Got caught going 166 km/h on highway. Need help!

[turbodish]

I can't see how I don't have much riding for me?
The cop says he was following someone else, distraction.

But you were following the person he was following. Then you passed the cop and he saw you pass him. Now his attention is fully on you.

The cop says he was going 103 km/h when I passed him, much slower than me, which DOESN'T mean he CAN'T catch me, but means that he needs time TO catch up.

If you're only going a little faster, then he wouldn't need any time at all to catch up. If you're blasting by him, that not only adds even more credence to the cop's extreme speeding allegation, but he can still catch up plenty quick enough. To see the math on that one refer back to http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?140803-Got-caught-going-166-km-h-on-highway.-Need-help!&p=1576190&viewfull=1#post1576190

The cop admitted to not having a radar gun.
First he said he saw 166 in his speedometer then he said I was in that range and he ballparked it.

He doesn't need radar. The speedometer reading is enough given a reasonable time to pace. And the 4 km between the Appleby Line bridge and the Guelph Line bridge where you were stopped is plenty of room to get a decent pace going.

By ballpark, did the cop actually say "ballpark" and if so, did you ask the cop to define what he meant? If by "ballpark" he meant you were in the range of 166 to 170, or alternately simply doing about 166, then him charging you with 166 is perfectly valid. Had you been paced as being in the "ballpark" of 150, maybe then you might have had something to work with, but at 166 you are well and truly into the HTA172 zone.

The cop who wrote the ticket wasn't the original cop that pulled me over.

So? Does that suddenly mean that the cop who pulled you over won't be in court to give evidence? He's a witness, he'll be paid at least his regular pay to be there and maybe time-and-a-half overtime if he has to come in off-shift. If he doesn't show up, he'll have to explain to his shift supervisor why he didn't show up and face possible disciplinary action. Surely you're not gambling several thousand $$$ in legal fees, fines, and insurance hikes on a traffic cop not showing up to do his job?

I was given conflicting information from both police officers.

Were you now? Let's say you were and it wasn't just a matter of you misunderstanding what each cop was actually saying and the context in which it was said. How does that change the essential elements of what you were accused of doing? That's what's going to be on trial, and not what a cop may or may not have said to you after you were caught doing it.

The way you spin it turbo makes it seem like this was an open and shut case.
If you look at it from another point of view, the cop has absolutely NO objective evidence for me going that fast besides the fact that he says so.

Nothing is certain until the fat lady (or man) on the bench sings. However, you have nothing really working for you. Cops sees you, paces you without losing sight of you for a reasonable distance, pulls you over with losing sight of you, issues you ticket. So what's your defence going to be again?

As for objective evidence, what do you mean by that?

Let's say he had caught you with radar instead. The radar display doesn't spit out a receipt that the cop can show the court. The cop just testifies as to what he saw on the radar display. How is that any more objective than the cop saying what he saw on the police-certified speedometer in his cruiser? All he has to do in court is describe what he observed. That seems to be enough to convict on day-in and day-out in court rooms all across the country without any additional backing evidence.

So how will you argue against that? That he couldn't have paced you because he would have had to go too fast to catch up to you in order to do so? That your speedometer is more accurate than the certified speedometer in his cruiser?

I'm not seeing much working for you. But, it's your gamble and you'll be the one both anteing up and paying the house if you lose that roll of the dice.

 

[bww77]

Ummmmm yeah.... you're fawked! Better bring some lube :agave:

On a serious note, definitely get yourself a damn good lawyer and try like hell to get it reduced to at least 49 over. Even if that does happen, your insurance is gonna sky rocket becuase it will be considered a major infraction.

 

[turbodish]

Ummmmm yeah.... you're fawked! Better bring some lube :agave:

On a serious note, definitely get yourself a damn good lawyer and try like hell to get it reduced to at least 49 over. Even if that does happen, your insurance is gonna sky rocket becuase it will be considered a major infraction.

Most insurance companies treat 49 over the same as they treat 10 over - as a minor ticket.

Also, with a clean prior driving record, he has a decent chance of arranging his own deal with the Crown without having to go to the expense of a lawyer.

 

[bww77]

Most insurance companies treat 49 over the same as they treat 10 over - as a minor ticket.

Also, with a clean prior driving record, he has a decent chance of arranging his own deal with the Crown without having to go to the expense of a lawyer.

Interesting, I thought the threshold for a major conviction was lower (25 over), thanks for the clarification. I agree it would cheaper and easier to go directly to the crown as most are willing to wheel and deal... It depends on what what kind of deal the crown is willing to give him that particular day.

 

[Metastable]

OP - don't feel like you have to answer to all of Turbo's questions.

Turbo - I tell you what, you do give out some good advice. Advice about trying to settle things before going to trial, potential penalties etc.

However, you freek'n speculate a ton too, and you try to twist and manipulate crap to make sound like the police are always right and everyone is always wrong. So, really.... stick with the good advice.... otherwise you just sound like a Crown in trial.... trying to make something out of nothing. Even if you are right some of the time, speculating is just speculating.

One little thing I completely disagree with what you said.... is that we are telling the OP he has an easy case. We all told him to get legal help. I just don't agree with your approach asking for 49over.... especially if he doesn't think he was going that fast. If I think I'm doing 130 and they charge me with 160, I'm not going to say... "Ya dude... I was going 149, but NOOOOOOO WAAAAAAAY was I doing 150.

