“32 Over Reduced To 15 Over”

Was stoped by an officer going in the other direction allegedly I was going 92 in a 60 zone. Reduced the charge to 75 in a 60, which was nice. Also wrote me 110$ ticket for failing to sign the ownership in ink. Didn't make me sign it though, just gave it back to me (didn't care enough to solve the problem, just wrote the ticket).

The question is, I would pay the speeding ticket as it is now, but my insurance comes up for renewal in 2 months, I would rather wait till then. To da that I need to plea not guilty. I figured will do that, wait for the court date and then as soon as I get my insurance renewed will change the plea to guilty, pay the fine. Called the court, they told me I will not be able to do that, if I enter a plea of guilty there will b e a trial. Which would be fine unless I was afraid they will raise the 75 in a 60 zone to 92.

My question is was the court clerk right about what she told me?

I wanted to set an appointment with a prosecutor first, but she also told me I need to fill the ppwk first.

some area's take 10-11 months to come up.

If you just want delay check the third box and return it.

Cheers

Viper1

I also found here

how a radar case was thrown out similar to my cituation, but it was a US court. I think they have moving radars installed on the police cars as there's no way the officer can shoot a laser one while driving, so my deffence would be the same:

...The magistrate calls the other case which was a radar citation. The officer starts to testify from the witness stand about the details of the citation. The defendant interrupts the officer while hes testifying and asks him:

Defendant: Im sorry to interrupt, but you were using radar correct?

Officer: yes

Defendant: So you were not using a lidar gun which is target specific? Correct?

Officer: yesDefendant immediately makes his statement to the judge on how radar uses dopler which scans a general area up to a mile. He was apparently representing someone else so he proceeds to ask the judge to dismiss his clients citation due to the fact he was using radar and not a lidar gun which is target specific.

Officer makes his last statement stating the vehicle was the only one on the road and that it was 1AM at night.

Judge signs the paper work and declares him not responsible.

Is that a possible scenario in an Ontario court room? Could it be that easy.

Also a quick question, I really want to go through court transcripts for simmilar cases, how can I get access to them? I bet they are not availiable online.

shmeli wrote:I also found here

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/how ... eet-2.html

this was a lidar trial, the officer evidence that is written by the defendant in the story seems lacking a lot evidence, hence why the dismissal

how a radar case was thrown out similar to my cituation, but it was a US court. I think they have moving radars installed on the police cars as there's no way the officer can shoot a laser one while driving, so my deffence would be the same:

...The magistrate calls the other case which was a radar citation. The officer starts to testify from the witness stand about the details of the citation. The defendant interrupts the officer while hes testifying and asks him:

Defendant: Im sorry to interrupt, but you were using radar correct?

Officer: yes

Defendant: So you were not using a lidar gun which is target specific? Correct?

Officer: yes

Defendant immediately makes his statement to the judge on how radar uses dopler which scans a general area up to a mile. He was apparently representing someone else so he proceeds to ask the judge to dismiss his clients citation due to the fact he was using radar and not a lidar gun which is target specific.

Officer makes his last statement stating the vehicle was the only one on the road and that it was 1AM at night.

Judge signs the paper work and declares him not responsible.

Just looking at that little bit I would grant a dismissal too....why? (whole transcript is not here but again what person in crowd wrote...)

....before this cross examination, officer must have testified that radar was target specific, which it is not.....game over!

Are police officers allowed to just drive around with their radar on or there are instructions that an officer must first get a visual estimate and then confirm the speed with a reading? It seems impossible to estimate and then take reading travelling at night in the opposite direction.

Are police officers allowed to just drive around with their radar on

Some do all the time

It seems impossible to estimate and then take reading travelling at night in the opposite direction.

You would be correct, how are you going to prove it?

Also a quick question, I really want to go through court transcripts for simmilar cases, how can I get access to them? I bet they are not availiable online.

You'll have to read a lot. Speed detection would be the key words you'll need to enter......

You would be correct, how are you going to prove it?

