Advice needed – What to request in a disclosure

[Krime]

You have a short window since you've still not been to court.

Go to the courthouse and extend the court date.

The reason will be that you did not receive disclosure, make sure to show them the form (they may not even look at it).

They will extend the court date to a later date and advise you that they will not extend the next date.

They will advise you to request disclosure a second time and it is recommended that you do this.

You will have a much stronger case to show the JP on the date of your court date if you still did not have disclosure despite requesting it twice (with proof to back that up).

The next part depends on if you actually get disclosure or not but until then, you should hire proper legal representation so that this ticket will be reduced or thrown out.
- Most likely, being dropped to failure to obey sign, typical B.S that will allow the court to collect funding from you while keeping your record clean.

Interesting approach although I'm not sure how much this will change things if I do this in advance vs. show up to court on the day of and mention the lack of a disclosure, especially if they intend on handing it to me on the day of (as hedo mentioned) anyways.

I'm less inclined to hire a paralegal as most often times they settle for a reduced charge (which is usually all they promise), but with it still showing up on your record its considered the same in the eyes of insurance, meanwhile you're out another $400+ for the paralegal hire.

 

[Nevo]

I take my chances going to court to see if the cop shows. If they don't show, you win. If they show, you tell the JP you didn't receive disclosure and you get another chance to hope the cop doesn't show. Your way loses a shot at a guaranteed dismissal in exchange for stronger argument for dismissal. I just don't see why it is better.

How does failure to obey sign keep your record clean? It has less demerit points, but still counts as a minor ticket for insurance. I have never met anybody that collected enough demerit points that they affected their license.

The chance of the police officer not showing is the same for this court date as it would be for the next.

Showing the Justice of Peace that you've requested disclosure twice and you haven't received it twice is a strong argument.

There is no such thing as a guaranteed dismissal so I wouldn't bank on that.

Failure to obey sign is the typical B.S that higher speeding tickets result in, say you had 20+ over, that's what the JP will agree to.

Most insurance companies will not even care about that ticket in comparison to a speeding ticket that is 15+ which will result in you paying more.

It's not a matter of the points affecting your license but rather the cost of your insurance going up and the failure to obey sign will not cause your rates to become higher.


If you don't receive disclosure, it typically means that the officer forgot to fill in the proper paperwork or wasn't bothered to do it because they had other plans... in any case, this only works in your favor.

If you request the disclosure twice and you still do not receive it upon the court date and the officer shows (which usually never happens at that point), you'll have a stronger case because you are legally entitled to the disclosure but if the officer failed to fill in his paperwork correctly, then you'll never receive it which will allow for your case to be thrown out.

I've personally gone though this so take it how you will.

You can of-course, hire legal representation that will assist you with the matter.

Interesting approach although I'm not sure how much this will change things if I do this in advance vs. show up to court on the day of and mention the lack of a disclosure, especially if they intend on handing it to me on the day of (as hedo mentioned) anyways.

I'm less inclined to hire a paralegal as most often times they settle for a reduced charge (which is usually all they promise), but with it still showing up on your record its considered the same in the eyes of insurance, meanwhile you're out another $400+ for the paralegal hire.

If you show up to court, you will loose your chance of being able to claim that you never recieved disclosure and that you've requested it twice.

Additionally, if they hand it to you on the court date, you are entitled to have the court date rescheduled to a later time where you can either review it or have proper representation.

They cannot force you to review the disclosure and have the session in court in the next 3 hours, that is ridiculous and infringing on your right to defend yourself.

Should they request that your court date be rescheduled to in the next few hours, you simply address the court and state that you have not had enough time to review the disclosure and that you need proper legal representation therefore it must be rescheduled to a later date and seeing as how you need to hire someone to represent yourself, you'll need to have the court date two weeks from now.


Since you had a higher speed recorded and the officer reduced it on your ticket, they will know this and will use this against you and therefore will not offer you anything different. They will either offer you to pay the ticket the way it is (reduced) or go to trial and fight the higher speed to which you'll hire a paralegal anyway because that will be the best way to go about it.

If you need a good paralegal, contact COPSLTD. They will be able to do it for for around $300 which will be worth it considering your time and the increased insurance rates should you pay for the ticket or fail and have the higher speed used against you.

