First ticket with my bike.

[Tiggy]

got nailed by a sneaky pig this afternoon. Apparently I was doing 90 in a 50 on his radar, I was trying to pass and make a lane change due to a parked semi in the right lane. Gave her a shot of gas and switched lanes and saw the copper at the very last second hidden behind a wall. I slowed slightly but kept going , looking in my mirror to see if he was going to pull out after me, he did but no lights and he took his time, so i thought maybe hes just going to tell me to slow it down. slapped me with a 29 over and told me to go take it to court. I WILL fight this or at least try my best but I have never been to court before on my own, always my lawyer. But realisticly I do not have much of a case other than the fact that I needed to speed up and change lanes to avoid the semi.

Sooo...is pleading not guilty and getting a disclosure, going through this process a somewhat simple thing to do? It sounds like a pain in the *** to be honest but I cannot afford yet another ding on insurance. The copper told me I might be able to get it even more reduced and that he may or may not even make it to trial, if I decide to fight it.

What would YOU do?:confused1:

Oh and he misspelled my last name, but I know thats not grounds for a dropped ticket...although it could be used to my advantage i guess.

 

[cbr125looksfun]

use the misspelling as your main defence, then if that fails (if the cops even shows) tell the judge to adjourn so you can have some time (months lol) to prepare your case with the now validated ticket.

happened to me and cop never showed the next time. over 600$ in charges dropped instantly 8)

oh and edit: getting disclosure can bite you in the ***** in the end, because now the cop gets a reminder that he needs to nail you in court... I didnt bother requesting anything...

 

[Tiggy]

oh and edit: getting disclosure can bite you in the ***** in the end, because now the cop gets a reminder that he needs to nail you in court... I didnt bother requesting anything...

yea i was kinda thinkin the same thing with the disclosure, I am pretty sure he didnt take many notes because it was over and done in less than 5 mins. but who knows. So you think I should go for a trial and push the date? and hope the cop never shows.

 

[stratofortress]

Fight it and tell the truth , works for me

 

[rib]

http://www.ticketcombat.com/

Fantastic site

will be your new homepage for the next 6 months


fight it!!!!

You can win!!!

 

[rafiki911]

Your best bet is to fight it and change the date a few times and hope the cop doesn't show up cause you really have no defence here. The excuse you have for going that fast is not good enough at all.

 

[Rina]

If u take it to court, the cop most liekly will show up, these guys are catching on now and basically try to schedule all of their tickets on the same day, u will get offered a reduction by the prosecutor to probably 10 over, u can take it or, request a trial, if u lose that trial u will have to pay the original fine.

Good luck to u !

 

[turbodish]

If u take it to court, the cop most liekly will show up, these guys are catching on now and basically try to schedule all of their tickets on the same day, u will get offered a reduction by the prosecutor to probably 10 over, u can take it or, request a trial, if u lose that trial u will have to pay the original fine.

The original fine? Only if he is lucky.

The ticket was already lowered roadside from 40 over to 29 over so the Crown won't be very quick to offer a deal for lower than the ticket already is.

Instead, if you choose to fight it you stand a good risk that the Crown will move to amend-up the charge to the actual speed that you were clocked at. If you get convicted on the amended charge you will face the penalties associated with that amended-up charge.

The 29-over ticket is 3 demerit points and $3.75 per km over the limit ($3.75 x 29 = $108.75), plus $5 court fees plus $25 victim surcharge.

The 40-over ticket is 4 demerit points and $6.00 per km over the limit ($6.00 x 40 = $240.00), plus $5 court fees plus $50 victim surcharge. In other words, the ticket is more than double and you get an extra demerit.

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/setfines/one/schedule43.doc

 

[Metastable]

On the flip side of the coin to Turbo's post....

..... remember you are fighting the insurance company not the police/crown here. So fight all your tickets.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The original fine? Only if he is lucky.

The ticket was already lowered roadside from 40 over to 29 over so the Crown won't be very quick to offer a deal for lower than the ticket already is.

Instead, if you choose to fight it you stand a good risk that the Crown will move to amend-up the charge to the actual speed that you were clocked at. If you get convicted on the amended charge you will face the penalties associated with that amended-up charge.

The 29-over ticket is 3 demerit points and $3.75 per km over the limit ($3.75 x 29 = $108.75), plus $5 court fees plus $25 victim surcharge.

The 40-over ticket is 4 demerit points and $6.00 per km over the limit ($6.00 x 40 = $240.00), plus $5 court fees plus $50 victim surcharge. In other words, the ticket is more than double and you get an extra demerit.

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/setfines/one/schedule43.doc

On the other hand the realistic penalties, for being convicted of that greater speed, are no more serious. If you only have one ticket and don't make a habit of speeding, then your insurance likely wouldn't be effected any differently for a 4 point infraction, than for a 3 point infraction. You'd pay a higher fine and have an extra point against your license but, if you keep your head down for a couple of years, that would be gone too.

