Got a ticket for wearing a DOT helmet

[hedo2002]

Not right but it is life. In the last 6 months I have attended two first attendances. The one ticket was "somewhat legit" in that the reg states you must have your validation sticker attached to the vehicle permit. It wasn't there so copper wrote ticket, (at 6:15 am Sunday, so he was "fishing" for drunks driving home). Problem is I had since my renewal changed my address. Service Ont doesn't reaffix a sticker. Instead the "val tag number" gets printed on the front portion of the permit.

So I had done nothing wrong but the reg is not clearly written, so ticket issued. I KNEW it would be dismissed by crown. It cost me, (self employed) half a mornings bookings. Cop interpreted the reg as they were written and done his job. I could have went and complained he should have known better about the number on the front. But that would have cost me more time and energy with no tangible return, (for me). I have been there and had :those talks" with my sgts.

In the end all I am saying as with everything in life one has to choose which battles are worth fighting.

Now having read that the OP has a custom bike he will stand out even more so the "possibility of retaliation" increases substantially more than a factory bike.

This is why I hate cops - Yea let's laugh over it, not like the person had to most likely lose work time to take a trip to the court to have it dismissed, let's joke about it.

 

[GateKeeper]

This as with MOST sections of the HTA are poorly worded which is why there is room for "interpretation". Unfortunately the "interpreting" falls to the traffic officer doing the stops.T

The regs are "conceived" (usually by a bureaucrat), It is then written up and presented to the legislators, (most of whom have NO legal training). They pass it. Then it falls to the street cop to enforce it. MOST of those who write or approve the regs have any form of legal training and as such when they write it up it makes perfect sense to them and seems clear. Often it IS as clear... AS MUD.

I wasn't there so I can't say if the cop merely misinterpreted it or he was being a dick. NO one here including the OP knows that for sure, as no one knows what was in his mind at the time.

OP Gatekeeper keeps advising you to take this "in front of a JP" I guess he THINKS the cop will get reprimanded, (NOT going to happen), I would HIGHLY recommend you get prepared with some of the excellent suggestions presented to you here and take the certificates etc to first attendance and have the crown deal with it, (if your fully prepared they will dismiss it there). Going in front of a JP is at best a crap shoot. As I and rob have both said it is possible the cop will convince the JP of the reg and you will be convicted. Why risk a conviction?

Gatekeeper why not get the same helmet and stop next time you see a cop tell him you want to "test" the validity of the law and ask him to write you a ticket, then take it to court. Feel free to post back your results.

As a n ex copper I have seen my share of intelligent well read JP's and then I have had the pleasure of meeting some who couldn't find their a ss with both hands..lmao. Not worth spinning the wheel to see which one the OP will get when it will be dealt with effectively at first attendance.

so go to first attendance get the ticket dropped, and what the friggg does the cop learn, not a bloody thing, he will just go on issuing tickets that have no merit........

cop might not get reprimanded but it will show him, that his interpretation of the law is incorrect, maybe he will learn something, maybe he won't....

if by what others have posted and the semi colon is the same as an OR, then what does the JP have to interpret, read the law as it's written and enforce, since the helmet is DOT approved and that is one of the criteria, then the OP will surely win.......

unless you all think a JP and a COP can just do as they want, well then we really have bigger issues......

as for the helmet, I don't ride that style of bike, wouldn't look right, and I don't have 80 bucks to just prove a point

and I guess the ticket my son got was justified as well, COP thought it was a 70 zone, wrote up the ticket as 15 over, so 85 in a 70, well the COP was wrong, it's an 80 zone, so what, he just gets to make up the speed limits as well, I think not, this one was a dick and a jealous one at that, pulls over a 20 year old in a 150 thousand dollar car, thinking he can flex his muscle because he is a cop, most of them are all power tripping dinks.....ohhh yes this one will go to first attendance and if not dropped it will go to the JP, really a ticket for 5km over, cop must really be needing to reach his quota......

hedo2002, I hate to take shots at a person, but I can see your view since your an ex copper.......as they say once a copper always a copper....please don't take this as a cheap shot towards you, it's just the way it is.....

.

