cellphone ticket?

[ddusseld]

Regardless of what he says about your banging on the steering wheel he does not have to lie about the rest. He did see you holding a cell phone. There is no lie in this. All you can do is what others have said. Hope for an 11b or find some way of creating doubt. The creating doubt will be difficult as the officer is correct in what he saw. You pretty much have to try and show the officer had some sort of issue seeing what you were holding. Sun in his eyes, weather conditions, angle of view from where he saw you etc. Again tough as he saw the phone. Good luck...

This is what sucks... because the cop could lie and his word most likely believed. I am worried now that when I said I was banging on my steering wheel he just assumed I meant with my phone although I did not tell him that.

Either way, gonna wait closer to the the 15 day mark and go request trial and then once I get a date will request disclosure and see what happens? I have requested good info for disclosure in regards to speeding but never this type of charge. What would be some good things to ask?

 

[ajaxguy]

Regardless of what he says about your banging on the steering wheel he does not have to lie about the rest. He did see you holding a cell phone. There is no lie in this. All you can do is what others have said. Hope for an 11b or find some way of creating doubt. The creating doubt will be difficult as the officer is correct in what he saw. You pretty much have to try and show the officer had some sort of issue seeing what you were holding. Sun in his eyes, weather conditions, angle of view from where he saw you etc. Again tough as he saw the phone. Good luck...

I guess im way to positive... and if you saw my other post about my wallet and what it looks like it is very easy to misinterpret that for a phone... so if he says that he could have mistaken it for that, then voila. Also, yes I will be playing other factors in as well like the sun( he was facing into the sun when he saw me), there was snow and ice on the grouch( reflections)... I think anything is possible, but yes of course 11b is great but highly unlikely.

 

[cbcanada]

Ahhh your one of those half empty kinda guys. I believe that you can win any case, and actually with the JP it actually depends how they are feeling that day. My best friend is an OPP officer and told me, its really all about how they are feeling that day. It sounds bad, but its true.
I am not going to be using the defense that I was banging my cellphone on the steering wheel.. now that would be dumb now wouldnt it? The key is to make holes in the officers statement and what happened that day even if you did do it.

I suppose yes in this scenario glass half empty.. The reason is , i find the justice system flawed in this scenario because there is money involved.

Ultimately the money collected from tickets pays the salaries of all judicial employees including the JP

So at the very root of it there is a conflict of interest.

I am not implying the jp's do not do their just work but at the end of the day the fact is that they do rely on tickets to fund the justice system

 

[yardi]

just drive around with one of these and take a bite when pulled over.

lol!

 

[ajaxguy]

I suppose yes in this scenario glass half empty.. The reason is , i find the justice system flawed in this scenario because there is money involved.

Ultimately the money collected from tickets pays the salaries of all judicial employees including the JP

So at the very root of it there is a conflict of interest.

I am not implying the jp's do not do their just work but at the end of the day the fact is that they do rely on tickets to fund the justice system

No you are exactly right... thats why its hit and miss though. All depends how the JP is feeling that day. Are legal system in regards to tickets is very flawed and like someone else noted, guilty until proven innocent.
as mush as I love Canada, the U.S. does not seem to be this way. Maybe Im wrong, but it seems that way.

 

[DownUnder]

Are legal system in regards to tickets is very flawed and like someone else noted, guilty until proven innocent.

You admitted that you "WERE" guilty. How do you come to the conclusion the system is flawed when you are trying to bypass it and get away with a crime scott free? Unless you mean letting people off for crimes they commit "IS" the "flaw" in the system, in which case I agree.

The fact that you can take a ticket to court and get off just because the cop had a day off or was put on duty somewhere and couldnt make it is a HUGE flaw in the system too imo. An affidavit should be all thats required from a cop regarding tickets they have physically handed to you. If he lies and you prove he does (have video footage or 3rd party witnesses etc) he should lose his job, no questions asked. The system here is soo broken its not funny.

