“Going To Trial Next Month”

Hi,

I have a court date next month to fight Disobeying the Signs and also failing to produce proper documents (do not have my ticket in front of me - I had a copy of one side of the vehicle registration).

I recently received disclosure documents. Not a lot really. Just a cop description of the events. There are discrepancies from what he described and what actually happened. He mentioned that he was in an unmarked vehicle when it happened, but in fact he was collecting documents from the other two vehicle that he caught just before me (I am not quite sure if he could even see me making the turn, or just routinely stopped me assuming that I did it). He also did not mention that he worked with another cop who was sitting in the car writing tickets. So my question is whether it would be enough to have the case dismissed.

Also, I requested an interpreter. Should I make sure that the interpreter is present before I meet with the prosecutor? In case he/she does not show up, what am I suppose to do?

Thanks.

I don't see how the discrepancies you have mentioned, even if you can get the court to completely accept your version of the events and reject the officer's, will have any bearing on the ticket being dismissed.

Simon Borys wrote:I don't see how the discrepancies you have mentioned, even if you can get the court to completely accept your version of the events and reject the officer's, will have any bearing on the ticket being dismissed.

Thanks. So what kind of tactics should I take? Any suggestions?

I'd try for a plea deal, plead guilty to one offence and get the other withdrawn.

Thanks.

Another question, if someone could answer.

If it comes down to negotiations, which offenses do not affect your insurance? What should I aim for to bargain? I obviously do not want the 'Disobey a Sign' offence on my record.

Thanks.

Insurance companies typically look at any and all convictions, so the documentation offence wouldnt be considered any more or less serious than the prohibited turn. Both would typically be considered minor offences and result in a minor rate increase if any. It varies from one provider to the next, so check your policy and contact your provider.

Could anyone, please, point me to the exact text in the OHTA, which explains how a copy of the ownership document should look like?

Thanks.

I'm not sure there's anything more specific then the section itself, which reads "every driver of a motor vehicle on a highway shall carry, the permit for it or a true copy thereof".

True copy simply means a copy of the front and back of the document with the current validation sticker.

Thanks.

Could you please tell me which section of the act it is, and also where a definition of 'true copy' is? I would really appreciate it. I have been trying to find it myself but it is not easy.

It should be the same as what's on your ticket, section 7(5)(a). There is no definition of true copy that I'm aware of in the HTA. Courts have always simply said it must be a copy of the front and back of the document, with the current validation sticker on the back as well.

Thanks.

Well, in my humble opinion they can say what they want, but without a reference to an explicit definition in a legal document, that means nothing. The definition of 'true copy' in OHTA does not exist, therefore that point should be easy to challenge. The bottom line is, why a heck they require you to carry this document, when they can pull off all required infomration, including registration and insurance, from the computer which is mounted in every cruiser, based on your driver's license number or any other legal id you have on you?

Stanton wrote:It should be the same as what's on your ticket, section 7(5)(a). There is no definition of true copy that I'm aware of in the HTA. Courts have always simply said it must be a copy of the front and back of the document, with the current validation sticker on the back as well.

BY the way, can they charge me with anything which is not defined in OHTA or during my trial I can fully rely on this Act?

Sorry, one more question.

In my case, there were two cops, one who stopped me, took the documents and handed me the tickets. The other one writing tickets on the computer. Is it correct from the legal point or it has to be one cop doing all these actions himself?

Thanks.

slepy wrote:The bottom line is, why a heck they require you to carry this document, when they can pull off all required infomration, including registration and insurance, from the computer which is mounted in every cruiser, based on your driver's license number or any other legal id you have on you?

not all cruisers have computers

not all that information is available if lucky enough to have a computer in the cruiser, nor in the office for that matter

HTA sec 7 Permit to be carried (5) every driver of a motor vehicle on a highway shall carry, (a) the permit for it or a true copy thereof

now using a dictionary online

true = exact, accurate, right, correct

copy = a thing made just like another; imitation of an original

HTA OREG 628

6. A permit for a motor vehicle shall be validated by means of evidence of validation provided by the Ministry and affixed in the appropriate space provided on the permit

- the space provided on the permit for evidence of validation is on the back of the permit

The fact that true copy isnt defined in the HTA really isnt a defence. As Hwybear has demonstrated, Courts simply look at the meaning of the words. A more thorough search may reveal case law to support this, but I've never seen a JP accept that a partial copy of a document is sufficient.