Advice needed – What to request in a disclosure

[smergy]

Good read. At least you didn't address anyone "your majesty".

Remember, its not personal, its just the job, they do this day in day out and everyone tries for the sympathy card. Their job is to represent the state and get a conviction, that's it. They want guilty pleas, not-guilty means they need to do actual work. PO court is a circus at the best of times from what I've seen. Filing for an 11b would be definitely be worth looking into (I've never done it), but from recollection there are public cases with reference to it. Prepare to sight existing rulings with similar (or better yet shorter) time periods where cases were dismissed. Canadian law is precedent based, which is why researching previous cases for this filing may be key to making it stick.

 

[Evoex]

UPDATE***

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.

No because you caused the delay when you asked for an adjournment. As i said before, you want the crown to ask for it so you can play the 11b card down the road. Seems like you did a solid job outside of that.

 

[hedo2002]

The OP "may" still have a case for an 11b, as it was the crown who initially asked for an adjournment. The problem the OP may have with an 11b is the crown sought a ONE WEEK adjournment, but then it was the OP who requested more time, (which now jeopardizes their bid for an 11b), IMHO, OP you should have taken the one week.

Body cam video likely doesn't exist, or it contains nothing to bolster the crown's case. The only way you can challenge you didn't get "full disclosure" is IF the crown attempts to introduce the video as evidence against you. If the crown, does not plan to introduce it into evidence then they need not provide it as evidence.

As for the officer's notes not making mention of the device or calibration times, may or may not be an issue. If he/she is a "Traffic Officer" I have seen JP's rule that the officer did calibrate the device. The way they get around it is a traffic officer does radar every shift, and testifies that they use the same device and can likely recite the device make, model etc. They then testify they calibrate the unit at the beginning and end of EVERY shift. MANY JP's now accept this as evidence of the device and calibration being done. So I wouldn't "count" on that as being an "out".

You have now, committed to challenging the crown's case, meaning any possible "deal" is off the table. Unless there is something, glaringly wrong, (wrong name, wrong DL # etc). FYI wrong veh info including plate # is NOT sufficient to get a charge tossed as the officer testifies he identified you so the charge stands, (it is not "an element of the crime" to list the wrong vehicle etc anymore.

So as long as the officer shows for trial, your best option at that point is address the crown, (before court starts), advise you hadn't received the disclosure until the date of the adjournment. Now that you have reviewed it, your prepared to plead guilty. They are likely to say ok, but there will be NO deal. AT that point best you can do is ask the JP for a period of time to pay your fine.

As stated above don't take the Crown, "being rude" a personally. They deal with hundreds of people per week all with a "story" that they have heard thousands of times. Just like when an officer pulls you over for speeding they have heard and seen it all...lol At times it gets old rel quick and they aren't always courteous. Nothing personal from their point of view. The prevailing thought running through their minds is "yeah yeah I have heard this before let's just get this done and over with.

A GREAT example of this, is I happened to be in court for a Section 810 hearing, (Peace bond hearing). One of the persons was called up. He was asked do you have the restitution money today. He advised the JP he didn't. Said he just didn't have the funds. The JP said, ok this your third time appearing without the money, she then read off, in the first time, you said you needed time to get the funds together, second time you claimed you "lost" the money order, on your way to court. Third time, the person sending you the money were late doing so. "DO NOT show up in this court without the money next time or it will NOT go well for you". Now some would view that as threat, but in reality this clown is just wasting the courts time and jerking everyone around. He NEEDED to be set straight. The JP didn't take it personally, she was just trying to get her point across as strongly as possible.

No because you caused the delay when you asked for an adjournment. As i said before, you want the crown to ask for it so you can play the 11b card down the road. Seems like you did a solid job outside of that.

 

[Krime]

Appreciate the thoughts. It's funny how easy it is to take it personal. At the end of the day I walked out thinking what a crappy job it would be to be a crown prosecutor, you're showing up to work all day and having to put on a face (although I'm sure it comes more naturally to some) to intimidate and be confrontational. No thanks.

Evoex, I realized immediately after I'd verbally requesting the adjournment towards the end, that it was not good. At the very end I should have stated for the record that the adjournment request is due to the lack of disclosure from the crown... which is the reality here (and the most frustrating part). They messed up by not attaching the appropriate materials (or lied that it was sent knowing it wasn't), in either case that seems like a critical enough, or glaring enough error on their part that would place the blame on them - hence why I thought having it dismissed didn't seem as far fetched at that point. I'm hoping I can still leverage this somehow for the 11b, because again the adjournment is because of the lack of disclosure which falls on the crown... I'd done my due diligence. Seems so cut and dry to me, but what do I know (seriously... a drop in the bucket compared to who I'm up against).