 

[ajaxguy]

You admitted that you "WERE" guilty. How do you come to the conclusion the system is flawed when you are trying to bypass it and get away with a crime scott free? Unless you mean letting people off for crimes they commit "IS" the "flaw" in the system, in which case I agree.

The fact that you can take a ticket to court and get off just because the cop had a day off or was put on duty somewhere and couldnt make it is a HUGE flaw in the system too imo. An affidavit should be all thats required from a cop regarding tickets they have physically handed to you. If he lies and you prove he does (have video footage or 3rd party witnesses etc) he should lose his job, no questions asked. The system here is soo broken its not funny.

What region do you patrol officer?

 

[daveyflakes]

What region do you patrol officer?

I'm not a police officer in case you're going to ask, but DownUnder does raise a good point.

The law is what the law is today, and you did break it as you've admitted yourself. Now, regardless of how we may feel about this law being fair or too overreaching, let's be honest and admit that what you hope to achieve here is, at some level, "cheating the system".

Back to the original point. I would suggest for you to request disclosure as others have suggested. Go back to the scene on a similar day (w.r.t. weather and conditions) and snap some pictures of passing cars. Maybe you can catch some glare in their windows and use it in your case to help cast doubt.

Hope you keep us updated on how it turns out.

 

[iFly55]

It doesn't matter whether the OP is morally guilty or not-guilty of the alleged offence; all that matters is what the crown can prove in court. It's not necessarily cheating the system, but making sure the system works (ie. being provided with officer's notes) and trial taking a reasonable amount of time.

I personally believe that distracted driving (hand-held) laws in Ontario don't carry enough teeth. Other provinces have higher fines ($400) and four demerit points. In BC & Saskatchewan it's an escalating novice class license prohibition (zero tolerance) to use a 'hand-held' device and a first conviction in ON would be an automatic 30-day DL suspension. However, in ON if you collect 4 pts on your novice class license it's also a 30-day suspension... so maybe lawmakers just have to tack on the 4pts to spook the novice class drivers. Source: http://distracteddriving.caa.ca/education/distracted-driving-laws-in-canada.php

In Ontario most drivers lose sleep over demerit points rather than convictions/fines, so maybe that's the key to compliance? Zero tolerance for novice class drivers would be appropriate. If i had it my way, we would also have roadside confiscation/destruction of the hand-held device, just like what the OPP do with 'Radar Detector/Lidar Jamming' devices. Drivers should have 100% of their undivided attention placed on the road, and not fiddling with phones, watches and mp3s.

Even with all these hand-held restrictions you can still use your phones/devices as long as they're mounted to the vehicle: windshield, car-vent.

So you can legally update your instagram facebook twitter while driving with:

@handle stuck on the dvp #donvalleyparkinglot #toronto #robford​

 

[Apollo95]

the disclosure is heavily dependant on officer's notes on the day.
so,
Definitely need his notes. if they're typed, great, if not request them typed so you can read legibly.

also,
you were tapping your "wallet", "kleenex", "hand" on streering wheel. so my point, nothing was up against your head/ear.
so see if officer has written he saw you holding a phone on your ear, down low texting?? what?? Where?

conditions. snowy? rainy? too much sun (sun in his eyes)?? how far was he? was he on your side of the road or on other side of traffic?

was it the end of his shift? maybe he was tired.

so there are some factors here to play on, which depend on the notes and what he has written down.
also, what he is willing to say, be it true or if he lies. he may say conditions were fine. he was very close to your car, clear view (and it could be a lie). he may say he saw you holding the phone to your ear… even tho as you have mentioned you were tapping it on your steering wheel.
these are factors you have to analyze, review and try to creat doubt with.

and the rest is up to the judge.

also, gather evidence as much as you can. eg. picture of your windshield on that day. how sunny was it? was the officer facing the sun? picture of your "wallet" that looks like a phone. or maybe you were wearing BIg black Gloves that officer mistook for a phone.
also, recored showing no calls made or received during that time. no text messages etc…

you have some tools to play with there. but it really comes down to the judge.