 

[iFly55]

@GateKeeper, there's a lot of people involved in the court system that may have no legal training: legislators, officers, and more importantly JPs.

Other than your run of the mill speeding, hand-held and prohibited sign violations... they're literally learning as they go. The probability that the OPs JP will be reading that helmet regulation for the very first time is actually really high. Your putting way too much faith in JPs, it is truly a crap shoot in our kangaroo courts.

Unfortunately, if the crown/cop choose to pursue the charge and if the OP is self-represented and unprepared... the crown is guaranteed to get the conviction.

The officer most likely gives zero ****s, whether OP is convicted or walks. Neither does the crown. Keep in mind even if the JP comes back with a decision not in favour of the crown; the JP's decision is not binding, so the crown/cop can continue to prosecute helmet offences.

Most of the time trial decisions are not made on the same day/time of the trial, in which case the officer may not even be present to listen to the decision.

It's literally going to take an amendment of the regulation or a higher court to interpret it for the lower courts.

 

[SONIC]

I also have the option to speak with the prosecutor, wouldn't that be the quickest and best way to resolve this? If I sit down with them and review the law, present proof that the helmet is DOT, shouldn't that be it, why go to court for this?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I also have the option to speak with the prosecutor, wouldn't that be the quickest and best way to resolve this? If I sit down with them and review the law, present proof that the helmet is DOT, shouldn't that be it, why go to court for this?

That's what people are talking about when they say "first attendance."

 

[Drake76]

That's what people are talking about when they say "first attendance."

Not neccessarily. There are 3 options on the back of your ticket. Option 1 is to pay, Option 3 is elect a trial. Option 2 in some jurisdictions says something like request a meeting with the prosecutor. Others say plead guilty with an excuse (1 on 1 with JP).

Sonic, in answer to your question, yes pick 2 if you want to short cut this. Bring your argument to the crown if you live in a jurisdiction that says option 2 is meet the prosecutor. Otherwise pick option 3, show up early on your trial date and see the crown before court begins.

 

[dasiffy]

Not neccessarily. There are 3 options on the back of your ticket. Option 1 is to pay, Option 3 is elect a trial. Option 2 in some jurisdictions says something like request a meeting with the prosecutor. Others say plead guilty with an excuse (1 on 1 with JP).

Sonic, in answer to your question, yes pick 2 if you want to short cut this. Bring your argument to the crown if you live in a jurisdiction that says option 2 is meet the prosecutor. Otherwise pick option 3, show up early on your trial date and see the crown before court begins.

Woah woah woah

DO NOT DO THIS

the three option on the ticket are:
1 ) guilty;
2 ) guilty with an excuse; or
3 ) trial

Pleading guilty with an excuse is pleading guilty. Which isn't what you want. Pick trial, and on the day of your trial be there when the court house opens and the first thing you do is ask to speak with the prosecutor.


Never plead guilty with an excuse. Even if you are guilty. You'll get much more if you talk to the prosecutor before trial.

 

[pricedo]

The cop probably lost his battle with the little lady at home and got up on the wrong side of the bed or more likely on the wrong side of the cramped settee in the living room after his bedroom rights were revoked with a sore back, a headache and in a peeved off mood.
He was boiling over with anger and frustration when he rolled his cruiser out of the yard after muster and was looking for a "victim" to commit administative jehad on and as if in answer to his prayer up rolls a bike with a loud exhaust and a rider wearing a nazi style helmet that projects attitude.
It shouldn't happen but it does.
Do your research, get all your documentary evidence in order and bring it and your helmet to court and hope the JP is a reasonable guy.
If I had to bet I'd say if your helmet is indeed an approved helmet as you say it is you'll win.
The provincial offences prosecutor (sometimes a seconded police officer) might even drop the charges before you get in front of the JP.
No police officer likes to be made look like an a-hole in front of a JP or a judge.

 

[Drake76]

Woah woah woah

Pleading guilty with an excuse is pleading guilty.

This is why I stated if you live in a jurisdiction that says meet with the prosecutor is option 2

"OPTION 2 -- Early Resolution -- Meet with Prosecutor (by choosing this option you do not forego the right to a trial)"

Maybe the backs of all the tickets have changed and the plead guilty to an excuse (meet with JP) option is gone everywhere. I dunno.

