Racing/Stunt Charge back in Oct 2010 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Racing/Stunt Charge back in Oct 2010

V

valentin

Active member
I was clocked 179 on a 60 zone last October going north on Jane just 1 intersection before Teston Rd.
Unmarked cop was coming from opposite direction 1 block away,
flipped his lights on before he passed me and did a u-turn and chased me.
I pull over and get a racing/stunt charge with a summons to court for December.
Refer to the map: http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en....867208,-79.526854&spn=0.036014,0.077162&z=14

I was only speeding, no other cars involved, no pedestrians, this happened at 11am Thursday with the weather being overcasted, windy as crazy, 1 block away from my house.

I'm 24 years of age with full G license for about 3 years, M2 just in June of 2010, no tickets, clean record.

I hired a paralegal from Not Guilty Plea to fight for the charge against me.

First meeting was in December 2010, then moved to another date set for January 2011, prosecutor did not negotiate anything.
Trial date was then set for June 2011, I get a letter saying the officer is on vacation during that period so it was then re-scheduled for July 2011.

What are my chances of getting this charge reduced to just a speeding charge? any luck for me at all?

Any input would be great thanks :)
 
Last edited:
Did you hire a lawyer? If not, then no chance but if so, it can get drastically reduced to something not so severe on your record.
 
What advice are you getting from your paralegal? Isn't that what you're paying them for?

If you aren't being fully informed by your legal agent for a serious charge like this, you should be considering getting a different agent. This is serious stuff you're dealing with.
 
I know those streets well... Didn't the cops set up a radar trap there last fall? (for Northbound traffic, on Jane almost at the corner with Teston). Maybe it was 'cause of you... LOL

Honestly, people drive 100 kph on that stretch all the time...

My advice (yes, I have some) is to look at the disclosure long and carefully (hopefully your paralegal already requested and obtained disclosure)... how did the officer measure your speed? and all those critical issues that are usually at play in any speeding ticket...


Good luck!
 
valentin said:
I got a paralegal from Not Guilty Plea
Click to expand...

Get a good lawyer, that has experience with fighting this kind of charge!

I got charged with Stunting, as well as No Lic, No Insurance, and No Plate...Cost me $2500 but my lawyer was able to have them all dissmissed...That was a hookup from a friend and I was told it would normally cost much more then that, but I also had more charges then you...Either way its better to pay up now and hopefully get it dropped completely
 
If no delays in trial scheduling were caused by you and you provide hearing transcripts to prove it I think you have a chance of being acquitted based on the violation of Article 11b of Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no predefined period, so it depends on the case law in the particular jurisdiction - something a good paralegal or lawyer should examine for you.

Have you asked for disclosure? If not, do it ASAP. That can additionally postpone your trial and increase your chances in getting off on charter violation. The trick is to go through all the motions and exhaust every legal option at your disposal - you need good professional help if you haven't done it yourself before.

179 in a 60 zone here? What were you thinking? I hope you learned something.
 
Vlad said:
179 in a 60 zone here? What were you thinking? I hope you learned something.
Click to expand...

Well, if memory serves and the map is correct, it is not really a residential street... there is not a single driveway because I beleive there is a black iron fence along Jane St. And the mosque is on the East side, taking a large area (no houses).

This is not a defense, but it may be noted in case the Crown or the police officer states that it is a residencial street...
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Well, if memory serves and the map is correct, it is not really a residential street... there is not a single driveway because I beleive there is a black iron fence along Jane St. And the mosque is on the East side, taking a large area (no houses).
Click to expand...

I would agree that there was probably no danger to anyone, but it's not much of an argument when one is charged for speeding 119 over. More pertinent questions would be how the cop clocked him while going towards him, were there any other vehicles or obstacles in the vicinity, any significant bumps/dips in the road that may affect the reading, when was the radar/lidar last calibrated, was the officer properly trained in using the device in that scenario... All you need is to establish reasonable doubt in how your speed was measured or reported. However, 11b is a safer bet in this case, IMO.
 
Most of the time, the new guns, or at least tri-pod guns, does not need calibration. Besides the point, wouldn't the cop be able to use vision estimated speed and then laser when trailing?
 
koFFey said:
Most of the time, the new guns, or at least tri-pod guns, does not need calibration. Besides the point, wouldn't the cop be able to use vision estimated speed and then laser when trailing?
Click to expand...

Visual estimation of speed cannot be used as evidence, in Ontario. The best the officer would be able to do is state that the target 'appeared to be travelling at a high rate of speed, which I verified with an approved method.'
 
koFFey said:
Most of the time, the new guns, or at least tri-pod guns, does not need calibration.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it's not a question what they need but what stands up in court.

koFFey said:
Besides the point, wouldn't the cop be able to use vision estimated speed and then laser when trailing?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The cop can, and is most likely required by law to first visually estimate that someone is speeding before deploying the radar/lidar. If the cruiser was not equipped for mobile speed enforcement, i.e. he was using a handheld device, his reading should not hold in court. Especially since he was moving towards the subject.

I think we need more details from Valentin before we can speculate any further. He should have got the disclosure by now. On second thought, it's between him and his lawyer/paralegal.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Well, if memory serves and the map is correct, it is not really a residential street... there is not a single driveway because I beleive there is a black iron fence along Jane St. And the mosque is on the East side, taking a large area (no houses).

This is not a defense, but it may be noted in case the Crown or the police officer states that it is a residencial street...
Click to expand...

It wasn't a residential area because there were no driveways nor there was any hidden intersections from the distance I traveled in, refer to the map that I created.
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en....867208,-79.526854&spn=0.036014,0.077162&z=14
 
Vlad said:
I would agree that there was probably no danger to anyone, but it's not much of an argument when one is charged for speeding 119 over. More pertinent questions would be how the cop clocked him while going towards him, were there any other vehicles or obstacles in the vicinity, any significant bumps/dips in the road that may affect the reading, when was the radar/lidar last calibrated, was the officer properly trained in using the device in that scenario... All you need is to establish reasonable doubt in how your speed was measured or reported. However, 11b is a safer bet in this case, IMO.
Click to expand...

I have discussed with my paralegal agent about this already about the radar being last calibrated, was he properly trained to use it, how he clocked me from where he was while going towards him etc. Mind you he was just about 20 meters ahead of me when he turned his lights on and did a U turn to chase and pull me over.

My paralegal agent requested and obtained a disclosure already which may have resulted in the rescheduling of the first hearing/meeting that was scheduled for December.
 
Last edited:
Hire a proper lawyer. Not sure what the final outcome was, but at the time a precedent was set by a Napanee judge that the speeding portion of the "stunting" law was unconstitutional. See this and this, and do some more digging.
 
beverage said:
Hire a proper lawyer. Not sure what the final outcome was, but at the time a precedent was set by a Napanee judge that the speeding portion of the "stunting" law was unconstitutional. See this and this, and do some more digging.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, however, the OP states that he was 'clocked' at a speed of 179km in a 60km zone!!!! If that is true... No offence OP, I'm glad if you're off the street.
 
koFFey said:
I tend to agree, however, the OP states that he was 'clocked' at a speed of 179km in a 60km zone!!!! If that is true... No offence OP, I'm glad if you're off the street.
Click to expand...
And I tend to agree with you. But I don't agree with the guilty until proven innocent, or the judge, jury, and executioner at the side of the road philosophy of the stunt driving legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom