Val tag expired ticket while wearing helmet.

[C-Note]

Got a ticket for expired plate. But I was wearing my full face helmet the whole time. I did provide id, ownership, and insurance. But since I wasn't properly identified, can I get off? What would my case be? I'm sure I'll be asked if it was. Or if it wasn't me, who had my bike.... Just curious. I'll be providing the crown with documentation of my new sticker and hope it gets dropped.

 

[PLau]

I would think the registered owner of the bike would be charged for expired plates as its not supposed to be on the road anyways.

Then again, what do I know.

 

[SLaP]

Request disclosure. In the disclosure request, ask for any audio/video footage taken during the stop.

However, if there is no footage and the officer lies and says you had removed your helmet, what will be your case then?

Speaking of identifying you. I recently watched a "Disobey stop sign" case where a police officer was cross examined by the defendant's paralegal. After cross examination the paralegal requested that the case be dismissed because the police officer had not identified the driver of the vehicle as the defendant in the court room while up on the stand. The case was dismissed. There are more ways than one to fight a ticket.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Have you ever noticed that you can recognize people who are wearing a full face helmet? It's not just you, who can do it. Sorry, but that's unlikely to fly. Eyes, nose, and mouth are clearly visible to someone standing close to you, so identification is possible. Also the penalty can apply to either the person operating the vehicle, or the person who permitted the vehicle to be operated without proper plate validation.

 

[Jampy00]

I did find out one this about tags. If you get your new tag online you have up to midnight the day of expiry to apply. you are then provided a receipt that can grant you up to 10 days after the tag expires. This was according to the ministry's site and paperwork.

 

[DaveTheCanuck]

I did find out one this about tags. If you get your new tag online you have up to midnight the day of expiry to apply. you are then provided a receipt that can grant you up to 10 days after the tag expires. This was according to the ministry's site and paperwork.

Correct, but you must carry the receipt with you otherwise it's the same ticket.

 

[jaymurr]

I did find out one this about tags. If you get your new tag online you have up to midnight the day of expiry to apply. you are then provided a receipt that can grant you up to 10 days after the tag expires. This was according to the ministry's site and paperwork.

I did that this year when I realized I forgot to renew.

 

[Jampy00]

Correct, but you must carry the receipt with you otherwise it's the same ticket.

Oops, yes I forgot to add that part.. Thanks !

 

[Jampy00]

I did that this year when I realized I forgot to renew.

As did I, I actually did it online the day after my tag expired and it still worked just fine.

 

[bboySushi]

I got this ticket for my car, but fortunately it was when it was parked so it was just a fine and not a moving violation (as I think it is in this case?)

 

[C-Note]

Yes it was a moving violation. He was recoding audio. Pretty sure he didn't ask me my name, or ask if it was my vehicle. Maybe it'll get dropped with just a fine. I'd be ok with that. Not gonna hire a paralegal and have him pick me out of the crowd or however it would work....

 

[Pegassus]

Speaking of identifying you. I recently watched a "Disobey stop sign" case where a police officer was cross examined by the defendant's paralegal. After cross examination the paralegal requested that the case be dismissed because the police officer had not identified the driver of the vehicle as the defendant in the court room while up on the stand. The case was dismissed. There are more ways than one to fight a ticket.

Ummm a cop can just blatantly lie and say "Yes that's him" in court, then what?

 

[SLaP]

Request disclosure. In the disclosure request, ask for any audio/video footage taken during the stop.

However, if there is no footage and the officer lies and says you had removed your helmet, what will be your case then?

Ummm a cop can just blatantly lie and say "Yes that's him" in court, then what?

In the OP's case I had already suggested that might occur.

Speaking of identifying you. I recently watched a "Disobey stop sign" case where a police officer was cross examined by the defendant's paralegal. After cross examination the paralegal requested that the case be dismissed because the police officer had not identified the driver of the vehicle as the defendant in the court room while up on the stand. The case was dismissed. There are more ways than one to fight a ticket.

In the case I mentioned above, the case was dismissed because the prosecutor's witness (officer) failed to identify the driver of the vehicle as the defendant standing in the courtroom during their testimony or cross-examination.

