“Any Assistance Would Be Appreciated!”

Hello everyone,

First I'd like to say that this website is very useful and I'd like to Thank those who contribute to it.

Anyways... I received my very first speeding ticket. In fact its the first time I've ever been pulled over! Driving for about 5+ years now and am a University student.

Going North in Oro Medonte (sp?) while in left lane. 2 lane highway.

Red sports car (Ford Probe) in front of me (about 10+ meters) going at a faster speed than I and a blue sedan (Honda Civic) to my right going about my speed or slightly slower (our cars overlapped one another).

9 45 pm or so, so it was very dark outside. This particular highway has very little in the ways of lighting.

I was the one that eventually was pulled over, but I'm not complaining, it could have been anyone, and I'm no better than anyone else.

Officer was professional and seemed very pleasant after he checked out my licence/registration, (before checking he seemed kinda upset...I took a little longer than I should have to pull over as I had become kinda nervous). He wished me a safe night and went on his way.

Ticket was issued for 131 kmh in a 90 zone. $301 fine.

Like everyone usually says...I wasn't going that fast...BUT I was probably going around 110 in the 90, so he was doing the right thing.

Ticket was not reduced and during our conversation there was no admission of guilt.

I asked for disclosure and I got it. I received officer's notes as well as radar manual.

Whats next for me? I received a speedy trial date and got proper disclosure.

My problem is really the fact that I don't have $300 to give! (Even $50 would hurt at this time!)

Any advice?

Thanks in advance,

RiffRaff

Here is the link to a scanned copy of the officers notes.

Heres what I can make out:

1-223

S/A (?) Laser Atlanta

Tested 1500 HRS

???? ....lead vehicle...??? excess of 90 kmh posted limit. (I was not the lead vehicle)

???? ..... 131 kmh locked.

Posted 90 kmh zone

Qualified legal/laser (?) operator

Clear

Traffic Light

Retest (???) 2230 Hrs

After looking at this, my understanding is that the 'lead car' is the one who was clocked at 131.

Would I be able to argue the point that I wasn't the lead car?

Firstly, file your papers to go to court.

Ask for a first appearance with the prosecutor...let him/her show her hand first. Explain that you believe that you were one of several vehicles on the road that night and you believe that you car was inadvertently targeted...the prosecutor won't care but may offer a reduced charge right away.

If you do go to court and plead not guilty ask the officer how he KNEW it was your car and not either of the other vehicles that were travelling with you...the radar beam is very broad and can capture more than one vechile. Ask the officer about traffic history.

If all else fails then you can file a form with the court office and ask to pay the fine over 6 months or longer.

Good luck.

Helper wrote:If you do go to court and plead not guilty ask the officer how he KNEW it was your car and not either of the other vehicles that were travelling with you...the radar beam is very broad and can capture more than one vechile. .

It was NOT radar being used.....it was lidar which is target specific

If the officer didn't get a speed reading of your vehicle specifically, unless you were pacing the vehicle in front of you, that could help.

RiffRaff wrote:

1-223

S/A (?) Laser Atlanta

Tested 1500 HRS

???? ....lead vehicle...??? excess of 90 kmh posted limit. (I was not the lead vehicle)

???? ..... 131 kmh locked.

Posted 90 kmh zone

Qualified legal/laser (?) operator

Clear

Traffic Light

Retest (???) 2230 Hrs

Cruiser # 1-223

Laser Atlanta

Ser # 09-518

Tested 1500hrs

observe vehicle Lane 1

lead vehicle at high speed

excess of 90km posted limit

activate laser at target (this is what I think it is as scan was blurry)

131km/hr locked

posted 90km/hr zone

qualified laser operator

clear

traffic light

retest 2230hrs

hwybear wrote:

RiffRaff wrote:

1-223

S/A (?) Laser Atlanta

Tested 1500 HRS

???? ....lead vehicle...??? excess of 90 kmh posted limit. (I was not the lead vehicle)

???? ..... 131 kmh locked.

Posted 90 kmh zone

Qualified legal/laser (?) operator

Clear

Traffic Light

Retest (???) 2230 Hrs

Cruiser # 1-223

Laser Atlanta

Ser # 09-518

Tested 1500hrs

observe vehicle Lane 1

lead vehicle at high speed

excess of 90km posted limit

activate laser at target (this is what I think it is as scan was blurry)

131km/hr locked

posted 90km/hr zone

qualified laser operator

clear

traffic light

retest 2230hrs

Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

I'm 90% hwybear's deciphering of the Officer's notes are completely correct. Even still, it is unclear to me from the notes as to who exactly the 'target' vehicle was. A lead vehicle was observed (this implies there was more than one vehicle) and a vehicle was targeted, but there is no specification as to which vehicle this was (was it the lead? was it me? was it the third vehicle?).

Radar Identified mentioned that I may have something if I can correctly argue that the targeted vehicle was not me, but Radar also mentioned 'pacing'.

How do I know if I was 'paced' by the Officer? And if I was, why wasn't it in the Officer's notes? And does 'pacing' qualify as enough to convict me?

More specifically, would the Officer admit I wasn't this 'lead vehicle'? And if the Officer does admit I wasn't this 'lead vehicle', would he admit I wasn't the 'target' if I truly wasn't? Looking at these notes in isolation, it looks like I might have an argument, but if the Officer simply testifies against the things he didn't put in the notes, do I automatically lose any hope?

My date is set for Feb 2nd at 9am, so I assume it is too late to ask for any further disclosure or clarification of the notes.

Sorry for all the questions and I'd appreciate any further help!