Hedo, looking back I'm not 100% certain the crown requested the adjournment, she may have worded it as 'it's our understanding that the defending is requesting adjournment'. She used this 'it's our understanding that...' in all the subsequent cases, so there's a good chance she did it with me. I was caught off guard when the adjournment was mentioned based on my prior conversation with her which is why I don't remember the specifics... just that my gut was to immediately fire back with 'I'm requesting a dismissal'. Regarding the officer's notes, to clarify he has all of the information regarding calibration times, etc. documented. His notes are extremely thorough and you can see they've been written in a failsafe way to ensure the charge sticks... he's done this a few times no doubt. It's just a shame I didn't actually receive it when I asked for it, because I would have had the opportunity to better assess if I thought I had a fighting chance, and may have decided to take the reduced adjustment.

At the end of the day, no real regrets so far. Feel good about giving it a go (equipped with the help from you guys) and to stand my ground as best as I knew how. The way I see it is that it was the right opportunity to do so, the stakes were not very high considering the difference for the original offence of speeding would be 11km/hr more and 3 points (vs. 0) if I was found guilty at trial, not something that will change things in the eyes of insurance.

I'm wondering if it makes sense to still look into a paralegal at this point – especially after the JP was highly suggestive of it. I sat up at the front to watching the 5 paralegals do their negotiations with the crown... it was interesting. The negotiations were super quick and all of them ended up pleading guilty (for their clients) to a reduced speed (15km over, no points - like mine was originally - and then one pleaded guilty to disobey a road sign although that fine was set at $400 because apparently the original speed was very high). Now that I'm in this situation, if there's no going back to the original charge and all a Paralegal does in these situations is to plead guilty anyways (often to a lesser charge which I'd imagine is impossible now) then I don't see the point... but maybe I'm wrong. I'd consider a paralegal if they could get the charge dropped, but otherwise I can't see how it would make sense.

 

[hedo2002]

Just to clarify, the disclosure wouldn't have benefited you in better assessing your position on taking the original deal. Once you requested disclosure the deal was off the table, just as it is now. The crown offers the deal only at first appearance as an "incentive" to keep the court process moving quickly. Once
you request disclosure then they "feel" it has "wasted" their time and the deal is no longer an option.

It will depend on how the adjournment request was documented by the court clerk. if they recorded it as you requesting which is likely, especially if the crown worded it as you indicated then the 11b option is gone. Doesn't matter WHY, you requested the delay, (even IF the crown messed up), once it is recorded as the defendant request then 11b is killed off. To fully expect to get an 11b, it would have to be crystal clear that it was the crown who requested the delay. Given, that the crown's position, (which is recorded in their file), that you were sent the disclosure, even if in Mar you try to argue the delay was triggered as a result of lack of disclosure, they will simply refer to the notes and maintain that you got it and messed up. Weather you did or didn't at this point is moot point, because their records indicate it was indeed sent. The crown was "lying" when they told it was sent, they have no true idea if it was or not they just go by what the file says. Again they have hundreds of dockets weekly so your just a number to them. Could be a clerk messed up, but their is no advantage to the crown to outright lie, (they get paid the same if they get a conviction or not)...lol

As for a paralegal, IMHO, at this point it would be throwing good money after bad. They are going to get you basically nothing at this point. It is highly doubtful they would even get a reduction, (BUT, even if they got it reduced back to the original charge as you already said, it won't make a difference from insurance prospective). The crown, once again at this point has NO incentive to "play" with you or a paralegal, as they see it, (which I tend to agree, again after seeing THOUSANDS of cases go through the process), they are coming from a position of strength.

Their records indicate disclosure was provided, the officer's notes, (as per you), seem to be rather detailed, again it sounds like it was a traffic cop that dinged you so yes he has written the same notes tens of thousands of times, and will likely be pretty impressive on the stand. So the crown will view this as a slam dunk for them. When it comes to notes, I used to jokingly say when compiling an impaired driving report, (which was my thing, I held the record, and may still today, for the most, 4 drivers by a single officer in a single shift for the Ottawa area courts), that I merely changed the names to accurately reflect the guilty.... it was a play on the old 1 Adam 12 show which stated the names were changed to protect the innocent... LMAO

But again, this is all just my opinion, Albeit perhaps "slightly" more weighty, due to my time in the court system. Either way Good luck and god speed my friend...

Appreciate the thoughts. It's funny how easy it is to take it personal. At the end of the day I walked out thinking what a crappy job it would be to be a crown prosecutor, you're showing up to work all day and having to put on a face (although I'm sure it comes more naturally to some) to intimidate and be confrontational. No thanks.

Evoex, I realized immediately after I'd verbally requesting the adjournment towards the end, that it was not good. At the very end I should have stated for the record that the adjournment request is due to the lack of disclosure from the crown... which is the reality here (and the most frustrating part). They messed up by not attaching the appropriate materials (or lied that it was sent knowing it wasn't), in either case that seems like a critical enough, or glaring enough error on their part that would place the blame on them - hence why I thought having it dismissed didn't seem as far fetched at that point. I'm hoping I can still leverage this somehow for the 11b, because again the adjournment is because of the lack of disclosure which falls on the crown... I'd done my due diligence. Seems so cut and dry to me, but what do I know (seriously... a drop in the bucket compared to who I'm up against).

Hedo, looking back I'm not 100% certain the crown requested the adjournment, she may have worded it as 'it's our understanding that the defending is requesting adjournment'. She used this 'it's our understanding that...' in all the subsequent cases, so there's a good chance she did it with me. I was caught off guard when the adjournment was mentioned based on my prior conversation with her which is why I don't remember the specifics... just that my gut was to immediately fire back with 'I'm requesting a dismissal'. Regarding the officer's notes, to clarify he has all of the information regarding calibration times, etc. documented. His notes are extremely thorough and you can see they've been written in a failsafe way to ensure the charge sticks... he's done this a few times no doubt. It's just a shame I didn't actually receive it when I asked for it, because I would have had the opportunity to better assess if I thought I had a fighting chance, and may have decided to take the reduced adjustment.

At the end of the day, no real regrets so far. Feel good about giving it a go (equipped with the help from you guys) and to stand my ground as best as I knew how. The way I see it is that it was the right opportunity to do so, the stakes were not very high considering the difference for the original offence of speeding would be 11km/hr more and 3 points (vs. 0) if I was found guilty at trial, not something that will change things in the eyes of insurance.

I'm wondering if it makes sense to still look into a paralegal at this point – especially after the JP was highly suggestive of it. I sat up at the front to watching the 5 paralegals do their negotiations with the crown... it was interesting. The negotiations were super quick and all of them ended up pleading guilty (for their clients) to a reduced speed (15km over, no points - like mine was originally - and then one pleaded guilty to disobey a road sign although that fine was set at $400 because apparently the original speed was very high). Now that I'm in this situation, if there's no going back to the original charge and all a Paralegal does in these situations is to plead guilty anyways (often to a lesser charge which I'd imagine is impossible now) then I don't see the point... but maybe I'm wrong. I'd consider a paralegal if they could get the charge dropped, but otherwise I can't see how it would make sense.

 

[Krime]

Hey guys, so the rescheduled trial date is approaching on Monday. Sick at home with a newborn, so timing is impeccable! I didn’t bother with filing the 11b with the case being almost 18 months from conviction, since I ultimately requested the delay with my lack of experience. So trial on Monday it is.

I’ve reviewed his thorough disclosure notes and am attempting to find any cracks in his statement. He mentions he used a Genesis HANDHELD (yes all caps) Directional radar device which was calibrated before and after the offence. Also mentions that the radar was set to approach mode, and that he was monitoring both North and southbound traffic (I was travelling southbound from the north). He mentions he was parked on east side of street facing westbound. Also mentions that he had a clear direction in both directions of all lanes, clear of any obstructions.

Now, here’s the thing where he parked was actually in an S bend for the north and south bound road where it goes almost east/west momentarily. I was coming from a right bend sweeper (towards westbound) and was blocked by a thick forest of trees which were lining the road (to the west). Because of where he was parked, he only had a brief period of time to lock on and target me once I emerged from the trees as I was in the long graudual sweeper. Cars were driving in the other direction as well, I’m hoping to make the case that the other vehicles and the tree line would count as legitimate obstructions contrary to his statement. I realize he mentions he had the genesis set in approach mode only which I’m assuming would imply that there wouldn’t be any confusion with accidentally targeting other vehicles going in the opposite direction, but I’m still hoping that the other vehicles would count as obstructions, especially in the the short time he had to lock on to me while I was approaching on an angled bend.

