Watch Out With Sneaky Court Tactics When Fighting Tickets
- Thread starter Pegassus
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, but he stuck it to the man!*
I used to work with somebody like this, he’d be grumpy and get ****** off with the company and then take the next day off (without pay) to “teach them a lesson”.
They just replaced him with a temp.
* If this isn’t all just a tall tale.
lets be real, its probably 5 minutes at most...in most scenarios. the difference in terms of amount of time saved by speeding only becomes advantageous when you're doing uninterrupted long distance riding.
anytime you stop for red light, gas, traffic, you lose all those gains in the blink of an eye because at that point in time, you're waiting just like the others lol
Riceburner
Well-known member
Speed and get caught at the next light and the vehicles you passed pull up beside you. But it does feel nice givin' it though. 
I endorse this messageSpeed and get caught at the next light and the vehicles you passed pull up beside you. But it does feel nice givin' it though.
This is my new favourite thread
Better than axle sticks?
pfbmgd
Well-known member
I have the kids in the car we laugh at the fools that try to get ahead . They blow off the line only to see us at the next red light . In traffic it`s even funnier the guy that changes lanes 5 times . Only to end up in the same spot .
Those are the sorts of people who have absolutely no idea that’s happening however, completely oblivious to what’s going on around them since they are the center of the universe and all.
In their head they think they’re making better time.
canadian_bacon
Active member
In todays date, the presence or absence of the cop in the courtroom will no longer determine if you are off the hook or not.
If the court decided that there is sufficient evidence that you did wrong, the case goes on the roll. The prosecution will go with the case based on current and presented evidence.
And one more thing: when you ask for a full disclosure, the office is NOT legally required to hand over his/her notes.
you not paying anybody's salary, get over yourself.
If the court decided that there is sufficient evidence that you did wrong, the case goes on the roll. The prosecution will go with the case based on current and presented evidence.
And one more thing: when you ask for a full disclosure, the office is NOT legally required to hand over his/her notes.
you not paying anybody's salary, get over yourself.
How can you mount a viable defence without the officer there (assuming there is not a fatal error on the ticket itself)?
Say the notes are "I observed a blue civic travelling at what appeared to be 105 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and using my radar confirmed a speed of 104 km/h. I pulled onto the road and initiated a traffic stop . . . ".
There is no discussion of traffic volume, possible loss of sight of subject vehicle etc. I can't imagine that notes are detailed enough to catch every possible scenario where they may have accidentally issued the ticket to the wrong vehicle.
Either the courts have to blindly assume that the officer did not make any mistakes and there is no possible defence or the courts will have to accept the word of the suspect (eg. "I was travelling at 80 km/h and saw the officer parked at the side of the road. I was passed by a blue civic travelling at a high rate of speed and shortly after I was pulled over") and almost every ticket gets tossed in court. Either outcome isn't great for the justice system.
My guess is that officers will have an evolving script that gets attached to each ticket as things go to court to head off all possible defenses (eg. I never lost sight of the subject vehicle and observed no other similar vehicles on the road during my pursuit . . .). Blindly attaching a ton of conditions (which cannot be challenged) just to quash defences would be a dangerous path.
Uhmmm NO, WRONG.
There has to a be a first hand witness for the prosecution. Everything else is considered "hear say" evidence and is not allowed.
... and there could be more than one officer involved. They ALL have to be in court. IE: You get grabbed by radar. Officer A beams you with the radar gun, and officer B writes you the ticket.
Officer A will testify about the speeding infraction.
Officer B will testify about writing and delivering the ticket to the accused, and identify the guy he gave the ticket to in court, called "service".
If there was no officer in court the accused just says, in his best Bart Simpson voice "It wasn't me" and he walks.
... and another thing: The prosecution must disclose anything they will use in court to the defense. If the officer's note are relevant to the case they must be disclosed.
If it's not in the disclosure, it cannot be brought up in court.
canadian_bacon
Active member
You get asked for ID and all the other paperwork. The cop does identify you as the driver of the vehicle and you get handed your speeding ticket. The disclosure notes say when and how the cop car and device where calibrated, time, location, speed, and sometimes they do write down the weather status at the time of the offence. The cop is not there and what are you going to bring against them? Wasn't me ? If the justice of the peace (they are not judges) says ok, pending new evidence or whatever they say and come back on the this court date and the cop does come in and identifies you as the suspect, then you go down the drain for many other offences, like...i dont know, perjury? What are you going to say, wasnt my car? somebody stole my ID and my car and i didn't declare it stolen and that person looks like me?
I wasnt going that fast may be be another excuse, however, most of the speeding tickets I know about do come reduced and the officers do put the big R on it.
My speedometer was wrong? Good for you, here is the reduced ticket, next. Talk to the dealer and this becomes a matter between you and the manufacturer.
When there is sufficient credible evidence against you, sometimes you have to swallow it and take it like a man.
ii) Prosecutor (sometimes called “the Crown”): The prosecutor is the person with the authority to prosecute the offence. It is the prosecutor’s responsibility to prove that you committed the offence with which you are charged.
If the officer does not appear on your trial date, the prosecution may ask for an adjournment from the court to get a later trial date so the officer can have a chance to show up.
It will be up to the discretion of the justice of the peace whether or not to grant the adjournment, and they will base their decision on the officer's reason for not being present. If the officer has a good reason for not being there, it is likely that the trial will just be pushed back to a later date, and there will still be opportunity for you to be convicted and face ticket fines.
and all this goes back to square one, what is your defense now?
I wasnt going that fast may be be another excuse, however, most of the speeding tickets I know about do come reduced and the officers do put the big R on it.
My speedometer was wrong? Good for you, here is the reduced ticket, next. Talk to the dealer and this becomes a matter between you and the manufacturer.
When there is sufficient credible evidence against you, sometimes you have to swallow it and take it like a man.
ii) Prosecutor (sometimes called “the Crown”): The prosecutor is the person with the authority to prosecute the offence. It is the prosecutor’s responsibility to prove that you committed the offence with which you are charged.
If the officer does not appear on your trial date, the prosecution may ask for an adjournment from the court to get a later trial date so the officer can have a chance to show up.
It will be up to the discretion of the justice of the peace whether or not to grant the adjournment, and they will base their decision on the officer's reason for not being present. If the officer has a good reason for not being there, it is likely that the trial will just be pushed back to a later date, and there will still be opportunity for you to be convicted and face ticket fines.
and all this goes back to square one, what is your defense now?
Last edited:
Irrelevant to him. Remember, all cops lie 100% of the time (/sarcasm, in case anyone missed it), so his only avenue of defense is apparently doing the same.
Peggy is a real piece of work.
- Status