 

[Apollo95]

I suppose yes in this scenario glass half empty.. The reason is , i find the justice system flawed in this scenario because there is money involved.

Ultimately the money collected from tickets pays the salaries of all judicial employees including the JP

So at the very root of it there is a conflict of interest.

I am not implying the jp's do not do their just work but at the end of the day the fact is that they do rely on tickets to fund the justice system

No you are exactly right... thats why its hit and miss though. All depends how the JP is feeling that day. Are legal system in regards to tickets is very flawed and like someone else noted, guilty until proven innocent.
as mush as I love Canada, the U.S. does not seem to be this way. Maybe Im wrong, but it seems that way.

+1
The enforcement of traffic violations and the court system here are very/deeply flawed.
especially traffic violations.
too much emphasis on speed and none on actual safety. laws are being enforced selectively.
I see too many bad drivers out there, drivers doing 80kmh in passing lane hwy. drivers doing terrible left turns.
drivers whom i wonder HOW they got a license. but nothing being done.

yet drivers who do 85 in a 70, where average rate of speed is 85-90 are being ticketed for going with flow of traffic.
or HTA 172…. just a ridiculous law: the flagship of GUILTY UNTIL proven Innocent.

police state. truly. citizens don't have the right to talk. wrong. guilty and threatened by police.
i have personally lost all faith in the system. radar detectors are the best way to go. should be legal as in some provinces and states. it's the only tool we have to combat this injustice.

 

[ajaxguy]

the disclosure is heavily dependant on officer's notes on the day.
so,
Definitely need his notes. if they're typed, great, if not request them typed so you can read legibly.

also,
you were tapping your "wallet", "kleenex", "hand" on streering wheel. so my point, nothing was up against your head/ear.
so see if officer has written he saw you holding a phone on your ear, down low texting?? what?? Where?

conditions. snowy? rainy? too much sun (sun in his eyes)?? how far was he? was he on your side of the road or on other side of traffic?

was it the end of his shift? maybe he was tired.

so there are some factors here to play on, which depend on the notes and what he has written down.
also, what he is willing to say, be it true or if he lies. he may say conditions were fine. he was very close to your car, clear view (and it could be a lie). he may say he saw you holding the phone to your ear… even tho as you have mentioned you were tapping it on your steering wheel.
these are factors you have to analyze, review and try to creat doubt with.

and the rest is up to the judge.

also, gather evidence as much as you can. eg. picture of your windshield on that day. how sunny was it? was the officer facing the sun? picture of your "wallet" that looks like a phone. or maybe you were wearing BIg black Gloves that officer mistook for a phone.
also, recored showing no calls made or received during that time. no text messages etc…

you have some tools to play with there. but it really comes down to the judge.

Thanks for this post man... like you I think there are many things that could create doubt, but yes it depends on the disclosure. So I am waiting till close to the 15 days then will request trial, then after that will request disclosure.
In the disclosure request should I ask for typed notes off the bat or wait and see if they come already with it?

 

[Apollo95]

there is a thread regarding disclosure on the forum.

IF I'm correct, i think you ask for disclosure and then if there is a problem you request "further disclosure"
ie typed etc.. or things they may have left out.

not sure tho. definitely read the thread on going to court and disclosure, some good stuff there. ill post it if i find it… but it's been reposted and referred to quite a bit.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I'm not a police officer in case you're going to ask, but DownUnder does raise a good point.

The law is what the law is today, and you did break it as you've admitted yourself. Now, regardless of how we may feel about this law being fair or too overreaching, let's be honest and admit that what you hope to achieve here is, at some level, "cheating the system".