Also, he has identified himself in the disclosure as the only witness, however there was another officer sitting next to him in the patrol car. I’m hoping to raise the possibility that he may have been distracted with the other officer due to conversations, etc. I found it really odd that he was accompanied by another officer in the passenger seat for a simple in car speed trap. I’m wondering if he needed to report him as a witness as well since he technically was?

Lastly, the officer mentioned that I was going 23km/h over the limit and had reduced ticket to 5km/h over, but when I looked at the ticket it was 26km/h over and reduced to 15km/h over. That disconnect caught me off guard when I read the ticket. I asked for video evidence in the disclosure which would help confirm this, but was told by the crown that there was none and never received it (even though he advised me he was recording and wearing a body cam). I’m hoping that the discrepency with the verbal ticket vs. Actual ticket details as well as the lapse in mentioning his fellow officer and/or possibility of being momentarily distracted while initiating the radar by his colleague In addition to the obstructions (trees with bend in road + other vehicles) I’ll have a shot at raising reasonable doubt and frame that his mental state may not have been as sharp as it needed to be.

Also, never been through this process before so any advice is appreciated. As I understand I’ll have to wait until it’s my turn to cross examine the witness and will have to frame everything as questions?

Lastly, there was no mention in his disclosure notes of me requesting a warning so if he brings this up from reading his notes I plan to request for the case to be dismissed as I was never provided such material in my disclosure request.

Thanks!

 

[Evoex]

Hey guys, so the rescheduled trial date is approaching on Monday. Sick at home with a newborn, so timing is impeccable! I didn’t bother with filing the 11b with the case being almost 18 months from conviction, since I ultimately requested the delay with my lack of experience. So trial on Monday it is.

I’ve reviewed his thorough disclosure notes and am attempting to find any cracks in his statement. He mentions he used a Genesis HANDHELD (yes all caps) Directional radar device which was calibrated before and after the offence. Also mentions that the radar was set to approach mode, and that he was monitoring both North and southbound traffic (I was travelling southbound from the north). He mentions he was parked on east side of street facing westbound. Also mentions that he had a clear direction in both directions of all lanes, clear of any obstructions.

Now, here’s the thing where he parked was actually in an S bend for the north and south bound road where it goes almost east/west momentarily. I was coming from a right bend sweeper (towards westbound) and was blocked by a thick forest of trees which were lining the road (to the west). Because of where he was parked, he only had a brief period of time to lock on and target me once I emerged from the trees as I was in the long graudual sweeper. Cars were driving in the other direction as well, I’m hoping to make the case that the other vehicles and the tree line would count as legitimate obstructions contrary to his statement. I realize he mentions he had the genesis set in approach mode only which I’m assuming would imply that there wouldn’t be any confusion with accidentally targeting other vehicles going in the opposite direction, but I’m still hoping that the other vehicles would count as obstructions, especially in the the short time he had to lock on to me while I was approaching on an angled bend.

Also, he has identified himself in the disclosure as the only witness, however there was another officer sitting next to him in the patrol car. I’m hoping to raise the possibility that he may have been distracted with the other officer due to conversations, etc. I found it really odd that he was accompanied by another officer in the passenger seat for a simple in car speed trap. I’m wondering if he needed to report him as a witness as well since he technically was?

Lastly, the officer mentioned that I was going 23km/h over the limit and had reduced ticket to 5km/h over, but when I looked at the ticket it was 26km/h over and reduced to 15km/h over. That disconnect caught me off guard when I read the ticket. I asked for video evidence in the disclosure which would help confirm this, but was told by the crown that there was none and never received it (even though he advised me he was recording and wearing a body cam). I’m hoping that the discrepency with the verbal ticket vs. Actual ticket details as well as the lapse in mentioning his fellow officer and/or possibility of being momentarily distracted while initiating the radar by his colleague In addition to the obstructions (trees with bend in road + other vehicles) I’ll have a shot at raising reasonable doubt and frame that his mental state may not have been as sharp as it needed to be.

Also, never been through this process before so any advice is appreciated. As I understand I’ll have to wait until it’s my turn to cross examine the witness and will have to frame everything as questions?

Lastly, there was no mention in his disclosure notes of me requesting a warning so if he brings this up from reading his notes I plan to request for the case to be dismissed as I was never provided such material in my disclosure request.

Thanks!

Best of luck.