Here is the list of forms from the Ontario website if you want to read them.

 

[dasiffy]

This is why I stated if you live in a jurisdiction that says meet with the prosecutor is option 2

"OPTION 2 -- Early Resolution -- Meet with Prosecutor (by choosing this option you do not forego the right to a trial)"

Maybe the backs of all the tickets have changed and the plead guilty to an excuse (meet with JP) option is gone everywhere. I dunno.

Here is the list of forms from the Ontario website if you want to read them.

never seen that. Every jurisdiction i've recieved a ticked from (4) had guilty with excuse. Never even thought they could be different because it would be a provincial violation.

 

[hedo2002]

It is based upon the jurisdiction. The "larger volume" courts have put in the first attendance option in an attempt to streamline the entire process.

Gatekeeper... No offence taken I agree once you have been on "the other side" you tend to see things differently. Are there times people got tickets from me, that they felt weren't justified and on another day I likely wouldn't have issued a ticket? Certainly are. Just like every other human being cops have bad days.

As for your sons ticket I wasn't there, nor were you, your "assuming" the cop was being a dick, you don't know, that as a fact, (which is how your stating it). I had an impaired driving charge I laid with another officer, (senior to me at the time), in the cruiser. One of the reasons I gave for the traffic stop was the driver was 21 km over the posted limit. When on the stand the other officer stated it was a 60 zone. I had to be recalled by the crown to clarify where I first observed the subject it was indeed a 50 km zone, BUT the traffic stop took place in a 60 km zone as the limit increased.

The defence tried to use the "these officers can't even agree on the limit" the Judge, (it was a criminal trial), stated I am satisfied based on my testimony that the offence was committed. So It "could" be your son was clocked in an area where the limits change. If not the cop did indeed make an error.

BUT don't think the ticket will "automatically" be withdrawn, the crown has the option to amend the charge, and your son, (albeit only by 5 km/h), did commit the offence of speeding. My best advice is take photos of the exact area where the stop was made as well as when he first observed the officer. Then be VERY contrite when dealing with the crown. If your son goes in with the "attitude" that the cop is a dick and he should be severely reprimanded etc, then your not likely to get an early or a favorable outcome.

My point is the OP, shouldn't seek to go to trial when he has the option of early resolution, (first attendance), just so he can "see the cop get a dressing down from the JP". JP's work with officers everyday, there is a "relationship" which is established between them, (right or wrong), that the accused doesn't have the option to benefit from.

yes Sonic "first attendance" if that option is available you will go to courthouse then go into a meeting room and talk one on one with the crown. As long as you are well prepared, (have the documentation we have recommended you have as well as your helmet), then there is a higher probability the crown will simply "stay the charges", meaning they are withdrawn and the case is over. The meeting typically lasts less than 3 - 5 minutes so you have a limited window to present your facts to the crown so have it all ready to go when you walk in. The last two I have attended, (both in Richmond Hill I was there at 8:45 for a 9 am time, (but there could be dozens of people on the list) and I was out of the court house by 9:15 both days.

never seen that. Every jurisdiction i've recieved a ticked from (4) had guilty with excuse. Never even thought they could be different because it would be a provincial violation.

 

[iFly55]

http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/english/provincial-offences-act-forms

There are two different forms for Part I Provincial Offence Notices in Ontario, and depending on the jurisdiction they may use either one:

Form 3: http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/forms/poa-1/POA0848/POA-0848-rev0314-web.doc
Form 4: http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/forms/poa-1/POA0849/POA-0849-rev1111.doc

I believe Form 4 was the result of a study to save costs and streamline the courts. Even if you get Form 3, you can choose option 3 and fill out a separate form for an Early Attendance Meeting.

 

[Roomie]

How has this made 12 pages? It's really not that difficult to figure out.

 

[SONIC]

So to give everyone an update i finally got in to see the prosecutor a few weeks ago and the ticket was dropped. I Was able to get the 100 page DOT certification from the manufacturer, WHICH I HAD TO PRINT UP OF MY OWN PAPER, brought in the actual helmet and packaging, and receipt to prove it was purchased prior to the ticket.