Back to the original point. I would suggest for you to request disclosure as others have suggested. Go back to the scene on a similar day (w.r.t. weather and conditions) and snap some pictures of passing cars. Maybe you can catch some glare in their windows and use it in your case to help cast doubt.

Hope you keep us updated on how it turns out.

For the record it isn't 'cheating the system' to demand you're right of due process. Also if the system is never tested it cannot improve, nor can our legal rights be maintained.

In this case the best chances of a favourable result are procedural failures

 

[ajaxguy]

For the record it isn't 'cheating the system' to demand you're right of due process. Also if the system is never tested it cannot improve, nor can our legal rights be maintained.

In this case the best chances of a favourable result are procedural failures

Exactly! I guess daveyflakes just admits his guilt and pays his tickets right away. Its not smart at all, but I guess there are some people like that and have lots of extra money for there insurance hikes.

 

[hedo2002]

I think the point of Davey's post was your saying here, "I want to try to punch a hole in the officers story" and have him admit he didn't see me holding a phone, (when in fact you were holding your phone).

Now does that mean you shouldn't test the system? No it is your right to do so. I think it is a bit "naive" to expect the officer to get on the stand and after intense questioning from you he is suddenly going to break down and start crying and yell "yes your right I don't know what you were holding.. In fact I am not even sure if you were there that day"...LOL Now obviously I am exaggerating for effect.

In the end, it comes down to you knowing what you did was exactly what the officer stopped you for and he laid the charge. For those who say the "system is flawed" and officers lie all the time, Is simply to much of a generalized statement. Do officers lie or make up testimony?? yes they do, does this mean EVERY officer does it? Not anymore than one could say EVERYONE who rides a bike is a Hell's angel..lol In THIS case if the officer states he observed he saw you holding your phone, I am not sure how some conclude he is lying, (especially given that Ajaxguy has to his credit admitted he WAS holding the phone.

Is the mere action of holding a phone "distracting" to a driver, not at the moment of them holding it, although I think one could easily extrapolate that if your holding your phone and it dings, your more likely to look at it to see the message etc, than if it were holstered. But that can be debated and perhaps one day it will be changed.

On the flip side how many threads/posts have we seen on the various forums of people saying they were hit by someone texting or talking on their phones?? So is it more "acceptable" to us when we are in our cages and doing it then when we are on our bikes and others are doing it?

Again i think your "best Option" is disclosure, (although I suspect you won't find anything in there, the officer from what you have posted didn't say when he stopped you he saw you texting or talking on the phone, so highly unlikely that will be in his notes or stated during trial). Alternatively seek a charge, (which won't affect insurance rates and offer to plead out to that one). As soon as you begin to speak to the crown you should get a sense of how willing they will be to deal. Then "offer", (again assuming the cop is there and you have found nothing in the disclosure), a specific charge you would be willing to plead guilty to in lieu of the current charge.

 

[ajaxguy]

I think the point of Davey's post was your saying here, "I want to try to punch a hole in the officers story" and have him admit he didn't see me holding a phone, (when in fact you were holding your phone).

Now does that mean you shouldn't test the system? No it is your right to do so. I think it is a bit "naive" to expect the officer to get on the stand and after intense questioning from you he is suddenly going to break down and start crying and yell "yes your right I don't know what you were holding.. In fact I am not even sure if you were there that day"...LOL Now obviously I am exaggerating for effect.

In the end, it comes down to you knowing what you did was exactly what the officer stopped you for and he laid the charge. For those who say the "system is flawed" and officers lie all the time, Is simply to much of a generalized statement. Do officers lie or make up testimony?? yes they do, does this mean EVERY officer does it? Not anymore than one could say EVERYONE who rides a bike is a Hell's angel..lol In THIS case if the officer states he observed he saw you holding your phone, I am not sure how some conclude he is lying, (especially given that Ajaxguy has to his credit admitted he WAS holding the phone.

