Careless driving charge questions

[ajaxguy]

Ok so last year driving home ( exactly a year ago) from a jays game, I crashed my car into the centre median... I believe I was drugged ( sounds crazy I know) , I have very little recollection of the events that caused it and the accident split my head open and I had a sever concussion. So there were no witnesses except the officers statement. Here is where I need help. So the cop charged me in the hospital with careless based on my statement.. on my statement I said I think I fell asleep, I was tired from working a lot lately and what not.
My wife was there and she does not remember me saying that at all. Also, like I said no witnesses to back it up either. Another thing is, I was not even stiched up yet and clearly out of it ( as I do not even remember the officer) so how can he question me in the state? My statement would not be credible right?

I also read somewhere he has to read me my caution about what I say could be used against me in court.. he did not do this. I received disclosure and all it has is the accident statement and then my statement about being tired.

I went to a first appearance but was not happy with what they were offering as I think based on all that I have said, its a pretty clear case. I don't have the money to pony up for a lawyer anyways, so was wondering based on maybe your past experiences, and the evidence, could I represent myself with the facts provided??

Any help apreciated.

 

[DownUnder]

You dont remember giving a statement to a cop or even seeing one, but you remember he didnt read you your rights?

 

[TorontoBoy]

So you crashed your car, you're in hospital after splitting your head open, docs probably gave you drugs, you were probably in shock, and the cop is using your testimony to charge you? This sounds like you were not of sound mind and consciousness at the time. You might need a lawyer to get your testimony thrown our, but it does not sound very logical.

 

[ajaxguy]

You dont remember giving a statement to a cop or even seeing one, but you remember he didnt read you your rights?

I knew he was there, but I cant even remember his face as my eyes were shut basically the whole time. Also like I said, my wife was there the whole time and he DID NOT read me the caution.

So you crashed your car, you're in hospital after splitting your head open, docs probably gave you drugs, you were probably in shock, and the cop is using your testimony to charge you? This sounds like you were not of sound mind and consciousness at the time. You might need a lawyer to get your testimony thrown our, but it does not sound very logical.

That is the other thing.. even the paramedics my wife said were telling him that I was not right for questioning, but he went ahead anyways.

 

[Bradsma]

ask for a failure to share the lane ticket with the JP. It'll be like 100 bucks and 2 points. Might be your best bet, a careless is tragic to your record and your insurance.

 

[油井緋色]

Got his badge number and name so we can look up this ***?

 

[ajaxguy]

Got his badge number and name so we can look up this ***?

hahaha what??

 

[油井緋色]

hahaha what??

Well he sounds like a piece of ****. You were clearly drugged at the hospital, he was advised to not question you yet, and it sounds like a ******** statement. Just curious to see if he's known to be an ***.

 

[ajaxguy]

Well he sounds like a piece of ****. You were clearly drugged at the hospital, he was advised to not question you yet, and it sounds like a ******** statement. Just curious to see if he's known to be an ***.

I was charged yes, but I would not say he is a piece of ****...he's human. thanks for the possible vigilante justice mindset but I am good with not looking up his history lol.

 

[griff2]

I also read somewhere he has to read me my caution about what I say could be used against me in court.. he did not do this. I received disclosure and all it has is the accident statement and then my statement about being tired.

Were you under arrest at the time? If not, no caution is necessary.

 

[hedo2002]

Actually NO caution, (or in laymen's terms, reading you your rights), is required. An officer is required to advise you of your rights if you are suspected of a CRIMINAL charge. You were charged under the HTA. Hence, the officer is not obligated to advise you of your rights. Otherwise as they approached your car for a speeding ticket before asking if you knew why they stopped you, they would have to advise you of your rights.

People have already jumped to conclusions, (Perhaps based upon your initial posting), that "you were clearly drugged at the hospital" When I read your initial post I took it to mean you thought you may have been drugged at the game and this contributed to the collision.

You should still speak to a lawyer, (the Law Society of Upper Canada provides for a free 30 minute consultation). A lawyer will be able to advise you if the state of your treatment, could be cause for dismissal. You would have to be willing to have the treating doctor, as well as your medical records available for a trial. As for the paramedic he provided his "opinion" that is all it is, an opinion it would carry virtually no weight in court, as he/she isn't qualified to make such an assessment.

You weren't happy with what the crown offered, (you didn't elaborate so we don't know if it was a decent deal). They feel they have a strong case based upon the statement you provided. Unless you have the statement tossed they aren't likely to offer much of a deal, (no incentive to them to do so). The JP "may" or "may not" see your condition as a mitigating factor.