I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on, but if you aren't going out of pocket for showing up to court i say why not take a shot at it and learn the ropes.

Perhaps @hedo2002 can shine some light on the radar scenario.

 

[Krime]

Best of luck.

I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on, but if you aren't going out of pocket for showing up to court i say why not take a shot at it and learn the ropes.

Perhaps @hedo2002 can shine some light on the radar scenario.

That's the plan. Yeah, any input or advice from those experienced would be appreciated.

 

[Krime]

Eureka moment! I think I found a new and big flaw in his disclosure.

He states that he was on Main Street just North of Brexhill Rd. I just discovered that he was not actually on Main Street (It's actually Main Street North), he was on the Main Street North Bypass. Main Street north of Brexhill is actually an older street that runs parellel to Main Street Bypass. So where he states that he was and where he pulled me over is fundamentally wrong.

See attached picture. The red google pin is the intersection he is claiming he was at (likely unknowing to him), and the yellow dot is actually where he was parked doing radar (off the bypass).

He also goes on later in the disclosure to refer to the street as 2nd Concession, which it was more north of where he was, prior to being renamed Main Street North and then Main Street North Bypass which is where we were.

You can also see via my previous mention that the road bends east west so he was not on the east side of the road, he was on the south side at that point due to the curve.

 

[Krime]

Further to this, just looked up a picture I took of the ticket that was issued. It clearly states Main St N / Brexhill Rd, which is incorrect. Is there a way I need to go about this first thing Monday when I show up for my trial since I think this would be a critical error on the ticket itself. Otherwise, I'll have to use it to cast reasonable doubt during cross examination, but I'm hoping this alone is enough to drop the ticket prior to the trial.

Any advice/insight appreciated.

 

[Robbo]

Further to this, just looked up a picture I took of the ticket that was issued. It clearly states Main St N / Brexhill Rd, which is incorrect. Is there a way I need to go about this first thing Monday when I show up for my trial since I think this would be a critical error on the ticket itself. Otherwise, I'll have to use it to cast reasonable doubt during cross examination, but I'm hoping this alone is enough to drop the ticket prior to the trial.

Any advice/insight appreciated.

From everything I have read over the years, the court will not see this as a critical error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Krime]

From everything I have read over the years, the court will not see this as a critical error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good to know... I’ll have to use it to cast reasonable doubt.

 

[Krime]

I’ve read through the details proceeding trial as posted her on GTAM and other sites. Two things I’m not clear on:

1) Do I need to do anything in advance to show any evidence such as the google map print out and/or photographs to use to my defence during cross examination?

2) there is mention of avoiding the defence portion after officer cross examination as it opens you up to being cross examined by prosecutor. Is this really an optional thing? If so, do I just state I’d like to forego my defence? Then proceed to final statements?

 

[Krime]

Also, came across a mention that for a radar or lidar to be accurate, the vehicle needs to approach the officer in a linear direction. Since I was in a sweeping turn I’m hoping this would suggest the Genesis’ readings as inaccurate. Anyone know more about this?

 

[smergy]

Provincial offences court is a crap shoot at the best of times. I would start with some of the past judgements from here:

CanLII - Ontario

You will learn to see the case how the court sees it. From reading these you will make two observations. 1.) How inconsistent the judgements are, it's frankly both laughable and appalling and 2.) No one cares about speculation, you can either prove something or you cannot. Typically the officers notes will include the generally accepted criteria required to lay a charge based on precedent, i.e. obstruction, gun calibration,e tc. They do this all day everyday. The 2nd officer is irrelevant. What may or may not have happened is irrelevant. Understand each element required for the burden of proof set by precedent and cast doubt on those items. Location is one of those. Ask questions that are simple, and only have 1 answer. You then back-track the line of questioning to expose the hole in the argument. Radar picks up the largest object. If he was radaring both north and south, what proof do they have you were the only object? Sometimes what is not known is as good as what is. Not mentioned in the notes? perfect. Ask them to read the note on inconsistency of the speed charge, then ask them to read the ticket. Systematically work through each flawed detail and maybe you get the outcome you were looking for.

Case in point, there is an existing case where the officer recalled steps to calibrate a radar that were contrary to the manual and completely incorrect, which resulted in admittedly observed inaccurate readings by the officer. Let off? heck no, charged. Its sad really. You may still get charged regardless of the holes, you may get off. Its a roll of the dice. The reduction is useless, it's a ticket or its not to insurance, so you may as well fight it and see what happens. If nothing, you'll learn a lot.

p.s. The inaccuracy of off angle only works in your favour, I wouldn't pursuit that.

