Also, follow up question ...

Would there be any usefulness in asking for disclosure on the Officers Injury (nature) or when/why the detachment would have notified the Prosecutor or the court about his inability to make it to court?

Thanks

Well, I was in court today. I checked in with the Prosecutor and stated my intent for a trial I waited through 2 breaks for the Pros to only call my name during the 2nd break and tell me the Officer was injured over a week ago and they would be moving for an adjournment unless I wanted to take a 1 time sweet deal. I said I would argue for the adjournment and put it before the JP. I objected to the JP and argued that although sympathetic to the Officer - it is not my issue, and why did the detachment make arrangements and discuss with the Pros and send out a notification for a new trial date pr...

Decatur wrote:I'm not in a position to give any legal advice about that subject. You may bring it up to the prosecutor but they would probably consider it evidence and not really want to hear it.

Ok, thanks..

I was just curious if there was a chance after I disclosed my findings to the Prosecutor - if they might dismiss the charges before it actually gets to the trial?

You might want to consider more than just training. If it goes to trial ask about how often the officer actually uses radar. Just because they re qualify every 2 years doesn't mean they use it. I'd rather have an officer requal every 3 years and use it daily than someone who does it every 2 and takes the radar out once a month. And don't forget to actually ask the officer when they did their re qualification if the prosecutor doesn't bring it up. Thanks, good points.. Would you approach the Prosecutor prior to the start to notify them of my discoveries and see if it can be tossed? Is there an...

My line of thinking is that the OPP simply do their re qualifications more often than the Province requires. Under Provincial guidelines they are not required to do so. Even if they don't re qualify within the 2 year period I believe they are still qualified to operate speed measuring devices in Ontario. You could try discussing this with the prosecutor prior to the trial and see what they say. They may not even be aware in the discrepancy between the standard and OPP policy. The OPP Police Orders are more stringent, and state that if the officer has not maintained their training they should ...

Considering that the "2011 Policy Services Manual" and the new standard are both dated 2011 it is possible that the OPP revised their manual prior to the new standard being issued? The only way to find out whether the officer was "qualified" to operate a speed measuring device will be to ask him on the stand when he last qualified and go from there. I'm not in a position to comment on what an individual police agency may or may not have in their policies or orders. That's why I only provided information on the provincial standard. Decatur, I have a copy of the 2011 Adequac...

The Provincial Standard is now 36 months. The 2004 version was replaced in 2011. All police agencies in Ontario follow this standard. Some PSB sites may not have updated to reflect these recent changes. As far as I'm aware, the only way to get a true copy of the standard is to do the FOI request through the Provincial Government. The standard is not the property of the individual police agencies and they probably won't provide a certified or true copy. Decatur, I am not sure I agree 100% with your comments, I now have a copy of the 2011 Policy Services Manual. It lays out Adequacy Standards t...

Thanks Viper. I think your reference is 2004. I have found a 2011 copy and things have significantly changed since the 2004 revision !!! The 2011 version differentiates - Operator, Instructor, & Master Trainer. Refresher training for all speed measuring devices is 36 months for an Operator, and 60 months for an Instructor. This is very different than you 2004 copy as well as the Policy Manuals that are present on many PSB web sites ( e.g. York Region and Brantford). Is there any chance the OPP are operating at the level of York Region (i.e. 24 months with no differentiation between Operato...

Decatur wrote:AI-013 is a Provincial document, not a specific police agency standard.
The Provincial standard for re-qualification of an operator is 36 months. 60 months for an Instructor.
At this moment I have never seen a current copy of the Provincial Standard AI-013 online. They are all the old standard.

Just saw this re-reading the post... In R. v. Araujo (2008) - there is a coss exam of the OPP Officer that indicates he is an instructor as well - but still maintains the 24 month training requirement.

Is there a link to the provincial site that anyone can provide to help clear this up?

York Regional Police Standard Policy Manual currently online (updated 15/08/2013) and Brantford currently posted AI-013 states 24 months re-certification. How do you know the current standard is 36 months? The case R. v. Araujo (2008) states under examination the OPP std is 24 months. I have asked for clarification to the OPP policy manual as disclosure, but they will not provide, and the OPP will not provide without a FOI request. If the above (Brandtford and York) use 24 months would/could it not be safe to assume the OPP are held to the same high standard - vs. a relaxed 36 month? I can't e...

Hi,

Looking for some help, if anyone could point to a link/etc ... to the current OPP Policy manual specifically AI-013? I have found links to the Brantford, York Regional PSB web sites, but for some reason the OPP.ca does not seem to have this information.

I would request as disclosure, but my trial is this Thursday. I believe that when we were ticketed for speeding the officer was outside of his re-qualification period.

Any help or comments would be appreciated?

Thanks
R

As a follow-up I was reading case law today on the Laser Atlantic (topic)

I found R. v. Araujo [2008]. In the detailed notes of the cross examination the officer testifies that the OPP policy is to re-certify on LIDAR every 24 months. If that is the case, then from the notes on my disclosure - the Officer is past due on his re-certification on LIDAR. Is this enough to press for a dismissal?

Thanks
RTR

Looking for some help, received my disclosure today (see below). http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7442/9565991830_9611b0441e_z.jpg In addition to the note, I received a copy of the testing pages of the Laser Atlanta 'Speed Atlanta' manual. I can understand the notes to the most part, Not sure what the reference to the rd, W, T means ? Any thoughts? I suspect rd = road , Weather = Overcast, and T = Traffic - Medium? The notes are not exactly accurate to the facts surrounding the 'pull over'. We were on a long flat stretch in the middle lane among traffic. The officer was located on the on the shou...

Not from London, so would probably just have to call in to the Prov. Off. office... I just wasn't sure if it was better to 'nose' around or wait (in hopes that some small chance something fell through the cracks and my file has been neglected or something?)

I suspect with the OPP and the electronic ticketing system that their records and submissions of paperwork are all electronic?

I was ticketed early December on the 401 near London and to-date have not received a notice of trial. I promptly sent my request for trial <15 days after the incident and I requested a signature upon delivery (which I have). What should I do, wait and see, or should I be proactive and call the Provincial Offences court in London to see if I have a trial date set? How long does it take to send out notices for your trial date? Not sure if waiting is the best strategy, I've been reading some of the posts about people not receiving notice and missing trial dates & licence renewals being suspen...