If you told the crown that you thought you may have been drugged at the game that could also work against you, (they "could" argue if you thought this then you had no right to get behind the wheel while possibily impaired). Did you advise the officer of this? Was it in his notes? Did they do any toxicology tests at the hospital.

Good on your decision not to release the info for a "vigilante" mob. That shows a level of respect and maturity. This type of behaviour will serve you VERY well in court. Generally those who demonstrate a respectful attitiude in court go further than those with a FTP attitiude..lol

Lastly, did you mean you believe the officer was required to read you a caution? Or your right to legal counsel? What type of statement was taken by the officer? Normally a "victim/witness statement", (Which can also be taken from a person who is involved in an incident), does not require a caution. If he took a "victim" statement, then again no caution is required. If he advised you that he was taking a "suspect" statement, then this form contains a caution at the top of the form which the accused must read and sign or initial.

 

[hedo2002]

Were you under arrest at the time? If not, no caution is necessary.

Not so. As soon as an officer suspects a person of having committed a CRIMINAL offence, the officer must advise of the rights to legal counsel. The person does NOT have to be placed under arrest. I have charged hundreds of persons without affecting an arrest. Not all criminal offences require an arrest. If there is no imment danger to any person, a risk of escape or flight, or the accused is likely to continue the offence, (Impaired driving), then they are subject to arrest.

There is also a huge difference between a caution, and advising a person of their rights to counsel

 

[ajaxguy]

Actually NO caution, (or in laymen's terms, reading you your rights), is required. An officer is required to advise you of your rights if you are suspected of a CRIMINAL charge. You were charged under the HTA. Hence, the officer is not obligated to advise you of your rights. Otherwise as they approached your car for a speeding ticket before asking if you knew why they stopped you, they would have to advise you of your rights.

People have already jumped to conclusions, (Perhaps based upon your initial posting), that "you were clearly drugged at the hospital" When I read your initial post I took it to mean you thought you may have been drugged at the game and this contributed to the collision.

You should still speak to a lawyer, (the Law Society of Upper Canada provides for a free 30 minute consultation). A lawyer will be able to advise you if the state of your treatment, could be cause for dismissal. You would have to be willing to have the treating doctor, as well as your medical records available for a trial. As for the paramedic he provided his "opinion" that is all it is, an opinion it would carry virtually no weight in court, as he/she isn't qualified to make such an assessment.

You weren't happy with what the crown offered, (you didn't elaborate so we don't know if it was a decent deal). They feel they have a strong case based upon the statement you provided. Unless you have the statement tossed they aren't likely to offer much of a deal, (no incentive to them to do so). The JP "may" or "may not" see your condition as a mitigating factor.

If you told the crown that you thought you may have been drugged at the game that could also work against you, (they "could" argue if you thought this then you had no right to get behind the wheel while possibily impaired). Did you advise the officer of this? Was it in his notes? Did they do any toxicology tests at the hospital.

Good on your decision not to release the info for a "vigilante" mob. That shows a level of respect and maturity. This type of behaviour will serve you VERY well in court. Generally those who demonstrate a respectful attitiude in court go further than those with a FTP attitiude..lol

Lastly, did you mean you believe the officer h=was required to read you a caution? Or your right to legal counsel? What type of statement was taken by the officer? Normally a "victim/witness statement", (Which can also be taken from a person who is involved in an incident), does not require a caution. If he took a "victim" statement, then again no caution is required. If he advised you that he was taking a "suspect" statement, then this form contains a caution at the top of the form which the accused must read and sign or initial.

i was the dd that night and was literally drinking water, but it was packed and I have never felt like that before, thats what I meant by drugged. Like almost no memory, but yes not sure that would be good in court. As for the caution, he DOES have to if he decides he is charging me with careless... here is the reasoning behind it

"Once a police officer has formed reasonable grounds to believe you’ve committed an offence (i.e. careless), they need to caution you. A caution is a formal wording read from their notebook advising you you’re not required to say anything and whatever you do say can be used as evidence against you.

Now in your example, the statement isn’t cautioned, but at the same time the officer would have no reason to believe you’ve committed an offence yet. Police are allowed to make general inquires to determine what happened prior to forming grounds. Now let’s say you tell the officer you hit the car because you were texting on your phone. He would now have grounds to believe you were driving carelessly, and any further questioning should stop prior to you being read the caution.

So in short, "what happened?" is allowed without a caution, but once they have a good idea of what you've done, the caution should be read.

At trial, if there is any dispute over the voluntariness or admissibility of a statement, there will be what’s called a “voir dire”, basically a mini trial within a trial, to determine if the Courts will accept the statement or not. There is a lot of case law on the matter."