 

[Prince]

Sounds dubious to me. You're telling me the OP can be convicted by some OPP prick based on his speedo, and thus VSS (vehicle speed sensor)? Is his VSS in working order? Are the tires on the cruiser at proper air pressure? There's a hundred ways to argue this as subjective evidence vs. objective evidence (radar). OP, have you called XCoppers? They are the experts, and they will give you a free consultation. Fight this to the bitter end. I would put money on this ticket being tossed completely as there are way too many inconsistencies. Call XCoppers. Good luck!

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Sounds dubious to me. You're telling me the OP can be convicted by some OPP prick based on his speedo, and thus VSS (vehicle speed sensor)? Is his VSS in working order? Are the tires on the cruiser at proper air pressure? There's a hundred ways to argue this as subjective evidence vs. objective evidence (radar). OP, have you called XCoppers? They are the experts, and they will give you a free consultation. Fight this to the bitter end. I would put money on this ticket being tossed completely as there are way too many inconsistencies. Call XCoppers. Good luck!

And yet people are convicted by speed evidence, provided by a pacing officer, every day in this Province. Maintenance records, for the vehicle, can be provided.

 

[Poser]

although someone mentioned Redline, i would go with OTT over Xcopper, and then there is Traffic Ticket People.
Or think about student lawyers on the cheaper side.
i personally think this charge is weak, and guarantees a lesser charge, and duty counsel might be enough help, if not then take on a lawyer, cause that charge sticks around for 6 years.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The last thing in the world, that I would recommend, is cheaping out on representation in a HTA 172 case.

 

[Poser]

The last thing in the world, that I would recommend, is cheaping out on representation in a HTA 172 case.

does it carry a criminal record.

 

[paulf2k]

although someone mentioned Redline, i would go with OTT over Xcopper, and then there is Traffic Ticket People.
Or think about student lawyers on the cheaper side.
i personally think this charge is weak, and guarantees a lesser charge, and duty counsel might be enough help, if not then take on a lawyer, cause that charge sticks around for 6 years.

Is it really 6 years? I thought the max is 3 years for a traffic violation and 5years for an at fault accident.

 

[turbodish]

does it carry a criminal record.

Nope. Just a very hefty entry on your driving record, hefty penalties if convicted on an unreduced charge, and potentially even heavier penalties on the insurance front if convicted on an unreduced charge.

If the OP is going to fight for complete acquittal at trial, he's going to want the most competent representation he can find. However, he doesn't necessarily need that for informal exploratory talks with the Crown BEFORE the trial date to come to a deal that avoids trial completely by working out a plea bargain.

 

[El Zilcho]

Sounds dubious to me. You're telling me the OP can be convicted by some OPP prick based on his speedo,

IIRC, police cars have calibrated spedometers.

 

[Zangief]

I have contacted a couple of lawyers so far and they all seem to be around the $1000 + tax range exc except for Redline, they said that the fee would be 2000? Anyone know why such discrepancy?

 

[LiNK666]

I have contacted a couple of lawyers so far and they all seem to be around the $1000 + tax range exc except for Redline, they said that the fee would be 2000? Anyone know why such discrepancy?

Service. Most of the lawyers will settle for the first thing they get. Redline will go the extra mile to get you the best deal or fight it all the way. Do yourself a favour and go with Redline or a well very well reviewed lawyer.

You get what you pay for.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Nope. Just a very hefty entry on your driving record, hefty penalties if convicted on an unreduced charge, and potentially even heavier penalties on the insurance front if convicted on an unreduced charge.

If the OP is going to fight for complete acquittal at trial, he's going to want the most competent representation he can find. However, he doesn't necessarily need that for informal exploratory talks with the Crown BEFORE the trial date to come to a deal that avoids trial completely by working out a plea bargain.

You forgot the potential for jail time.

 

[turbodish]

You forgot the potential for jail time.

True. Plus there is also a possible further license suspension that can be applied on conviction that I didn't mention.

However, either is a non-starter in this case where there are no other aggravating factors other than excessive speed, and where the accused does not already have an abysmal driving record. There is case law available where a JP did impose jail time and suspension for racing under the previous version of HTA172. In that case there were even some aggravating factors, but not quite enough that would make jailing appropriate. The jail time was thrown out on appeal.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

True. Plus there is also a possible further license suspension that can be applied on conviction that I didn't mention.

However, either is a non-starter in this case where there are no other aggravating factors other than excessive speed, and where the accused does not already have an abysmal driving record. There is case law available where a JP did impose jail time and suspension for racing under the previous version of HTA172. In that case there were even some aggravating factors, but not quite enough that would make jailing appropriate. The jail time was thrown out on appeal.

Without knowing the OP's driving history, it would be remiss to leave such things out. If he has a large number of past speeding infractions, for example, a JP might choose to make an example of him.

 

[turbodish]

Without knowing the OP's driving history, it would be remiss to leave such things out. If he has a large number of past speeding infractions, for example, a JP might choose to make an example of him.

True again. I was basing my thoughts on this, and which is also why I'm of the opinion that a Crown would be conducive to dealing the OP a break to a lesser offence if approached directly prior to trial:

... This is my first violation and it's a doozy, I'm kinda rattled that one charge has a serious possibility of ending my car/motorcycle enjoyment, not to mention that it's gonna screw up my commute to school/work, and probably force me to get another job just to pay for all this.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Fair enough.