Got a ticket by a unmarked mini van. I didn't get any proof of my speed and it was too short of a road to be doing that kind of a speed but the officer says that was I doing 35 kms over speed limit. How do they determine this and is this admissible in court ? What questions can I prepare if I am taking this to trial ? Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
Speeding Ticket issued by pacing - How to challenge it ?
- Thread starter bigfoot
- Start date
GateKeeper
Well-known member
Request a disclosure and see what it says
kiwi
Well-known member
Yes, pacing is valid for evidence. Remember the court sees police officers with high regard. I've seen talk of pacing in the forum over the past few years. Try a search, I'm sure you will get some nice information
rbjeepthing
Well-known member
Most police vehicles Speedometers are "Certified" and tested on a regular basis just like the radar/laser guns. FYI they don't have to give you proof roadside that's a myth.
Evidence given by police, these days, is not supposed to carry any more weight than that of the defendant. Then again we all know that's crap, in reality.
Pacing can be one of the toughest methods of speed measurement to fight. You've got pretty much one avenue, and that's calibration records for the speedo. Other than that you have to somehow call the officer's evidence into question, preferably without shouting something like, "You're a filthy liar!!" across the courtroom, as that doesn't play well with JPs. Demonstrating that the officer couldn't have followed you for any real length of time, in order to obtain his reading, is one way to call the evidence into question. The distance required is not a set amount, from my recollections.
Bike Cop
Well-known member
No, it likely won't. It will be up to the officer to give the court evidence that lends credibility to the accuracy of that speedometer. Most manufacturers speedometers are only accurate to a certain degree, and tire wear will play a role in its inaccuracy as well. If for example, the officer is able to give the mechanical history or service history of that vehicle, and he is able to give some other verification that the speedometer is accurate, assuming the officer is credible in his testimony, the court may accept his pace evidence. And I'll to out on a limb and guess that this speeding charge isn't going to hinge on the possibility that the speedometer may be out by 2km/hr. Otherwise the officer probably wouldn't have bothered.
Pace evidence is not without its issues, but despite all the times it's been tested, it still remains a viable method of measuring speed. Current case law still supports it.
Pace evidence is not without its issues, but despite all the times it's been tested, it still remains a viable method of measuring speed. Current case law still supports it.
contact148
Well-known member
well speedos can vary greatly mine are not calibrated but my Mercedes benz matches my garmin gps + or - 2kmh
my wifes civic is off the garmin by 10-12 kmh not scientific I know
my wifes civic is off the garmin by 10-12 kmh not scientific I know
kiwi
Well-known member
that's a big variance in the Honda. My car is pretty much band on my Garmin, and bike is slightly below.
Almost every car I've owned is off by over 5%.
I just can't see how pacing can work. Cop can say whatever speed he wants. And if he has to catch up to first he could claim you're going twice as fast as you actually were while he was catching up to you.
puttockc
Well-known member
When I was 19, I was working overnights and heading home at 5 am. The roads were deserted and I was exhausted.
At James Snow and Main in Milton, I was pulled over just prior to turned left. I was so tired I stopped in the left turn lane and let him come up.
The conversation was as follows to the best of my memory:
Cop: you need to pull over to the right lane when I pulled you over.
Me: want me to move?
Cop: no it's ok, have you been drinking tonight?
Me: nah, just off work
Cop: do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: can't say I do
Cop: I paced you doing xx KPH on James Snow. (Don't recall the speed or the limit)
Me: paced? What's that?
Cop: I followed you, matched out speeds and looked at my speedometer
Me: that works? Is that a thing?
Cop: yes. It's common...... get home safe, have a nice day.
----
I always believed that pacing was BS and I had called him on it, I guess not. Maybe he let me off cause I had a long night.
Sent from my my mobile using a strange app for damaged people
At James Snow and Main in Milton, I was pulled over just prior to turned left. I was so tired I stopped in the left turn lane and let him come up.
The conversation was as follows to the best of my memory:
Cop: you need to pull over to the right lane when I pulled you over.
Me: want me to move?
Cop: no it's ok, have you been drinking tonight?
Me: nah, just off work
Cop: do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: can't say I do
Cop: I paced you doing xx KPH on James Snow. (Don't recall the speed or the limit)
Me: paced? What's that?
Cop: I followed you, matched out speeds and looked at my speedometer
Me: that works? Is that a thing?
Cop: yes. It's common...... get home safe, have a nice day.
----
I always believed that pacing was BS and I had called him on it, I guess not. Maybe he let me off cause I had a long night.
Sent from my my mobile using a strange app for damaged people
Last edited:
There are only three methods of measuring speed that are considered valid, in Ontario. They are measurement with a LASER/RADAR device, pacing, and timing between two known fixed points.
I think that "visual estimation of speed" (ie. Ah done figgered he was goin' a hunerd) is still a valid form of speed 'measurement' in New York, so watch it down there.
Pacing is definitely admissible. When I was younger I got a careless driving ticket (yes, not speeding but careless driving). The cop used his car's speedometer to measure my speed. When they use that as "proof" it is game over. You can't prove otherwise unless you can prove the car's speedo wasn't calibrated according to schedule.
The court places more weight on what the cop says over you so if it comes down to a he-said-she-said type situation, you WILL lose.
In my case, the cop only followed me for a "few seconds" according to his notes. He said I was doing 140kph on the 401. Of course it was BS because he got me driving home from work during RUSH HOUR. I got service records for his car and they were up to date so I couldn't use that. Instead I focused on his lying to "discredit the witness".
In order to get me for careless driving and not just speeding he had to prove that I was driving "without care for others" and being in a dangerous situation, etc. etc. In his notes, he tried to show this through various "dangerous lane changes", etc. etc.
I thought I was prepared. I looked up the weather on the day of the offence and got aerial photos of the section of highway where I got pulled over, etc. During the trial the cop said it was raining and slippery. It was not, my weather report from environment canada showed 28C sunny. Cop disagreed with it. I asked how can you remember since it was not in his notes (the court date was 1.5 years later)? Cop just said he remembers. Court chose to believe the cop despite my evidence.
Second, according to the cops notes I changed 6 lanes. I showed in the aerial photo that section of the highway which cop agreed was the subject area. I said, count the number of lanes. If I had changed 6 lanes I would be in the ditch. If I had done that, it would definitely be in his notes. It was not. The cop's response was that there was construction on that day which is why the lane configuration is different. Really? Since when does construction ADD lanes to a highway? No response. Court chose to believe the cop.
I caught the cop in MANY lies (those 2 being the strongest in my favour) but it didn't matter. The court believed the cop. That was my first ticket and has made me HATE cops/court since. Before we went up, he came to me and told me he has never lost and I should settle. Being young, I was thinking today's the day he loses because I have evidence he is a liar. I just told him I want a chance to defend myself. To add insult to injury, after we were done and outside the courtroom, he came over to gloat.
Years later, I came to know an OPP officer and asked him if he knows this person. The response? Oh ya, I know that guy! He's on some serious roid rage. Awesome.
I highly recommend reading: Regina v. Bland, 1974 CanLII 809 [Ontario Court of Appeal]
One of the rare speeding cases that have gone all the way up to the Court of Appeal. As a result, it is now the authority, especially when it comes to pacing.
It's referenced all the time, even for non-pacing trials.
One of the rare speeding cases that have gone all the way up to the Court of Appeal. As a result, it is now the authority, especially when it comes to pacing.
It's referenced all the time, even for non-pacing trials.
The accused was charged with driving 90 m.p.h. in a 60-m.p.h. zone and was convicted. At trial, evidence of the accused's speed was given based upon the police car speedometer and the police constable was not asked what the speed limit was on that part of the highway where the accused was driving. The accused's appeal by way of stated case was dismissed and, on further appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, held, the appeal should be dismissed.
Where evidence is given that over a measured level distance the police officer's speedometer recorded steadily at the speed alleged, this is prima facie evidence that the accused was driving at that speed, in the absence of some evidence, elicited either on cross-examination or by defence witnesses, which would suggest that the police speedometer was inaccurate. While there was no oral evidence of the speed limit, and the fact that the accused was charged with speeding in a "60 m.p.h. zone" could not be any evidence, such evidence was not necessary since the speed limit was contained in a Regulation (R.R.O. 1970, Reg. 429) made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council pursuant to s. 82(11) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202, and under ss. 5 and 10(2) of the Regulations Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 410, the trial Judge was bound to take judicial notice thereof, notwithstanding that the Regulation was not produced to him at trial.
Where evidence is given that over a measured level distance the police officer's speedometer recorded steadily at the speed alleged, this is prima facie evidence that the accused was driving at that speed, in the absence of some evidence, elicited either on cross-examination or by defence witnesses, which would suggest that the police speedometer was inaccurate. While there was no oral evidence of the speed limit, and the fact that the accused was charged with speeding in a "60 m.p.h. zone" could not be any evidence, such evidence was not necessary since the speed limit was contained in a Regulation (R.R.O. 1970, Reg. 429) made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council pursuant to s. 82(11) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202, and under ss. 5 and 10(2) of the Regulations Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 410, the trial Judge was bound to take judicial notice thereof, notwithstanding that the Regulation was not produced to him at trial.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|