Not so. As soon as an officer suspects a person of having committed a CRIMINAL offence, the officer must advise of the rights to legal counsel. The person does NOT have to be placed under arrest. I have charged hundreds of persons without affecting an arrest. Not all criminal offences require an arrest. If there is no imment danger to any person, a risk of escape or flight, or the accused is likely to continue the offence, (Impaired driving), then they are subject to arrest.

Yes exactly

 

[defeater905]

This is why you don't talk to the cops. You think it'd be a good idea to explain things to them, but they aren't going to help you...only use that info to prosecute you.

 

[ajaxguy]

This is why you don't talk to the cops. You think it'd be a good idea to explain things to them, but they aren't going to help you...only use that info to prosecute you.

i understand that for the most part, but when you just smacked your car into a wall and are in and out of conciousness , kinda hard to make that call.

 

[油井緋色]

Nothing personal against you hedo2002. However, I've only had negative encounters with police...and funny enough never had tickets or trouble with the law.

As for the OP...think you might have to hire a lawyer =/ better than the careless sticking.

 

[Dreamy Boom Boom]

[...] As for the caution, he DOES have to if he decides he is charging me with careless...

[...]

At trial, if there is any dispute over the voluntariness or admissibility of a statement, there will be what’s called a “voir dire”, basically a mini trial within a trial, to determine if the Courts will accept the statement or not. There is a lot of case law on the matter."

what hedo2002 saiying to yo sownds rite.

regardules of wweather police requird to advice of ur rights, u hab uphill batle trying to exclude ur statemente under sanktion 24(2) of Chatter. u may be wachin too many US tv where statement excluded b/c no miranda right given. this is not USA. this is kanaada.

in kannada, ebidence only excluded if bringing administratian of justice in disrepute, which very high standard, and most wil fail.

guud luck! talk to lawyer! :thumbup:



Oh, and.... forgoat to say: if u have no monee, both UobT and Yoke (Osguud) hab free comunitee legal clinik. guud luck!

 

[hedo2002]

Was the ticket issued that night? Yes, I am fully aware of what a Voir Dire is. I have participated in more than a few of them, (albeit never for a HTA infraction only criminal cases. The officer may have not formed the decision to lay the charge until after he had obtained the statement, (If the statement contained the info about feeling drugged or that you believe you may have fallen asleep), as those are "elements of the charge". Or until he finished his investigation, (if the ticket wasn't issued that night). If either of these scenarios were present then the officer need not porvide a caution. The officer could "use" the mere fact that he had you fill out a victim/witness statement, as opposed to a "cautioned statement" that he had not yet formed the decision that an offence had been committed.

Again, you should speak to a lawyer. Remember you will be appearing for trial in front of a JP. Jp's are NOT judges and as such have no formal legal training and may not even know if or when the officer is required to provide a caution. They certainly wouldn't know the nuances of a Voir Dire.

You posted "Once a police officer has formed reasonable grounds to believe you’ve committed an offence (i.e. careless), they need to caution you. A caution is a formal wording read from their notebook advising you you’re not required to say anything and whatever you do say can be used as evidence against you.

Can you provide a link as to where you got this from? Did the (i.e. careless) appear in the sentence or was that inserted by you? Just want to check the source of the info for you.

i was the dd that night and was literally drinking water, but it was packed and I have never felt like that before, thats what I meant by drugged. Like almost no memory, but yes not sure that would be good in court. As for the caution, he DOES have to if he decides he is charging me with careless... here is the reasoning behind it

"Once a police officer has formed reasonable grounds to believe you’ve committed an offence (i.e. careless), they need to caution you. A caution is a formal wording read from their notebook advising you you’re not required to say anything and whatever you do say can be used as evidence against you.

Now in your example, the statement isn’t cautioned, but at the same time the officer would have no reason to believe you’ve committed an offence yet. Police are allowed to make general inquires to determine what happened prior to forming grounds. Now let’s say you tell the officer you hit the car because you were texting on your phone. He would now have grounds to believe you were driving carelessly, and any further questioning should stop prior to you being read the caution.

So in short, "what happened?" is allowed without a caution, but once they have a good idea of what you've done, the caution should be read.

At trial, if there is any dispute over the voluntariness or admissibility of a statement, there will be what’s called a “voir dire”, basically a mini trial within a trial, to determine if the Courts will accept the statement or not. There is a lot of case law on the matter."



Yes exactly

 

[hedo2002]

No offence taken. I am the first to admit "some" cops can be a holes, dick heads on a power trip...lol

Nothing personal against you hedo2002. However, I've only had negative encounters with police...and funny enough never had tickets or trouble with the law.

As for the OP...think you might have to hire a lawyer =/ better than the careless sticking.

 

[ajaxguy]

the ticket was issued that same night