Is the mere action of holding a phone "distracting" to a driver, not at the moment of them holding it, although I think one could easily extrapolate that if your holding your phone and it dings, your more likely to look at it to see the message etc, than if it were holstered. But that can be debated and perhaps one day it will be changed.

On the flip side how many threads/posts have we seen on the various forums of people saying they were hit by someone texting or talking on their phones?? So is it more "acceptable" to us when we are in our cages and doing it then when we are on our bikes and others are doing it?

Again i think your "best Option" is disclosure, (although I suspect you won't find anything in there, the officer from what you have posted didn't say when he stopped you he saw you texting or talking on the phone, so highly unlikely that will be in his notes or stated during trial). Alternatively seek a charge, (which won't affect insurance rates and offer to plead out to that one). As soon as you begin to speak to the crown you should get a sense of how willing they will be to deal. Then "offer", (again assuming the cop is there and you have found nothing in the disclosure), a specific charge you would be willing to plead guilty to in lieu of the current charge.

Of course he isnt going to break down and cry you are being ridiculous. They are human though, and he will be on the stand and if he admits to something like just say " yes maybe there was a glare and i could not see in the car 100%" or " yes it is possible that I may have mistaken his black wallet for a phone" any of those things happen and more then likely it works in your favor.

Yes of course the disclosure will help to know for sure what he saw that day and what he didnt. Some cops are lazy and some are thorough. So yes it all depends, but do I have doubt that i will win? Not at all!

 

[hedo2002]

Of course he isnt going to break down and cry you are being ridiculous. They are human though, and he will be on the stand and if he admits to something like just say " yes maybe there was a glare and i could not see in the car 100%" or " yes it is possible that I may have mistaken his black wallet for a phone" any of those things happen and more then likely it works in your favor.

Yes of course the disclosure will help to know for sure what he saw that day and what he didnt. Some cops are lazy and some are thorough. So yes it all depends, but do I have doubt that i will win? Not at all!

I guess you missed that portion where I said I was exaggerating on purpose. Of course I wasn't serious when I said the officer will break down on the stand. But to think your going to get him to admit he didn't see what he charged you with is at best, a VERY VERY long shot. As you already know it is a he said, he said type of charge, you don't have, or haven't posted it, ANY evidence to PROVE he didn't see you holding a phone. He has laid a charge and you can rest assured he will show up and say just that. A GOOD defence attorney MAY be able to "trip" him up but unless he has only been an officer since the day before he laid this charge he has testified MANY times, and knows what to say and not to say on the stand. Your "hoping" he will admit under oath that he didn't see what he saw and that he isn't competent to do his job.

Think of it in these terms, you have a seasoned ball player, (the officer), who has faced countless pitchers good and bad. Then you have an amateur pitcher, (you), who has never pitched against a pro. Is it likely that the pitcher is going to be soooo good as to throw three perfect strikes and strike out the pro on their first attempt? It could happen, but the odds are not favorable. Now change the equation just a little put in a VERY experienced pitcher, (a GOD attorney), and the odds become MUCH higher for a strike out. I KNOW you want to positive. But in the end you did what your charged with had you hit and killed someone while holding that phone would you also refuse to accept responsibility for it?

It is as I said your RIGHT to fight it, but it doesn't mean you didn't do it. I agree with the FF posting above, as a former cop I have been to way too many collisions, where people were killed because they were doing stuff they shouldn't be doing. Did you hit or cause an accident? Nope Is it possible you will simply from tapping your phone to the music on the steering wheel? Not really. But it still doesn't make it right.

