|
|
|
Speeding Ticket - Fighting it Help
- Thread starter eidner
- Start date
Salos Dafee
Well-known member
I think there is reasonable doubt that the cop can show your vehicle was the vehicle the cop measured.
Consider this line of questioning.
You: when you measured a vehicle and concluded it was speeding, could you see its license?
You want NO here, and you deserve it, because the front of your bike was in the cop's view.
If the cop says yes, you can ask how the cop, looking at the front of your bike, could see the plate.
Whatever his answer, you can suggest the cop is unsure of his testimony.
You: Did you keep your eyes continuously on the speeding vehicle,
from the time you measured its speed until you pulled it over?
And that is the kicker, because if the cop says NO, you can say to the magistrate that the cop did not identify the speeding vehicle, and has no way to say it was the vehicle you were driving.
And if the cop tries to say YES, you can ask the cop exactly how he managed to turn around and enter traffic while keeping his eyes pinned on a vehicle that was south of him.
I think a professional would use that line of questioning, and would succeed.
If you try it, you may not have the poise and experience that a professional would, and you may not come across as giving convincing testimony. It is not easy to win a case like this, but you will benefit greatly from giving it a try.
I have defended myself in several Ontario courts, and got my case dismissed quite often.
Bear in mind that cops lie to get convictions, and magistrates know this, and side with lying cops. If you can demonstrate that a cop is lying about one thing, you can often get your case dismissed. In this case, you want the cop to lie and say he kept his eyes on the speeding bike until he stopped it and identified you as the driver. If he tells that lie, you can show it is a lie by asking him how he managed to turn around and join traffic while gazing fixedly at your bike. Of course that cannot be done; think about it.
Good luck!
Consider this line of questioning.
You: when you measured a vehicle and concluded it was speeding, could you see its license?
You want NO here, and you deserve it, because the front of your bike was in the cop's view.
If the cop says yes, you can ask how the cop, looking at the front of your bike, could see the plate.
Whatever his answer, you can suggest the cop is unsure of his testimony.
You: Did you keep your eyes continuously on the speeding vehicle,
from the time you measured its speed until you pulled it over?
And that is the kicker, because if the cop says NO, you can say to the magistrate that the cop did not identify the speeding vehicle, and has no way to say it was the vehicle you were driving.
And if the cop tries to say YES, you can ask the cop exactly how he managed to turn around and enter traffic while keeping his eyes pinned on a vehicle that was south of him.
I think a professional would use that line of questioning, and would succeed.
If you try it, you may not have the poise and experience that a professional would, and you may not come across as giving convincing testimony. It is not easy to win a case like this, but you will benefit greatly from giving it a try.
I have defended myself in several Ontario courts, and got my case dismissed quite often.
Bear in mind that cops lie to get convictions, and magistrates know this, and side with lying cops. If you can demonstrate that a cop is lying about one thing, you can often get your case dismissed. In this case, you want the cop to lie and say he kept his eyes on the speeding bike until he stopped it and identified you as the driver. If he tells that lie, you can show it is a lie by asking him how he managed to turn around and join traffic while gazing fixedly at your bike. Of course that cannot be done; think about it.
Good luck!
This "may" be a good line of questioning if the OP were operating a car or truck on the highway with many other cars/trucks in the same vicinity. However, he was operating what was likely the ONLY bike on that stretch of highway at that time. so the officer merely would, (or at least if I were giving testimony), say well there was only ONE bike on the road therefore this left no reasonable doubt in my mind that I was stopping the correct vehicle. The officer, (if he is quick on his feet will see where the line of questioning is going). Plus don't forget the crown also gets an opportunity to reexamine the officer so they will, (if the officer doesn't state it), if there were any other bikes on the road at that time. If the answer is no there were no other bikes on the road at that time, then the court will accept the officer stopped the correct vehicle as there were no others which he could have mistaken it for.
But as you said, the OP certainly has nothing to lose with this line of questioning but I wouldn't be relying on it for a not guilty verdict at trial.
But as you said, the OP certainly has nothing to lose with this line of questioning but I wouldn't be relying on it for a not guilty verdict at trial.
Requested twice via fax. First time few weeks before trial, second time a few hours after my trial and adjournment ordered.
Seems like the only thing you need to learn is how to ride your bike, you saw the guy in the opposite direction, you saw his brake lights, and you saw him making a u-turn...are you seriously telling me if you thought you kept being mr.good guy in flow of traffic he wasn't coming after you, he was hoping you were one of those fools to think that, came, screwed you in the *** and left. You should have gunned it the moment you saw him pass by (he has no idea once he's pass you, once he makes a u-turn he will be like where t f did the guy go) and you KNEW your were above the speed limit seconds before, so you knew your were guilty. Trying to slow down and pretend you are now with flow of traffic is the same thing as seeing the cop and booking it, only difference is in the other senario you don't get caught, the same result you are trying to get in the senario you decided to try, by slowing down pretending like you weren't speeding minutes before.
The rules to keeping your motorcycle is simple, if you know you were speeding or are in doubt, DON"T STOP get out of there, go home. If you haven't broken a single law for sure, pull over, even then your liekly to get a ******** ticket for anything else related to your bike.
guys who ride sportbikes alot, know that the best way not to get tickets is ride at certain times, traffic hours or really late at night no cars around, and ALWAYS keep an eye out for cops, this trains your sixth sense to pick up on a cop even before you see one, trust me this ability is amazing once you do this for a year or two, all you do is everytime you get on you bike and your ride, keep thinking and repeating in your head, look for cops, look for cops where are you guys hiding, and your subconsious slowly learns to do this without you having to think about it, it becomes one of the most valueable powers any biker could have, and get away from them as soon as possible, even if that means going out of your way, learning short cuts etc, this obviously dosen't mean go ride like an *******, just means ride decent, have your little fun here and there and be safe about it, so you never feel guilty for what you do, i don't like guys who ride 24/7 always at high speeds, with no skill, and causing havoc.