So that means the consequences of fighting the ticket really aren't significantly greater than not fighting it, unless you're seriously financially strapped.

 

[promac]

The original fine? Only if he is lucky.

The ticket was already lowered roadside from 40 over to 29 over so the Crown won't be very quick to offer a deal for lower than the ticket already is.

Instead, if you choose to fight it you stand a good risk that the Crown will move to amend-up the charge to the actual speed that you were clocked at. If you get convicted on the amended charge you will face the penalties associated with that amended-up charge.[/url]

What kind of horse-**** is that? On the one hand, you have a citation for going 29 over, then the officer presents evidence of 40 over? Which is it? LOL! Why doesn't the officer just say 50 over then and step it up to an HTA 172 out of spite? That'll put the fear of God into people to just pay the ticket and be done with it - maybe even extort a little money while there at it. I'm not convinced it's proper to give officers the discretion to reduce a charge. Warning - yes, but if you're charged, it should be for what the evidence supports - no more and no less.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

What kind of horse-**** is that? On the one hand, you have a citation for going 29 over, then the officer presents evidence of 40 over? Which is it? LOL! Why doesn't the officer just say 50 over then and step it up to an HTA 172 out of spite? That'll put the fear of God into people to just pay the ticket and be done with it - maybe even extort a little money while there at it. I'm not convinced it's proper to give officers the discretion to reduce a charge. Warning - yes, but if you're charged, it should be for what the evidence supports - no more and no less.

Don't believe it, if you like, but he's correct. It's perfectly legal for the ticket to be revised upwards, to the original unreduced speed recorded by the officer. The citation will read that the driver is charged for 29 Kmh over the limit with a notation "R", indicating that the speed was reduced. As the charge is speeding, not speeding at X Kmh over the limit, the speed can be revised upwards at trial to reflect the actual speed.

Case law supports this.

 

[turbodish]

What kind of horse-**** is that? On the one hand, you have a citation for going 29 over, then the officer presents evidence of 40 over? Which is it? LOL! Why doesn't the officer just say 50 over then and step it up to an HTA 172 out of spite? That'll put the fear of God into people to just pay the ticket and be done with it - maybe even extort a little money while there at it. I'm not convinced it's proper to give officers the discretion to reduce a charge. Warning - yes, but if you're charged, it should be for what the evidence supports - no more and no less.

That piece of paper you get at roadside is not evidence. It's merely an offence notice that gives you an out-of-court settlement amount. The evidence will be in the cop's notebook, that's what will come out at trial, and you can be convicted on that evidence regardless of what the out-of-court settlement amount on the ticket is.

Case law supports amending charges up. It went to the Ontario Court of Appeal not too long ago where the practice was affirmed as being constitutionally acceptable. See York v Winlow. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca643/2009onca643.pdf

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Don't believe it, if you like, but he's correct. It's perfectly legal for the ticket to be revised upwards, to the original unreduced speed recorded by the officer. The citation will read that the driver is charged for 29 Kmh over the limit with a notation "R", indicating that the speed was reduced. As the charge is speeding, not speeding at X Kmh over the limit, the speed can be revised upwards at trial to reflect the actual speed.

Case law supports this.

can the ticket be revised upwards if there is no R on the speed entry? None of my speeding tickets have ever had an R entered even though i have had a cop drop it down from one bracket to the next.

 

[Tiggy]

either way I will still fight the ticket, Its still a minor.

 

[promac]

That piece of paper you get at roadside is not evidence. It's merely an offence notice that gives you an out-of-court settlement amount. The evidence will be in the cop's notebook, that's what will come out at trial, and you can be convicted on that evidence regardless of what the out-of-court settlement amount on the ticket is.

Case law supports amending charges up. It went to the Ontario Court of Appeal not too long ago where the practice was affirmed as being constitutionally acceptable. See York v Winlow. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca643/2009onca643.pdf

I don't agree with the judge's reasoning that a police officer can accept a plea bargain, nor do I accept that the reduction in speed recorded on the citation constitutes a plea bargain, since there was no initial charge recorded to bargain with. It would make more sense that the officer was conservative in his assessment of the defendants rate of speed given the inherent inaccuracy of his measuring technique - 10-15% is not unreasonable. I agree with the justice's reasoning as well - it is sound, fair and makes perfect sense. I think the judge is a moron. His reasoning is illogical and makes little sense. If the recorded speed on the citation was omitted or in error, I'd agree. However the speed on the citation was deliberate and accurate. The citation can be put forward by the defendant as evidence and should be considered superior to notes or recollection given the circumstances. Plea bargaining is only appropriate in a court of law.