FYI, I've been using COPSLTD for a really long time and they've always been able to resolve the issue for both myself and my family and friends.

 

[GreyGhost]

The chance of the police officer not showing is the same for this court date as it would be for the next.

Showing the Justice of Peace that you've requested disclosure twice and you haven't received it twice is a strong argument.

There is no such thing as a guaranteed dismissal so I wouldn't bank on that.

Most insurance companies will not even care about that ticket in comparison to a speeding ticket that is 15+ which will result in you paying more.

It's not a matter of the points affecting your license but rather the cost of your insurance going up and the failure to obey sign will not cause your rates to become higher.

Correct, the chance of the cop showing up (or not) is reasonably the same every time. You double your odds if you give them two chances not to show up.

I agree that showing you keep requesting with no results is a strong argument but unfortunately JP's can decide whatever they want.

I have never heard of a case where the cop didn't show up, the defendant politely asked the court to dismiss and it wasn't granted. Have you?

Anything I can find considers failure to obey sign a minor ticket. This means it is exactly equivalent to a speeding ticket (<45 km/h over) for most insurance companies. Do you have a source of information to the contrary? It would be helpful if failure to obey sign did not affect your rates, but I can't find a single source (other than you) that says this. Are you sure your rates weren't affected because you only had one recent conviction?

 

[Evoex]

Correct, the chance of the cop showing up (or not) is reasonably the same every time. You double your odds if you give them two chances not to show up.

I agree that showing you keep requesting with no results is a strong argument but unfortunately JP's can decide whatever they want.

I have never heard of a case where the cop didn't show up, the defendant politely asked the court to dismiss and it wasn't granted. Have you?

Anything I can find considers failure to obey sign a minor ticket. This means it is exactly equivalent to a speeding ticket (<45 km/h over) for most insurance companies. Do you have a source of information to the contrary? It would be helpful if failure to obey sign did not affect your rates, but I can't find a single source (other than you) that says this. Are you sure your rates weren't affected because you only had one recent conviction?

I don't believe he understands fully how insurance companies view tickets, minor or otherwise.

 

[Evoex]

They cannot force you to review the disclosure and have the session in court in the next 3 hours, that is ridiculous and infringing on your right to defend yourself.

Absolutely they can, I've had it done to me twice. Twice i had to argue repeatedly that it was insufficient time to prepare my defense and the crown had to take the hit. Had i said nothing i would have been stuck.

 

[hedo2002]

OP do NOT listen to this advice is wrought with mis information and assumptions.

Firstly disobey a stop sign conviction carries insurance implications as it is a MOVING violation only ADMINISTRATIVE violations carry no insurance ramifications.

Secondly, it is NOT an infringement of your rights if the JP only gives you a few hours to build your defence after receiving disclosure. It "may" be unfair, but the only way to have the issue rectified is via an appeal which is $10,000's of dollars to launch and see through.

Again Police officers are almost always in court, so relying upon this as an "out" is at best a crap shoot.

I do agree go to your court date, get disclosure, and set a new trial date. if it is outside the 11b "guidelines" then when you go back is the time to seek an 11b ruling. BUT< also be aware they are only guidelines a JP may rule that you must proceed so BE PREPARE.

The chance of the police officer not showing is the same for this court date as it would be for the next.

Showing the Justice of Peace that you've requested disclosure twice and you haven't received it twice is a strong argument.

There is no such thing as a guaranteed dismissal so I wouldn't bank on that.

Failure to obey sign is the typical B.S that higher speeding tickets result in, say you had 20+ over, that's what the JP will agree to.

Most insurance companies will not even care about that ticket in comparison to a speeding ticket that is 15+ which will result in you paying more.

It's not a matter of the points affecting your license but rather the cost of your insurance going up and the failure to obey sign will not cause your rates to become higher.


If you don't receive disclosure, it typically means that the officer forgot to fill in the proper paperwork or wasn't bothered to do it because they had other plans... in any case, this only works in your favor.

If you request the disclosure twice and you still do not receive it upon the court date and the officer shows (which usually never happens at that point), you'll have a stronger case because you are legally entitled to the disclosure but if the officer failed to fill in his paperwork correctly, then you'll never receive it which will allow for your case to be thrown out.