Probably just questioning the officer, if he admits he had his radar on and saw it show 92 then made a u turn and stopped me, than I assume that would be against some instructions they should send me in the disclosure I am willing to request.

If the officer will testify he saw me speeding, then flipped the radar on, then my alleged speed 92+ his 52 = 144km/h or 40m/sec. Will have to go measure the area to figure out if there was enough time.

http://www.canlii.org/

You'll have to read a lot. Speed detection would be the key words you'll need to enter......

I could only find the appeal cases there, no local courts. Yet very useful information.

should send me in the disclosure

That won't be in disclosure.....

shmeli wrote:Are police officers allowed to just drive around with their radar on or there are instructions that an officer must first get a visual estimate and then confirm the speed with a reading? It seems impossible to estimate and then take reading travelling at night in the opposite direction.

estimating speed can easily be done at night....have to remember that police do this every single shift (day/night) and that is from day one on the road.

Once you estimate a speed, radar can confirm your observations with a number value.

hwybear wrote:

estimating speed can easily be done at night....have to remember that police do this every single shift (day/night) and that is from day one on the road.

Once you estimate a speed, radar can confirm your observations with a number value.

I obviously don't want you on the stand when I am asking questions))

But it really helps me now.

Again even though it sounds right, is the officer allowed to do that or it's against some sort of instructions you guys have? If the number is there before you make your estimate how can I trust your estimate?

In all years that you were giving tickets for speeding how many mistakes did you make, how many innocent people got tickets from you?

The officer will testify to what bear said, visually of vehicle speed confirmed with radar/lidar. You won't be able to prove otherwise, unless you have a witness to his modus operandi.

I watched an officer the other day, sitting under an overpass, and he targeted a line, maybe ten cars in the left lane. My speedo said 110.... why would he be targeting us if we are all doing the same speed???

shmeli wrote:

In all years that you were giving tickets for speeding how many mistakes did you make, how many innocent people got tickets from you?

I have made mistakes on tickets no doubt about that. I would only issue an offence notice if I believe there are grounds for a successful conviction of the charge. I have never issued an offence without grounds, hence never to an innocent person.

for speeding, If I have any doubt as to the correct vehicle or have lost sight, I might go and stop it...looking for other violations, but will not issue a speeding offence. I would rather let a person go, than to make an error and jeopardize my credibility in court and not only court but my own morals.

Have I lost cases in court = yes. But live and learn, they were all technicalities (how I presented the evidence) that I was not successful, I will never make those mistakes again.....more court, the more solid I become for the next person.

I also sit in and watch others testimony and how defence asks questions...all learning for me....being on this site...I have also changed the way I write my notes, plus extra evidence that I would never have thought of for my notes (thanks Bookm ). I also tour through some other sites and see what defence tactics people use. All this makes me more prepared!

Reflections wrote:I watched an officer the other day, sitting under an overpass, and he targeted a line, maybe ten cars in the left lane. My speedo said 110.... why would he be targeting us if we are all doing the same speed???

Just b/c the radar/lidar is pointed in your direction, does not mean he was targeting anyone. I leave the lidar pointed in the direction all the time, I monitor traffic thru the scope (magnified 8 times)...so starting to watch vehicles 800m-1000m away.

At night is a lot easier, one location frequent has a curve before the straight stretch....there are 2 towers that have red lights on top....the average travel time is 7 seconds for someone 100. 6 seconds for 110, 5 seconds for 120, 4 seconds for 130. I just sit and count seconds, then know which vehicle to activate on when it gets close....hence making any detectors useless.

No, he had the lidar up to his eye, trigger pulled..... He could have been trialling, testing..whatever. I did not see if he pulled anyone over, we were all doing 110 in a 100 zone. However, if the officer leaves the Speed Measuring Device on, starts doing paperwork, gets a reading, looks up to visually identify the offender he could have the wrong car.

I.E. two cars driving down the multi-lane highway. Car #1 begins to overtake Car #2, spots Officer Fife doing paperwork, brakes and allows Car #2 to continue to lead. The officer could see the reading as Car #2 when it was Car #1 speeding.

Just a senario....