Regards,

RiffRaff

RiffRaff wrote:Even still, it is unclear to me from the notes as to who exactly the 'target' vehicle was. A lead vehicle was observed (this implies there was more than one vehicle) and a vehicle was targeted, but there is no specification as to which vehicle this was (was it the lead? was it me? was it the third vehicle?).

Seems very clear to me from the notes. Officer observed a vehicle in lane #1, it was the lead vehicle that appeared to be travelling faster than the posted speed limit of 90km/hr. The lidar was then used and a obtained a target reading of 131km/hr.

Lidar terminology is typically "targetted" as lidar is "target specific". It can only obtain a target reading on one vehicle at a time, unlike radar which can have multiple vehicles and produce more than one reading at once

If you are certain and can "prove", magic in that word, that you were not the lead vehicle, then you can get it lowered at least. Your arguement is that while you were in a pack of cars, at no time was your car physically attached to the ones around you and any reading taken from the other car was not your speed. Lidar operators are instructed to aim at the center of mass, read licence plate. If the officer could not see your licence plate any reading becomes suspect.

Thanks for the help everyone.

I'm going to plead not guilty and have a go at it. My thinking is that it should be fairly easy to prove that I wasn't the lead vehicle in question as long as the Officer well...tells the truth (for lack of a better term). I'll report back as soon as my trial is over.

Just another quick question...My trial is scheduled for Wednesday morning 9AM, but apparently a large snowstorm is expected. What kind of impact might this have on the trial (if any)?

RiffRaff wrote:I'm going to plead not guilty and have a go at it. My thinking is that it should be fairly easy to prove that I wasn't the lead vehicle in question as long as the Officer well...tells the truth (for lack of a better term).

That will be very difficult to do for multiple reasons.

- you did not even see the officer to slow down in time, therefore do not know which 2 or 3 or whatever vehicles the officer was looking at and at what time

- just b/c your vehicle was following someone doesn't mean the officer even considered obtaining a speed on the alledged vehicle in what you believe is "the lead", further you possibly could have closed the distance, caught up to the vehicle, then saw the officer.

- quite often just pick a vehicle out of the group of vehicles, simple to do with lidar, whether it is the first, fourth or last vehicle

- would not believe this.....when parked perpedincular, how many people do the ole, lift their hand, checking their speed as they pass by the "nose" of the cruiser

just other things to consider

hwybear wrote:

RiffRaff wrote:I'm going to plead not guilty and have a go at it. My thinking is that it should be fairly easy to prove that I wasn't the lead vehicle in question as long as the Officer well...tells the truth (for lack of a better term).

That will be very difficult to do for multiple reasons.

- you did not even see the officer to slow down in time, therefore do not know which 2 or 3 or whatever vehicles the officer was looking at and at what time

- just b/c your vehicle was following someone doesn't mean the officer even considered obtaining a speed on the alledged vehicle in what you believe is "the lead", further you possibly could have closed the distance, caught up to the vehicle, then saw the officer.

- quite often just pick a vehicle out of the group of vehicles, simple to do with lidar, whether it is the first, fourth or last vehicle

- would not believe this.....when parked perpedincular, how many people do the ole, lift their hand, checking their speed as they pass by the "nose" of the cruiser

just other things to consider

Thanks again for your input hwybear. I appreciate the interesting points that you brought up, and I'd obviously rather see them here than in court!

I should have been more detailed in my initial post. There were no cars within seeing distance both behind me, and both in-front of the red Ford (my believed 'lead' vehicle). I am 100% sure of this as it was very dark and I distinctly recall seeing no other vehicles. This was a part of the 'notes' I took at the time of the incident. Maybe I should bring traffic reports of that particular highway on that particular date/time? I should also note that this particular highway is also not a very busy one, especially on a Saturday evening. Might this make my plea a little more believable?

If LIDAR can only target one vehicle, it must have been one of the three cars described in the initial post, if I can establish that there were no vehicles in-front/behind of our group.

In my head, (keep in mind that I've never been to court, so I'm not totally sure if this logic would apply) if I can establish that there is no one behind me, I can't possibly be a 'lead' vehicle. I don't doubt that its simple to pick out a vehicle in a group with LIDAR, but in this particular case, the disclosure only makes reference to a 'lead' vehicle, and only that vehicle (whichever car it might be).

If I can also establish that there was indeed a red Ford about 15+ meters ahead of me and that there was indeed a Honda sedan beside me, it would then logically indicate that there is only one vehicle that could be construed as 'leading' anything at all, and that would be the Ford. (Again...this is just my newbie logic.)

So I believe if I can establish those facts, I should be able to prove I am not the 'lead' vehicle in the notes, and hopefully cast some doubt as to whether I was speeding at all.

Finally, I'd like to note that by no means do I think I've 'won' my case at all. But that I'm simply going to have a go-at-it and argue my case, especially considering the circumstances where ...well...I can't afford the fine and the subsequent insurance $ raise. In a strange way, I really appreciate the experience, and as well as the help everyone here provided.

I just hope to not be made to look like an idiot as I've heard other de-grading horror stories before, lol.

The snow storm may be you "get out of jail free" ticket. The officer may be instructed not to appear in court that day due to the traffic mess on the roads and not show up. Make sure you do show and leave extra early to ensure you get there in time for court. Possibly even the prosecutor or the JP may not show due to the storm.

I assume if the prosecution doesn't show the ticket is thrown out, but if the JP does not show up the trial is adjourned?

If the JP doesn't show up there's no one to adjourn the matter.