 

[turbodish]

can the ticket be revised upwards if there is no R on the speed entry? None of my speeding tickets have ever had an R entered even though i have had a cop drop it down from one bracket to the next.

The "R" is just a statistical data-gathering check-box. It being present or not makes no difference as far as amending a ticket up. Besides, not only can speeding tickets be amended up to the actual speed noted at time of stop, but non-speeding tickets can be amended "up" to a completely different charge as well in various circumstances.

 

[turbodish]

It would make more sense that the officer was conservative in his assessment of the defendants rate of speed given the inherent inaccuracy of his measuring technique - 10-15% is not unreasonable.

Police cruiser speedometers are certified and calibrated to 2% accuracy. Besides, from the court's transcript, the cop was being conservative even with respect to the unlowered speed that he noted. Cop noted he was doing 130 kmph, and the accused was still pulling away. From where I sit, the accused was already receiving some benefit of conservative charging even before the roadside reduction.

The officer was driving at a speed of 130 km per hour, and yet Mr. Winlow was pulling away from him. The officer used his discretion to write the offence notice at 115 km per hour. Line 17 - http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca643/2009onca643.pdf

I think the judge is a moron. His reasoning is illogical and makes little sense. If the recorded speed on the citation was omitted or in error, I'd agree. However the speed on the citation was deliberate and accurate. The citation can be put forward by the defendant as evidence and should be considered superior to notes or recollection given the circumstances. Plea bargaining is only appropriate in a court of law.

There were three judges in on this opinion, and the reputations of the judges named in the transcript suggest that they are far from being morons. Once again, the citation is not evidence. The judges address the issue of roadside discounts issued at the discretion of the cop.

[58] As a general conclusion, I see nothing inherently unfair about the practice itself. It seems to me that it seeks to achieve, or at least balance, two laudable objectives, both of which are in the public interest: to provide offending drivers with an incentive to settle out of court, thus disposing of many speeding charges quickly and efficiently; and to ensure that drivers who commit speeding offences are convicted at the actual rate of speed over the speed limit that they drive, thus promoting both specific and general deterrence.
[59] The first objective is triggered when a police officer exercises discretion to charge at a reduced rate of speed over the limit. The second objective is triggered when the prosecutor asks for an amendment of the charge to conform to the evidence disclosed at trial.

So take the out-of-court settlement, or not. If you choose to challenge a ticket, why should you benefit from a roadside lowering?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I don't agree with the judge's reasoning that a police officer can accept a plea bargain, nor do I accept that the reduction in speed recorded on the citation constitutes a plea bargain, since there was no initial charge recorded to bargain with. It would make more sense that the officer was conservative in his assessment of the defendants rate of speed given the inherent inaccuracy of his measuring technique - 10-15% is not unreasonable. I agree with the justice's reasoning as well - it is sound, fair and makes perfect sense. I think the judge is a moron. His reasoning is illogical and makes little sense. If the recorded speed on the citation was omitted or in error, I'd agree. However the speed on the citation was deliberate and accurate. The citation can be put forward by the defendant as evidence and should be considered superior to notes or recollection given the circumstances. Plea bargaining is only appropriate in a court of law.

Failing to agree with decisions, that set down how the law is to be interpreted, doesn't mean anything unless you're sitting the bench in The Supreme Court. So go right ahead, but it won't help you fight a ticket.

 

[Brian P]

It's still worth the process of fighting the ticket, nevermind the possibility of getting "amended up".

Go through the process. File for a court date. File for disclosure. Ask for EVERYthing. (Do some searching - others have explained what to ask for far better than I can, and it's lengthy.) Give "the system" all of the opportunities to fail. At the same time, make sure YOU don't fail. Don't forget to do the things that you are required to do, when you are required to do them.

You never know what's going to happen. The courts could be backlogged. Your case could sit on the back burner for so long that you have a shot at 11b (search). The officer could have forgotten to file the ticket or waited too long. They could forget to give you the disclosure. The disclosure may have something interesting in it - you never know what. The disclosure might not have all the things that you asked for. Failing all that, the court date could land on a day when the officer is not available. Maybe he's sick, maybe he's on vacation, maybe he got transferred to another department, maybe he retired. If any of these things happen - and they probably won't, but YOU WILL NEVER KNOW IF YOU DON'T TRY - you win.

If the court date arrives, and it wasn't in 11b territory, and you got all your disclosure, and you got the disclosure on time, and the disclosure had everything in it that you requested, and the officer is there ... simply state to the prosecutor that you wish to plead guilty as charged. It won't hurt to ask for a further reduction at that time, but if you don't get it, plead guilty as charged.

If you do this, because it never actually gets to trial, the crown won't have the chance to "amend up".

And even if you have done all this, you have STILL won, because the delay between when you got the ticket and your court date, delays the implications on your driver's license.