 

[Krime]

Provincial offences court is a crap shoot at the best of times. I would start with some of the past judgements from here:

CanLII - Ontario

You will learn to see the case how the court sees it. From reading these you will make two observations. 1.) How inconsistent the judgements are, it's frankly both laughable and appalling and 2.) No one cares about speculation, you can either prove something or you cannot. Typically the officers notes will include the generally accepted criteria required to lay a charge based on precedent, i.e. obstruction, gun calibration,e tc. They do this all day everyday. The 2nd officer is irrelevant. What may or may not have happened is irrelevant. Understand each element required for the burden of proof set by precedent and cast doubt on those items. Location is one of those. Ask questions that are simple, and only have 1 answer. You then back-track the line of questioning to expose the hole in the argument. Radar picks up the largest object. If he was radaring both north and south, what proof do they have you were the only object? Sometimes what is not known is as good as what is. Not mentioned in the notes? perfect. Ask them to read the note on inconsistency of the speed charge, then ask them to read the ticket. Systematically work through each flawed detail and maybe you get the outcome you were looking for.

Case in point, there is an existing case where the officer recalled steps to calibrate a radar that were contrary to the manual and completely incorrect, which resulted in admittedly observed inaccurate readings by the officer. Let off? heck no, charged. Its sad really. You may still get charged regardless of the holes, you may get off. Its a roll of the dice. The reduction is useless, it's a ticket or its not to insurance, so you may as well fight it and see what happens. If nothing, you'll learn a lot.

p.s. The inaccuracy of off angle only works in your favour, I wouldn't pursuit that.

Much appreciated. Regarding your note "Ask them to read the note on inconsistency of the speed charge, then ask them to read the ticket", his notes do align with the ticket in terms of the speed, it was his verbal relay of the speed amount and reduction amount that didn't add up to what was on the ticket, so not sure how much grounds there are here, again I was thinking to make a case for his mental state/inaccuracies at the time.

Regarding the cosine effect with the radar, I came across how the actual speed is in your favour... so yes I was wondering about that. Learned more about it here: Police Radar Cosine Effect Error, it's also mentioned in the Genesis Handheld Manual, emphasizing how it's inaccuracy is in the drivers favour in that case. Here's the thing, I'm wondering if framing the question if he's aware that there are inaccuracies with the radar when a curve is involved, and when he says likely yes, then I can get back to questioning his judgement of setting up for radar in such a place that would welcome inaccuracies... making poor judgement calls that can compromise the task at hand. See where I'm going here? Still worth pursuing?

Here's some more pics of the site. Just went to the spot to get some pictures of the scene to use as defence evidence if necessary (along with the google map).


Showing the discrepancy with the intersection that he describes on the ticket and likely will in his statement in court:



Also took a couple photos showing the clear road markings that differentiate the two roads



Here's his view (also potentially partially blocked by the shrub I'm realizing and surely blocked by the line of trees I'd image... you can see here that the entire road is on a steep curve... very weird place to try and get an accurate reading. Also noting that contrary to his notes, he had to be looking East not North as described:







Here's where his patrol car was parked, looking from the West (also note that the car is on the south side of the road since the road goes east/west here (not positioned on east side of road as mentioned, and facing north not west as he said):

 

[Krime]

Also noticed that in the disclosure is a copy of the charge statement and not the actual ticket... there is no speed amount in the charge statement, just that I was speeding.

 

[hedo2002]

Ok as someone with ACTUAL experience as a former officer. NONE of the points you have raised will be viewed as a "fatal error", (court terminology).

The location is considered virtually non relevant, as the offence that you have been charged with is not location critical, (in other words, it doesn't really matter WHERE you committed the offence, but rather the court is concerned with did you commit the offence as outlined. The crown would also argue that it is called Main street, directional add ons, (IE main st E or main st W, again don't alter the facts of the offence). It would 0only be relevant, if the ticket listed the location as "town of Renfrew" when in fact, the offence occurred in the City of Ottawa, (so TOTALLY wrong and not even close. Many times, (more so in rural locations, it can be virtually impossible to list the exact location, so it may read "near 17458 Hwy 7A"

The discrepancy in the ticket and the officer's notes as to the speed IE 26 vs 25, is minor, and you are charged with the amount written on the ticket is the relevant info. (IE look at the numbers on the the ticket and the "court information" which is what is on the paperwork detailing what you are charged with). Obviously, because your going to trial, the original speed will be the charge read out, and if convicted, that speed is the one they go with, not the reduced ticket amount.