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/sel...efendants-in-provincial-offences-cases/guide/

Close of prosecutor’s case

After the prosecutor has finished calling all of his or her evidence and has “closed” the case for the prosecution, you will have the following options:

(i) You may ask the justice of the peace to dismiss some or all of the charges at this stage because there is no evidence in relation to at least one of the essential elements of the offence that the prosecutor must prove. If you move for a directed verdict and the justice of the peace rules against you, you will then be allowed to decide whether or not to call a defence. If the justice of the peace rules for you, you will be found not guilty.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

In this case the essential elements are that the vehicle was being operated without a proper validation sticker and that the OP is the owner of said vehicle. That he was the person operating the vehicle at the time is optional.

 

[SLaP]

^ I was not implying that the OP could use the tactic in their case. I brought it up because it was related ( failed to identify ) and to show that there are more than one way to fight a ticket.

If the OP is intent on fighting the ticket, they should request disclosure and see what kind of case they have.

OP, request the disclosure, review the information on the ticket, go from there.

BTW... what is the "Set fine" amount written on the ticket? http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...AAQAXdmFsaWRhdGlvbiBwbGF0ZSBwZXJzb24AAAAAAAAB

Generally, insurance companies will consider this a conviction.

 

[coyo]

above, the case was dismissed because the prosecutor's witness (officer) failed to identify the driver of the vehicle as the defendant standing in the courtroom during their testimony or cross-examination.

The point of the witness (officer) ID'ing the defendant in court by pointing them out is swaying away, due largely to the number of people witnesses (police) deal with in the increasingly long period of time (up to and over a year) between the offense date and the court date. ID is being verified by determining that the officer was satisfied to the ID of the defendant at the time of the offense by any number of methods (matching licence to driver, historical knowledge of licence, residential history, etc...) and then having the defendant stand in court and state their name to formally ID themselves for the record. This may vary slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

In this case the essential elements are that the vehicle was being operated without a proper validation sticker and that the OP is the owner of said vehicle. That he was the person operating the vehicle at the time is optional.

Actually, assuming that the OP received a normal valtag ticket (7(1)(a) or 7(1)(c)(i) for example) the essential elements would be that the defendant;
- was operating the vehicle, and
- that there was, depending on the section used, either no valid permit or no proof of validation was affixed to the plate. The operator doesn't have to be the owner.

 

[SLaP]

The point of the witness (officer) ID'ing the defendant in court by pointing them out is swaying away

Perhaps, but as of Monday June 3rd, 2013, it was still required at City Hall in courtroom E.

Actually, assuming that the OP received a normal valtag ticket (7(1)(a) or 7(1)(c)(i) for example) the essential elements would be that the defendant;
- was operating the vehicle, and
- that there was, depending on the section used, either no valid permit or no proof of validation was affixed to the plate. The operator doesn't have to be the owner.

Does makes sense.

OP can you verify the exact infraction and the set fine amount? Are the plate number, make of vehicle, dates all correct on the ticket?

 

[coyo]

Perhaps, but as of Monday June 3rd, 2013, it was still required at City Hall in courtroom E.

As I said, different jurisdictions may handle it differently. I have seen the officer asked if he could ID the defendant in the court room and officer said "No, it was over a year ago and I've dealt with a lot of people since then. I can verify that I was satisfied of the ID of the driver on the date in question", or words to that effect, and then he went on to describe how he verified the ID on the date in question. The court accepted that.

 

[SLaP]

True enough about different jurisdictions.

In the case I attended, the officer was not asked during the cross-examination if he could ID the defendant.
The prosecutor failed to ask their witness the question. The defense didn't ask the question since they know if the defendant is not identified, they will get a dismissal.

 

[coyo]

True enough about different jurisdictions.

In the case I attended, the officer was not asked during the cross-examination if he could ID the defendant.
The prosecutor failed to ask their witness the question. The defense didn't ask the question since they know if the defendant is not identified, they will get a dismissal.

Crown not paying attention, a win for the defendant!