whether police officer's testimony is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt? Keep dreaming.
You're right, if the cop says he was speeding and the OP has nothing that can put doubt in what the officer says, then yes, he'll be convicted.

Top