I agree people today are too quick to not accept personal responsibility for their actions. Your trying to beat a charge you KNOW your guilty of. So if someone were, And I hope it NEVER happens hits and injures anyone you know while holding a cell phone you would be good with them not accepting the responsibility for doing so. Should one plead guilty if they did nothing wrong??? NEVER. But I was taught if you doing something wrong, then you man up and admit your error. The result of accepting responsibility is that there are often consequences to that. I understand you think you have the answer to get off, but how many other threads have we seen here at GTAM where they too thought they had the perfect defence, and then never post the results, (I bet if they won they would have posted it for all to see)...lol

EDIT: My FINAL point what will YOU say under oath when the crown asks you were you holding your cell phone while driving as charged? Are you prepared to lie? If so then it is ok for YOU to lie but the cop MUST be 100% honest?? You know once you TRUTHFULLY answer that question a conviction will be registered. Which is why I advised trying to deal to another charge, that won't affect your insurance rates.

 

[ajaxguy]

I guess you missed that portion where I said I was exaggerating on purpose. Of course I wasn't serious when I said the officer will break down on the stand. But to think your going to get him to admit he didn't see what he charged you with is at best, a VERY VERY long shot. As you already know it is a he said, he said type of charge, you don't have, or haven't posted it, ANY evidence to PROVE he didn't see you holding a phone. He has laid a charge and you can rest assured he will show up and say just that. A GOOD defence attorney MAY be able to "trip" him up but unless he has only been an officer since the day before he laid this charge he has testified MANY times, and knows what to say and not to say on the stand.

Think of it in these terms, you have a seasoned ball player, (the officer), who has faced countless pitchers good and bad. Then you have an amateur pitcher, (you), who has never pitched against a pro. Is it likely that the pitcher is going to be soooo good as to throw three perfect strikes and strike out the pro on their first attempt? It could happen, but the odds are not favorable. Now change the equation just a little put in a VERY experienced pitcher, (a GOD attorney), and the odds become MUCH higher for a strike out. I KNOW you want to positive. But in the end you did what your charged with had you hit and killed someone while holding that phone would you also refuse to accept responsibility for it?

It is as I said your RIGHT to fight it, but it doesn't mean you didn't do it. I agree with the FF posting above, as a former cop I have been to way too many collisions, where people were killed because they were doing stuff they shouldn't be doing. Did you hit or cause an accident? Nope Is it possible you will simply from tapping your phone to the music on the steering wheel? Not really. But it still doesn't make it right.

I agree people today are too quick to not accept personal responsibility for their actions. Your trying to beat a charge you KNOW your guilty of. So if someone were, And I hope it NEVER happens hits and injures anyone you know while holding a cell phone you would be good with them not accepting the responsibility for doing so. Should one plead guilty if they did nothing wrong??? NEVER. But I was taught if you doing something wrong, then you man up and admit your error. The result of accepting responsibility is that there are often consequences to that.

Well now you make sense... you are a former cop. You still have that in you. You cant understand because you are slightly biased, so hard for you to understand.
Ontario is a police state and its b.s. Safety should come first, not filling there quota. If you can tell me thats not the case then you are lying. I would suck it up like a man, if I was texting and driving, but basically stopped before a red light while tapping my phone, should not constitute a ticket when there are far worse things going on out there.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Well now you make sense... you are a former cop. You still have that in you. You cant understand because you are slightly biased, so hard for you to understand.
Ontario is a police state and its b.s. Safety should come first, not filling there quota. If you can tell me thats not the case then you are lying. I would suck it up like a man, if I was texting and driving, but basically stopped before a red light while tapping my phone, should not constitute a ticket when there are far worse things going on out there.

I would suggest, then, that the issue is not with the police but rather with politicians, and the voters who put them in place. We continue to vote for 'feel good, do nothing' laws, rather than effective ones. "Think of the children!!!!" is their battle cry and voters always rally 'round it.

But that's a topic for another thread.

Here's an idea: Go back to the site. Take a picture, from the approximate position the officer would have occupied, of a pedestrian holding a cell phone in as close to the position of your car as is practical and safe for said pedestrian. See if the item is readily recognizable for what it is. If not, use the picture as evidence. If it can be easily recognized when held by a pedestrian, then there's no way it could have been when held by a driver.

Reasonable doubt is your goal.