I've personally gone though this so take it how you will.

You can of-course, hire legal representation that will assist you with the matter.



If you show up to court, you will loose your chance of being able to claim that you never recieved disclosure and that you've requested it twice.

Additionally, if they hand it to you on the court date, you are entitled to have the court date rescheduled to a later time where you can either review it or have proper representation.

They cannot force you to review the disclosure and have the session in court in the next 3 hours, that is ridiculous and infringing on your right to defend yourself.

Should they request that your court date be rescheduled to in the next few hours, you simply address the court and state that you have not had enough time to review the disclosure and that you need proper legal representation therefore it must be rescheduled to a later date and seeing as how you need to hire someone to represent yourself, you'll need to have the court date two weeks from now.


Since you had a higher speed recorded and the officer reduced it on your ticket, they will know this and will use this against you and therefore will not offer you anything different. They will either offer you to pay the ticket the way it is (reduced) or go to trial and fight the higher speed to which you'll hire a paralegal anyway because that will be the best way to go about it.

If you need a good paralegal, contact COPSLTD. They will be able to do it for for around $300 which will be worth it considering your time and the increased insurance rates should you pay for the ticket or fail and have the higher speed used against you.

FYI, I've been using COPSLTD for a really long time and they've always been able to resolve the issue for both myself and my family and friends.

 

[Nevo]

I have never heard of a case where the cop didn't show up, the defendant politely asked the court to dismiss and it wasn't granted. Have you?

Anything I can find considers failure to obey sign a minor ticket. This means it is exactly equivalent to a speeding ticket (<45 km/h over) for most insurance companies. Do you have a source of information to the contrary? It would be helpful if failure to obey sign did not affect your rates, but I can't find a single source (other than you) that says this. Are you sure your rates weren't affected because you only had one recent conviction?

When the police officer doesn't show up, the Justice of the peace will drop all charges, I've never heard of someone having to ask for that to happen and it has always been dismissed however all JP's and County' behave differently, especially depending on their mood during that specific day.

I can agree to the fact that there are many insurance companies that operate differently however, the failure to obey sign is something that is very common when trying to have the speeding ticket with 20+ reduced in court and I have confirmed that it does not affect your rates from the companies I've been insured with and the paralegals I've hired and spoken to.

However, one should find out directly from their insurance provider how they view such a ticket, just to be sure what really affects them.

I don't believe he understands fully how insurance companies view tickets, minor or otherwise.

I don't believe you believe that you fully understand what I understand. :hiding:

Absolutely they can, I've had it done to me twice. Twice i had to argue repeatedly that it was insufficient time to prepare my defense and the crown had to take the hit. Had i said nothing i would have been stuck.

Just an example... when you are pulled over, the police can lie to you, they can ticket you for whatever they believe is within their power and then you go to court to fight that, even if its something that will infringe on your rights, it does not matter at that point in time. Just because the JP will try to sucker you into having to prepare your defense within such a short window doesn't mean that you have to accept that B.S as you are entitled to proper representation and due process. I've never heard of a Judge not agreeing with this even if the JP tried to pull one over on you.

OP do NOT listen to this advice is wrought with mis information and assumptions.

Firstly disobey a stop sign conviction carries insurance implications as it is a MOVING violation only ADMINISTRATIVE violations carry no insurance ramifications.

Secondly, it is NOT an infringement of your rights if the JP only gives you a few hours to build your defence after receiving disclosure. It "may" be unfair, but the only way to have the issue rectified is via an appeal which is $10,000's of dollars to launch and see through.

Again Police officers are almost always in court, so relying upon this as an "out" is at best a crap shoot.

I do agree go to your court date, get disclosure, and set a new trial date. if it is outside the 11b "guidelines" then when you go back is the time to seek an 11b ruling. BUT< also be aware they are only guidelines a JP may rule that you must proceed so BE PREPARE.

The whole disobey a sign has been blown out of proportion... It was merely an example of what I've come across a lot and witnessed in traffic court occur because of the reasons I mentioned above and I personally have never heard of any insurance increase based on this charge vs speeding tickets over 20+ so what you've stated is news to me.