Really good advice.....i've been there done that, self representation is court is suecide, and paying a paralegal is wallet rape, having plead to a lesser charge, don't pay now, pay over three years basically. the truth is once you get pulled over, you're ****eddd.
hate me for it or don't, all i try to do now is, if i can, i dip!
i have nothing to prove to any cop, court... if what i think is innocent i was being safe, im gone... bye bye. if i have no way out, and i know that, i get caught, then i get caught. simple. I don't mind a ticket or two every few years considering the things i do, but when i see im going to be made an example of or i didn't do anything out of the odinary, or i feel this guys is mad, good luck in your slow POS's.
Last edited by a moderator:
Which is precisely why you ask for dismissal based on the undue hardship created by The Crown, in their failure to disclose. It's too late to file for 11b but I'd do it were I you, anyway, so that you can state that it's in process at trial.
When asked you are NOT ready to go to trial, due to failure of The Crown to disclose.
When asked you are NOT ready to go to trial, due to failure of The Crown to disclose.
Unfortunately, based on the timeline i've gathered from this thread, i don't think the OP is eligible for an 11b stay based on the clock; however, if he can show undue hardship based on the multiple appearances he might have a chance.
Jul 15, 2013 - He was charged with Speeding
Jul 17, 2013 - Requested a trial by mail
Sep 11, 2013 - Received a Notice of Trial for Nov 12, 2013
Sep 20, 2013 - Requested disclosure
Sep 27, 2013 - Inquired about disclosure request
Sep 30, 2013 - Inquired about disclosure request
Nov 12, 2013 - First Trial Date: got an adjournment for Dec 19, 2013; hasn't received disclosure; resent disclosure request
Nov 16, 2013 - Update: ~four disclosure requests, none have been responded to
Dec 19, 2013 - Second Trial Date
The 11b clock at this point is sitting at ~5 months.
I've read about people getting 11b stays for ~7mths (http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2159-30.html#p21984) but at trial they talked a lot about the hardships they faced as a result of the multiple scheduling errors and they properly filed an 11b application.
Most JPs will not hear charter arguments without properly filed motions.
_______________________
I agree with Rob MacLennan, do not proceed to trial even if you don't see the officer. If there is an adjournment make yourself available to the first one they suggest: they might trick you by letting you choose from two dates: ie. Feb 17 or Feb 27... pick the earliest date; later they'll say you aren't interested in having a speedy trial, because you picked the latter one.
It's super important that you bring ALL of your disclosure requests and most importantly PROOF (fax receipts, e-mail timestamps); i would even go as far as bringing a laptop/ipad/tablet/smartphone, and logging into your e-mail and showing them the dates.
On Dec 19, you need to make sure every single date and time is on the record. Don't just say, "here are my 100 disclosure requests i sent by fax and e-mail, talk... verbally say to the mic (on the record) on which date you requested for disclosure and how... show the proof.. then tell them the dates you called in to the prosecutor's office. You need to overwhelm the Justice of Peace with your due diligence.
If the officer shows up on Dec, the best case scenario is for another adjournment. I'm very surprised they did not give you disclosure at the Nov 12, 2013 trial date. If the officer was present, it would've taken ~5mins to photocopy the relevant parts from his notebook and radar manual.
Jul 15, 2013 - He was charged with Speeding
Jul 17, 2013 - Requested a trial by mail
Sep 11, 2013 - Received a Notice of Trial for Nov 12, 2013
Sep 20, 2013 - Requested disclosure
Sep 27, 2013 - Inquired about disclosure request
Sep 30, 2013 - Inquired about disclosure request
Nov 12, 2013 - First Trial Date: got an adjournment for Dec 19, 2013; hasn't received disclosure; resent disclosure request
Nov 16, 2013 - Update: ~four disclosure requests, none have been responded to
Dec 19, 2013 - Second Trial Date
The 11b clock at this point is sitting at ~5 months.
I've read about people getting 11b stays for ~7mths (http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2159-30.html#p21984) but at trial they talked a lot about the hardships they faced as a result of the multiple scheduling errors and they properly filed an 11b application.
Most JPs will not hear charter arguments without properly filed motions.
_______________________
I agree with Rob MacLennan, do not proceed to trial even if you don't see the officer. If there is an adjournment make yourself available to the first one they suggest: they might trick you by letting you choose from two dates: ie. Feb 17 or Feb 27... pick the earliest date; later they'll say you aren't interested in having a speedy trial, because you picked the latter one.
It's super important that you bring ALL of your disclosure requests and most importantly PROOF (fax receipts, e-mail timestamps); i would even go as far as bringing a laptop/ipad/tablet/smartphone, and logging into your e-mail and showing them the dates.
On Dec 19, you need to make sure every single date and time is on the record. Don't just say, "here are my 100 disclosure requests i sent by fax and e-mail, talk... verbally say to the mic (on the record) on which date you requested for disclosure and how... show the proof.. then tell them the dates you called in to the prosecutor's office. You need to overwhelm the Justice of Peace with your due diligence.
If the officer shows up on Dec, the best case scenario is for another adjournment. I'm very surprised they did not give you disclosure at the Nov 12, 2013 trial date. If the officer was present, it would've taken ~5mins to photocopy the relevant parts from his notebook and radar manual.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|