As for two officer's in the patrol car will again, be of no interest to the court, it would be a simple waste of, already scarce resources, to have two officers attend to testify to the same facts of the case. Your point of the officer "may have been distracted" won't fly UNLESS you can PROVE the officer was distracted, (which unless you were IN the patrol unit with them you have NO idea what they were doing. For all you know, the second officer was doing reports while the second officer was doing speed enforcement.

As to the "approaching" setting on the radar unit, (I haven't looked at the manual for that specific model), but normally that is for radar units which can also be used while the patrol unit is in motion. The setting then, calculates, the patrol units speed, the target vehicles speed, and displays the differential. But don't quote me on that one...lol

As for video evidence, unless there is an issue, (IE someone files a serious complaint with professional standards), the body cam footage isn't kept on MINOR infractions, (Traffic enforcement etc). That is why you were advised that none existed.

The scenario, you described along with the satellite image, doesn't raise any red flags with me as to the radars ability to monitor your speed.

I don't see anything close to a slam dunk in your favour, on this one

Now of course, I will post the normal disclaimer. I am NOT, nor pretend to be a lawyer, or paralegal. Just an ex officer, who did thousands of hours of traffic enforcement, and countless hours in traffic court. NO one, can accurately predict what a JP will or won't accept on any particular day. His/her partner may have had a fight, or they are "cutoff" in the bedroom...lmao. Kids were acting up, lack of sleep, just ****** and sick and tired of listening to amateur Perry Masons, et al...

 

[hedo2002]

Krime I would be VERY careful on questioning the radar cosine. As noted in the manual. The fact that in that location it was being operated on a curve, which as you noted causes, a SLIGHT error in the target vehicles favour. Generally, you are talking about a 2 - 3 km/h differential.

Questioning the officer's judgement, in setting up in that particular spot, will win you NO bonus points with the crown, nor the JP. The crown is VERY likely to then use this to their advantage, by reminding the JP that the error is actually in YOUR favour, and as such you were ACTUALLY travelling faster than the read out on the radar unit. The JP is VERY likely to view this as an "admission of guilt" by you,a s your acknowledging that you were indeed travelling above the speed, which was displayed by the radar unit.

The crown, and officer, (IF the crown even permits him to answer your questioning of his judgement), will simply point out that by conducting radar at that location the error is to YOUR benefit, and as such, it makes sense for the officer to conduct enforcement in that location, as he/she, isn't looking to "nail" people but was rather acting more of a deterrent.

You very well may be opening, (unwittingly), a whole can of worms, that will bite you big time. I have seen it countless times, where a person "thinks" they have come up with the novel defense, (which the JP, crown, and officer, aren't smart enough to recognize or haven't heard before). This is your first dance at the rodeo, the crown, and JP are highly practised, and VERY proficient dancers...lol. Also, from the detail of notes the officer made, this certainly isn't his first dance either. BUT, I would be surprised if you decide to employ this line of questioning the crown, will object and ask the JP to rule on the line of questioning relevance. Hint his/her ruling isn't likely to go in your favour...lol

Even IF the crown didn't object, the officer isn't going to say, "you know what, your right I was distracted, that day, AND I should have NEVER set up in that spot, I am such an idiot"...lol Obviously, I have gone WAYYY out there to make my point.

It is IMPORTANT, to remind, yourself this is a SPEEDING ticket, not a charge of first degree murder...lol, WHile winning is no doubtr VERY important to you, the JP, is NOT a legal scholar, and they often go with the crown, on points of law. The JP also will be VERY likely to shut you down, as he'she may have 150 - 200 docket items to get through and have VERY little time to devote, to each individual case.

Is that fair? No, but it IS reality.

Best of luck, with your case.

Much appreciated. Regarding your note "Ask them to read the note on inconsistency of the speed charge, then ask them to read the ticket", his notes do align with the ticket in terms of the speed, it was his verbal relay of the speed amount and reduction amount that didn't add up to what was on the ticket, so not sure how much grounds there are here, again I was thinking to make a case for his mental state/inaccuracies at the time.