Having a few hours to build your defense after receiving disclosure is a violation of your rights because you have the right to seek legal representation and because you cannot have someone come to the court room within such a small window, they must allow you to adjourn the court date to a later date. Not doing so is clearly an infringement of your rights. You can continue to argue with me about this but it doesn't change the law.

After all, I am not a professional paralegal, neither are any of the other people posting here and we are merely stating our opinions with some choosing to attack me on the basis that they believe I am "Misinformed" and my "personal experience" doesn't amount to anything.


So OP, Do yourself a favor and talk to some paralegals that actually do this for a living and find out what your options are.

Don't be surprised if you are able to confirm what I've stated in this thread as-well as do your own homework.

Good luck.

 

[Evoex]

So you said they cannot force you.

absolutely they can tell you to go into the hall and come back and the trial is proceeding. Don't like it? What are you going to do about it; Tell everyone in the room it's not fair, throw your hands up and storm out?

If, after all my arguments the JP said tough cookies, guess whats happening; Trial is moving forward.

I'm certainly not attacking you, i'm disagreeing with you. Sheesh.

Also,

Hedo btw is an ex police officer, his "opinion" is based on a full career of listening to people sing/dance/fail their way through the court system for likely decades. May want to walk back some of your statement.

 

[Nevo]

So you said they cannot force you.

absolutely they can tell you to go into the hall and come back and the trial is proceeding. Don't like it? What are you going to do about it; Tell everyone in the room it's not fair, throw your hands up and storm out?

If, after all my arguments the JP said tough cookies, guess whats happening; Trial is moving forward.

When the Justice of the Peace asks for your defense. You are going to state for the record that you cannot make one because you require legal representation to proceed forward with the trial and that you were given insufficient time to prepare. Thus you request to have this trial adjourned to a later date. Any reasonable JP or Judge that remembers their oath and your charter of rights and freedoms will agree.


Now, I get what you're saying, the JP could be a total turd sandwich and clearly doesn't care for anything however the chance of the Judge also being on board with that is slim.

I have never heard of this happening and for you to have experienced it twice is pretty unlucky. What County and Courthouse was this at?

Hedo btw is an ex police officer, his "opinion" is based on a full career of listening to people sing/dance/fail their way through the court system for likely decades. May want to walk back some of your statement.

Also, I know Hedo is an ex police officer and we dont agree on many things. There is another thread where I called him out and he never replied.

To be blunt, I am happy that hes retired, the community is better off without someone like him in power issuing tickets just because he can.

I've stated this before, I have friends in law enforcement and I've had very interesting conversations with many police officers from multiple local PD's and OPP.

Maybe I'm just different, you know, I like people and think the whole court system that is designed to earn money for the county as apposed to actually caring about the offense is really a summary of what a joke the entire thing really is. You go to traffic court enough times and just sit through the entire process and just about anyone will see how ridiculous it is.

 

[Evoex]

When the Justice of the Peace asks for your defense. You are going to state for the record that you cannot make one because you require legal representation to proceed forward with the trial and that you were given insufficient time to prepare. Thus you request to have this trial adjourned to a later date. Any reasonable JP or Judge that remembers their oath and your charter of rights and freedoms will agree.


Now, I get what you're saying, the JP could be a total turd sandwich and clearly doesn't care for anything however the chance of the Judge also being on board with that is slim.

I have never heard of this happening and for you to have experienced it twice is pretty unlucky. What County and Courthouse was this at?



Also, I know Hedo is an ex police officer and we dont agree on many things. There is another thread where I called him out and he never replied.

To be blunt, I am happy that hes retired, the community is better off without someone like him in power issuing tickets just because he can.

I've stated this before, I have friends in law enforcement and I've had very interesting conversations with many police officers from multiple local PD's and OPP.

Maybe I'm just different, you know, I like people and think the whole court system that is designed to earn money for the county as apposed to actually caring about the offense is really a summary of what a joke the entire thing really is. You go to traffic court enough times and just sit through the entire process and just about anyone will see how ridiculous it is.

Toronto Old City Hall.

That's pretty savage thing to say man. jeebus.