It was a total joke, the prosecutor didn't even care to look at anything I brought, the fact that I appeared prepared to defend myself was enough for him to dismiss the case, but still had to sit in the court room for an hour and see the JOP to formally withdraw the charge.

So I lost an entire morning at work, paid $12 in parking, fuel and mileage, plus the headache of a drive through morning rush hour to get to the courthouse downtown...... ALL BECAUSE A POS COP CANT COMPREHEND THE ****ING LAW HES BEING PAID TO UPHOLD!!!!

A BIG **** YOU TO THE COP THAT WROTE ME THIS BS TICKET!!!!!!!!! **** YOU!!!!

 

[Rob MacLennan]

So to give everyone an update i finally got in to see the prosecutor a few weeks ago and the ticket was dropped. I Was able to get the 100 page DOT certification from the manufacturer, WHICH I HAD TO PRINT UP OF MY OWN PAPER, brought in the actual helmet and packaging, and receipt to prove it was purchased prior to the ticket.

It was a total joke, the prosecutor didn't even care to look at anything I brought, the fact that I appeared prepared to defend myself was enough for him to dismiss the case, but still had to sit in the court room for an hour and see the JOP to formally withdraw the charge.

So I lost an entire morning at work, paid $12 in parking, fuel and mileage, plus the headache of a drive through morning rush hour to get to the courthouse downtown...... ALL BECAUSE A POS COP CANT COMPREHEND THE ****ING LAW HES BEING PAID TO UPHOLD!!!!

A BIG **** YOU TO THE COP THAT WROTE ME THIS BS TICKET!!!!!!!!! **** YOU!!!!

Unfortunately the JP has to sign off on any agreements that are made, in order for them to be binding. You would think that would be different in a case in which the charges are withdrawn, but it's all the same.

 

[theraymondguy]

So to give everyone an update i finally got in to see the prosecutor a few weeks ago and the ticket was dropped. I Was able to get the 100 page DOT certification from the manufacturer, WHICH I HAD TO PRINT UP OF MY OWN PAPER, brought in the actual helmet and packaging, and receipt to prove it was purchased prior to the ticket.

It was a total joke, the prosecutor didn't even care to look at anything I brought, the fact that I appeared prepared to defend myself was enough for him to dismiss the case, but still had to sit in the court room for an hour and see the JOP to formally withdraw the charge.

So I lost an entire morning at work, paid $12 in parking, fuel and mileage, plus the headache of a drive through morning rush hour to get to the courthouse downtown...... ALL BECAUSE A POS COP CANT COMPREHEND THE ****ING LAW HES BEING PAID TO UPHOLD!!!!

A BIG **** YOU TO THE COP THAT WROTE ME THIS BS TICKET!!!!!!!!! **** YOU!!!!

And to think if you did not have that loud exhaust none of this inconvenience would have occurred.

 

[Roomie]

And to think if you did not have that loud exhaust none of this inconvenience would have occurred.

And to think if the cop hadn't of been a twat that day and done his job nothing would have happened. Every cop says bikes are loud. I had one tell me that once and my exhaust was still stock. Great input though.

Good to hear it was all dropped sonic. Sucks for the loss of time because someone couldn't do their job properly but at least the ticket was dropped.

 

[Splash]

And to think if you did not have that loud exhaust none of this inconvenience would have occurred.

sure blame the victim...

 

[ANDRASTA]

Just out of curiosity, would it not be possible to go through civil court eg. Small claims to get back the cost that was incurred as a result of this. You would have all the info required to file. I'm just curious as to if this has ever been done?

 

[hedo2002]

No the crown and the police force has legal "protection", (actual legislation), against these very type of lawsuits. all they would have to show is that they laid the charge "in good faith" Not to mention, the time involved in filing this type of lawsuit and attending the various resolution and then trial time, (Civil courts VERY rarely), award these costs back to the bring the suit. So in the end the OP would likely lose even more and recover nothing.

Just out of curiosity, would it not be possible to go through civil court eg. Small claims to get back the cost that was incurred as a result of this. You would have all the info required to file. I'm just curious as to if this has ever been done?