Regarding the cosine effect with the radar, I came across how the actual speed is in your favour... so yes I was wondering about that. Learned more about it here: Police Radar Cosine Effect Error, it's also mentioned in the Genesis Handheld Manual, emphasizing how it's inaccuracy is in the drivers favour in that case. Here's the thing, I'm wondering if framing the question if he's aware that there are inaccuracies with the radar when a curve is involved, and when he says likely yes, then I can get back to questioning his judgement of setting up for radar in such a place that would welcome inaccuracies... making poor judgement calls that can compromise the task at hand. See where I'm going here? Still worth pursuing?

Here's some more pics of the site. Just went to the spot to get some pictures of the scene to use as defence evidence if necessary (along with the google map).


Showing the discrepancy with the intersection that he describes on the ticket and likely will in his statement in court:

View attachment 40212

Also took a couple photos showing the clear road markings that differentiate the two roads

View attachment 40217View attachment 40218

Here's his view (also potentially partially blocked by the shrub I'm realizing and surely blocked by the line of trees I'd image... you can see here that the entire road is on a steep curve... very weird place to try and get an accurate reading. Also noting that contrary to his notes, he had to be looking East not North as described:

View attachment 40213

View attachment 40214

View attachment 40215

Here's where his patrol car was parked, looking from the West (also note that the car is on the south side of the road since the road goes east/west here (not positioned on east side of road as mentioned, and facing north not west as he said):

View attachment 40216

 

[Krime]

Krime I would be VERY careful on questioning the radar cosine. As noted in the manual. The fact that in that location it was being operated on a curve, which as you noted causes, a SLIGHT error in the target vehicles favour. Generally, you are talking about a 2 - 3 km/h differential.

Questioning the officer's judgement, in setting up in that particular spot, will win you NO bonus points with the crown, nor the JP. The crown is VERY likely to then use this to their advantage, by reminding the JP that the error is actually in YOUR favour, and as such you were ACTUALLY travelling faster than the read out on the radar unit. The JP is VERY likely to view this as an "admission of guilt" by you,a s your acknowledging that you were indeed travelling above the speed, which was displayed by the radar unit.

The crown, and officer, (IF the crown even permits him to answer your questioning of his judgement), will simply point out that by conducting radar at that location the error is to YOUR benefit, and as such, it makes sense for the officer to conduct enforcement in that location, as he/she, isn't looking to "nail" people but was rather acting more of a deterrent.

You very well may be opening, (unwittingly), a whole can of worms, that will bite you big time. I have seen it countless times, where a person "thinks" they have come up with the novel defense, (which the JP, crown, and officer, aren't smart enough to recognize or haven't heard before). This is your first dance at the rodeo, the crown, and JP are highly practised, and VERY proficient dancers...lol. Also, from the detail of notes the officer made, this certainly isn't his first dance either. BUT, I would be surprised if you decide to employ this line of questioning the crown, will object and ask the JP to rule on the line of questioning relevance. Hint his/her ruling isn't likely to go in your favour...lol

Even IF the crown didn't object, the officer isn't going to say, "you know what, your right I was distracted, that day, AND I should have NEVER set up in that spot, I am such an idiot"...lol Obviously, I have gone WAYYY out there to make my point.

It is IMPORTANT, to remind, yourself this is a SPEEDING ticket, not a charge of first degree murder...lol, WHile winning is no doubtr VERY important to you, the JP, is NOT a legal scholar, and they often go with the crown, on points of law. The JP also will be VERY likely to shut you down, as he'she may have 150 - 200 docket items to get through and have VERY little time to devote, to each individual case.

Is that fair? No, but it IS reality.

Best of luck, with your case.

Thanks for the reply! Way to take the wind out of my sails. All good to know, I appreciate your input with all your experience. I'm ditching the cosine argument and will stick to the nit picky discrepancies/inaccuracies of fact in his written and verbal statement on the stand, and hope that the JP bites at one of them. So, in theory all I've got in that line of defence is 1) the location being technically incorrect (which would put us on a different road entirely if it was correct) and also pointing out that another road he incorrectly references in his notes is actually up the street in a different township and 2), the orientation of where he claims he was positioned and the direction he was facing was not physically possible (and if so he would have been facing in the opposite direction to my approach), and 3) The obstacles of the tree line/shrubs/and other cars during the busy weekday morning commute could have affected the radar reading.

I'm hoping that any and ideally all (LOL) of these points will help frame the picture and raise reasonable doubt with the JP... but sounds like it won't. Well heck, I've got nothing to lose at this point, so here I go tomorrow! Appreciate the good luck wishes, I need it. Will report back.