 

[Krime]

Yes, the JP will ask at the start if you have anything to say before they begin. You can request the case be dismissed on the grounds that you did not receive proper disclosure. This is rarely enough but what you're looking for is the crown to adjourn the case, this moves you closer to an 11b dismissal. You never want to be the one asking for an adjournment, any delay you make doesn't count towards violating your right to a speedy trial.

I want to get my head straight on the order of things, let me know if this is correct. My understanding is that I'll first speak to the crown prosector (before the JP) who will ask me how I intend to plea. Instead of stating my plea of not guilty, I'll mentioned that I did not receive disclosure as requested. At this point he may attempt to provide it to me on the spot, to which I'll respond it's insufficient time for me to prepare my defence and ask for an adjournment (if he doesn't provide a disclosure on the spot, I'll ask for a dismissal instead since they didn't come prepared). Will all of this go down before I even speak with the JP? I always thought that the JP starts out by asking how you would like to plea. I'd like to make sure I don't mention my plea of not guilty before before having a chance to review the content in the disclosure, since it may end up influencing my decision on how I'll plea.

A couple more questions:

1) The location on the ticket mentions an intersection, yet the officer was parked at the entranceway to a condo unit. The main street is correct, however the intersecting road is up a bit more. Would this be considered an inaccuracy? Should the ticket reflect where the my car was pulled over when he issued the ticket or where the radar/speed was originally captured from?

2) When I went up to the officers vehicle and asked for a warning before he had issued the ticket, there was a colleague with him in the passenger seat (I approached from his window). If it went to trial and he were to bring up that I'd requested a warning, would that mean that the other officer on duty who was sitting in the car with him would have to be present as a witness?

3) When I finally receive disclosure and if there is additional information (eg. radar calibration details) that are not included, am I still able to request additional disclosure even if they were not specifically called out in my followup request?

 

[Evoex]

I want to get my head straight on the order of things, let me know if this is correct. My understanding is that I'll first speak to the crown prosector (before the JP) who will ask me how I intend to plea. Instead of stating my plea of not guilty, I'll mentioned that I did not receive disclosure as requested. At this point he may attempt to provide it to me on the spot, to which I'll respond it's insufficient time for me to prepare my defence and ask for an adjournment (if he doesn't provide a disclosure on the spot, I'll ask for a dismissal instead since they didn't come prepared). Will all of this go down before I even speak with the JP? I always thought that the JP starts out by asking how you would like to plea. I'd like to make sure I don't mention my plea of not guilty before before having a chance to review the content in the disclosure, since it may end up influencing my decision on how I'll plea.

A couple more questions:

1) The location on the ticket mentions an intersection, yet the officer was parked at the entranceway to a condo unit. The main street is correct, however the intersecting road is up a bit more. Would this be considered an inaccuracy? Should the ticket reflect where the my car was pulled over when he issued the ticket or where the radar/speed was originally captured from?

2) When I went up to the officers vehicle and asked for a warning before he had issued the ticket, there was a colleague with him in the passenger seat (I approached from his window). If it went to trial and he were to bring up that I'd requested a warning, would that mean that the other officer on duty who was sitting in the car with him would have to be present as a witness?

3) When I finally receive disclosure and if there is additional information (eg. radar calibration details) that are not included, am I still able to request additional disclosure even if they were not specifically called out in my followup request?

It's been awhile but the way i remember it, the JP asked if i had anything to say before we began. Someone can correct me if i'm off track.

The key thing i wanted to pass on is that you should never be the one asking for an adjournment, let the crown do that. Every time they delay the trial it's one step closer for you to file for dismissal based on 11b infringement (your right to a speedy trial). When you discuss the lack of disclosure your only concern should be on convincing the JP that proceeding without a detailed review of the evidence is a violation of your rights and as such your stance is that the case should be tossed out. In my case the crown actually tried to play the "we never got his request" game with me, but when i showed the JP my Registered Mail receipts and a copy of both requests letters they magically found it at the bottom of their paperwork.

As for the plea, well. Realistically speaking, you`re either saying you did it or you didn't, not "i didn't unless you really got me, then okay i guess i did." But i get where you`re going.

1) Not sure how to directly answer your question (because i don't know). However, if you can prove that the officer did not have reasonable Line of Sight to your vehicle then you have the makings for a great defense. I had a friend get a rolling stop ticket tossed because he could prove that under questioning the officer, from where the officer was sitting in his car he could not have properly viewed the rotation of his wheels at the intersection.

2) Well you have some balls for getting out of your car! Again i don't know the answer.

3) It's my understanding that you can always ask, you may not get it. Not getting specific items (type written notes, radar gun calibration, etc) is not always something you can leverage with the court.

 

[GreyGhost]

Be very careful with your questions. Some of them (like I requested a warning) come very close to admitting guilt. As soon as you admit to speeding in court (even 1 km/h over), JP has heard enough and you are guilty.

To answer your questions:
Speak to prosecutor, ask if cop is present (if not, tell them you are not guilty and will ask JP for dismissal as cop is not present to support the charge), indicate you didn't receive disclosure, say you intend to plead not guilty, if prosecutor offers you disclosure today say you need more time, go sit down and wait for your case to be called. Tell JP you are pleading not guilty but you haven't received the requested disclosure to formulate your defense. Offer proof of request and tell JP that prosecutor offered disclosure now but you have had insufficient time to review because they didn't send it months ago when you requested. At that point JP normally grants an adjournment (weeks to months) to give you time to prepare and instructs prosecutor to ensure you receive requested information today. Go sit again. Wait for cop to be done all of their cases and then follow them to a photocopier somewhere in the building to get an illegible copy of their notebook. Good luck getting the typed copy, decoder ring, manual etc. Ensure you have some idea what was documented before letting the cop leave. Use the missing information when you return to court as support. If you actually get to the point of trying to be found not-guilty in court make sure you have a real plan with support. Saying you didn't do it when the cop says you did gets you a guilty verdict. Saying you were speeding less than the cop said, guilty. Saying that they got the wrong car without a plausible explanation, guilty. Make sure you actually have something to work with.

1) I would be amazed if this was considered a fatal error. I would expect this to be considered a minor error that could be corrected in court if requested.
2) If one officer used the gun and wrote the ticket, the second shouldn't be required. IIRC, if the jobs were divided (eg. helicopter and pursuit car), both officers were required but I think they changed the rules so that may not be the case anymore.
3) No idea. You can ask for anything. Ensure you have a sufficiently vague statement like "any other information that may be pertinent to my case". I doubt they would give you anything with that statement, but you could use it in court to argue they missed something.

 

[nakkers]

Been so long since I’ve been to traffic court. If memory serves me correctly, doesn’t the JP make themselves available to meet with defendants before the cases are called before a judge?

This is from my days back in London and was pretty sure there was a little office with a sign indicating the JP. Folks waited in line to meet with them and then waited for court etc.

Forgive my ignorance or taking thread off track.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Evoex]

Been so long since I’ve been to traffic court. If memory serves me correctly, doesn’t the JP make themselves available to meet with defendants before the cases are called before a judge?

This is from my days back in London and was pretty sure there was a little office with a sign indicating the JP. Folks waited in line to meet with them and then waited for court etc.

Forgive my ignorance or taking thread off track.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From my own experience i was only able to meet with a JP for specific reasons outside of the trial.

 

[Krime]

Thanks Evoex and GreyGhost for the additional context, much appreciated. I'm going in tomorrow and will report back with how things went. Fingers crossed.

 

[OverrRyde]

Thanks Evoex and GreyGhost for the additional context, much appreciated. I'm going in tomorrow and will report back with how things went. Fingers crossed.

Great thread! Good luck today and don't forget to report back!

 

[hedo2002]

Glad you have "personal experience" and have noted no one on here is a paralegal and therefore "we" don't know what we are talking about. I am expressing factual information NOT merely an opinion.

So let me "educate" you. I am a former cop, who spent tens of thousands of hours, in traffic court, as well as dealing with various insurers. EVERY insurer in Ontario views a disobey stop sign, (the example YOU used, i didn't pull it out of my rear end), as a MOVING MINOR violation. Now IF you got lucky and your insurer didn't add the surcharge for you, then bully for you. BUT, don't advise other members with misinformation. The MOST likely scenario is your paralegal got the crown to agree to reduce your speeding charge to a BYLAW charge of fail to obey TRAFFIC, (NOT Stop), sign. Check your conviction and you will see I am correct. This happens occasionally and does not reflect in increased insurance rates as it is a BYLAW conviction NOT an HTA moving violation. So yes indeed, your are MISINFORMED

Yes, an accused, (or the crown may), MUST ask the JP for a dismissal. JP"s do NOT as a rule simply decide to order a dismissal as there may be extenuating circumstances, IE the officer had a family death, and therefore had a LEGITIMATE reason for not attending that the crown is aware of and will ask, (rightfully so), for an adjournment. So again you are INCORRECT in your assumption.

You have NO experience, other than hiring someone else to go to court for you, and you "may" have caught a lucky break, but I am suspicious that ALL these things have consistently lined up for you, (which begs the question seeing you make it seem as though you have had others attend court for you ALOT), just how often are you being stopped, that you have garnered such vast knowledge?

So I will advise the OP to NOT follow ANY of your recommendations, and instead rely on someone with ACTUAL court time, under their belt.

When the police officer doesn't show up, the Justice of the peace will drop all charges, I've never heard of someone having to ask for that to happen and it has always been dismissed however all JP's and County' behave differently, especially depending on their mood during that specific day.

I can agree to the fact that there are many insurance companies that operate differently however, the failure to obey sign is something that is very common when trying to have the speeding ticket with 20+ reduced in court and I have confirmed that it does not affect your rates from the companies I've been insured with and the paralegals I've hired and spoken to.

However, one should find out directly from their insurance provider how they view such a ticket, just to be sure what really affects them.



I don't believe you believe that you fully understand what I understand. :hiding:



Just an example... when you are pulled over, the police can lie to you, they can ticket you for whatever they believe is within their power and then you go to court to fight that, even if its something that will infringe on your rights, it does not matter at that point in time. Just because the JP will try to sucker you into having to prepare your defense within such a short window doesn't mean that you have to accept that B.S as you are entitled to proper representation and due process. I've never heard of a Judge not agreeing with this even if the JP tried to pull one over on you.



The whole disobey a sign has been blown out of proportion... It was merely an example of what I've come across a lot and witnessed in traffic court occur because of the reasons I mentioned above and I personally have never heard of any insurance increase based on this charge vs speeding tickets over 20+ so what you've stated is news to me.

Having a few hours to build your defense after receiving disclosure is a violation of your rights because you have the right to seek legal representation and because you cannot have someone come to the court room within such a small window, they must allow you to adjourn the court date to a later date. Not doing so is clearly an infringement of your rights. You can continue to argue with me about this but it doesn't change the law.

After all, I am not a professional paralegal, neither are any of the other people posting here and we are merely stating our opinions with some choosing to attack me on the basis that they believe I am "Misinformed" and my "personal experience" doesn't amount to anything.


So OP, Do yourself a favor and talk to some paralegals that actually do this for a living and find out what your options are.

Don't be surprised if you are able to confirm what I've stated in this thread as-well as do your own homework.

Good luck.

 

[Krime]

UPDATE***

Just got back from court, it was quite the experience. I'll lay out how things went in a long read below.

I was second up to speak with the crown prosecutor, who was pretty rude and attempted to use intimidation tactics. I ask if the officer was there and she says 'not yet but he will be' (he did turn up 10 minutes later). I told her of my intention to plea not-guilty and mentioned that the disclosure was not sent. She pulled out the printed disclosure (typed officer notes) with a receipt saying that it was emailed to me in May, so that saying I never received it wasn't a valid argument and how I could review it now before the trial. I mentioned it wasn't enough time to frame my defence I showed my printed email correspondence and how all that I received was a note regarding the trial date, time and location, and she replied saying that she sent the full disclosure and it wasn't their problem if I don't know how to open or read an email. I also showed how I requested additional disclosure in the subsequent email and she said that it didn't make any sense that I would request further disclosure if I didn't get any in the first place. I mentioned how I'd assumed that the disclosure being provided was the court date details since it was all that I received. She responded saying how if I assumed it was my problem... essentially saying that I should have reached out to the court by way of phone immediately after it came to my intention and that since I'm not a legal professional I messed up and should have known better. I asked if I would get a chance to speak with the JP and she said yes, and something along the lines that the JP will side with her.

I was told to sit and wait for my name to be called... at this point I was pretty frustrated and was thinking that I didn't have a chance in hell since she was arguing that the disclosure was sent to me and I messed up. While sitting in the chair waiting, I double checked my email and confirmed that there was no attachment. It was clear that they forgot to attach the supporting documents when they sent the email.

So after all the guilty pleas are called up I'm first to go up. I state my name and address the JP. To my surprise and confusion, the crown starts by saying we're requesting an adjournment... There was never once a mention of this prior (during our conversation). The JP lets me speak and I request a dismissal based on not having disclosure despite two attempts. The JP looks at the crown somewhat disappointed and asks if this is true? The Crown says, NO then goes on to make her case about how it was sent, etc. that I didn't look at the email properly and that the follow up request was asking general disclosure of evidence and nothing specific which made it impossible for them to know what else I was expecting to get from them. At this point I'm getting fired up because its completely false information... I do a rookie move and attempt to speak over the crown to which the JP raises her hand at me to wait my turn (oops). I further defend my stance and offer my printed emails for her review, mentioning how the crown failed to attach the actual disclosure and that I explicitly asked in parenthesis 'including but not limited to officer notes, video/audio recordings, etc' and how that was very specific contrary to what she had claimed. The JP is sympathetic to me at this point, understanding that I didn't get sufficient disclosure, but put it down to a technical glitch with email correspondence (despite it being the crowns failure to attach anything). Being critical of my approach, she asks why I didn't think to reach out over the phone to the office to request additional disclosure. I read her out the directions at the footer of the email I received from them 'to contact the regional prosecutors office if the disclosure is insufficient', and how I did my research on York.ca's website (print out in hand) where it clearly mentions to reach out via mail, phone OR email and how I believed email to be the most efficient since the initial email correspondence was so quick (a response in 3 days after sending my disclosure form). This response was sufficient for her.

She asks the crown if the disclosure is present now, and has her hand it over to me. She mentions that I can review it now and come back in a few hours. It's clear at this point that I'm not getting that dismissal (despite seeming so close to it before). I request an adjournment, as I mention I'll need more time to review and defend my case. She asks if I intend on hiring a paralegal, and I say I have yet to determine whether or not and was planning to make that decision once I'd reviewed the disclosure to see what I was up against. She smiled at me at this point and asked if I had ever been to trail before to which I respond, no. She mentions that it's an intimidating process and that it may be in my best interest to hire a paralegal to defend the charge (which would now be the original charge, and not the reduced charge). The crown chimes in and requests that the JP grant me a week to make my decision whether to hire a paralegal or not and to come back to court then (I honestly had no idea what she was saying with this). The JP says, she's willing to give me an adjournment to give me more time to review the evidence and look into legal representation, mentioning that trial dates are now being booked out to May of next year. I thank her for giving me the opportunity (addressing her at this point as Maam... another oops) and take her up on her offer for adjournment. I get a slip dated for mid may of next year, 2019. I'm told that I'll need to be prepared at that point to fight the original speeding charge as a not guilty plea.

All in all, it was quite the experience. The crown and I were stating our case to the JP for almost 10 minutes, didn't expect that. I feel fortunate to have had a sympathetic JP, she was a pleasure to speak with.

I'm realizing that the May, 2019 adjournment date will put out to just under 1 year and 6 months from the date of the ticket. I'm wondering if this would constitute an 11b? Another interesting thing is that the crown mentioned how the disclosure is everything they have - only the officer's notes (which do include the radar type, hours of calibration before and after, etc) and that there was no dash cam video. I was not referring to the dash cam video in my request specifically as I was informed that I was being video taped by the officer during the stop (who was wearing a body cam). Wonder if this is something I should ask for.

Hopefully I made the right calls here and made the situation better for myself, something I was questioning the entire time. After my brutal conversation with the crown where it looked like I didn't have a chance in hell in defending myself, I was tempted to go up and speak with her again and potentially settle on the lesser charge.

 

[GreyGhost]

I think bodycams have to be activated by the police. I don't think they continuously record. You probably don't want the video anyway in case it shows your guilt. If they bring it up in court, then complain that you requested it, they didn't provide it and then they tried to use it as evidence. That may be enough to get the video kicked out.