“I Don't Know If The Cop Used A Radar Or Not - What Next?”

This morning I was driving SB on Keele, just south of King Vaughan rd in richmond hill (2 lanes in both directions).

I was driving with traffic, about 4 other cars. The guy ahead of me was driving sort of erratically, and had slowed down really sharply twice, and the second time I just passed him. At that point, I was in the left lane, & there were 2 cars ahead of me (two in the right-h lane), and 2 behind me (both in the right).

At this moment, a cop comes onto the horizon - travelling NB - from a slight dip on his side. Within about 2 seconds, he turns his lights on and stops. All four of us started to pull onto the shoulder as the cop made a U-turn and came up behind.

He pulls up behind my car, so everyone else takes off (naturally).

He says I was going 95 (in an 80 zone) and that I made a lane-change without signalling. He wrote me a ticket for 10 over (90 in an 80) and warned me about careless driving.

All I said to him when he asked what I was doing was "I'm sorry, I don't know what to say, I don't know what happened and I'm a little flustered." I didn't ask him anything about anything - too nervous. Just kept my mouth shut mostly.

I'm sure I probably was speeding, I had literally JUST passed the guy in front of me. But everyone besides him was going about the same speed as I was.... does that matter at all? Is "driving with traffic" count as any sort of argument? (i doubt it)

I'm not sure what "signalling" he is talking about though, because he couldn't see my car when I changed lanes - although he might have been talking about signalling as I moved to the shoulder, I guess?

I have no idea whether or not I signalled either time - it was a confusing 60 seconds, but I can say generally that I always signal. (irrelevant)

Anyway - I intend to fight this. I can't afford a ticket on my insurance, not even for 10km over. I already have one that is almost off my insurance record from a couple of years ago. I'm a student, I drive to school and I seriously CANNOT afford ANY more insurance.

I intend to go in on Monday morning, ask for a trial & for disclosure - but I don't know what to ask for.

I've read other topics about how to write a disclosure request, etc... But, as he was going in the opposite direction, he couldn't have been pacing me... could he? And I have no clue whether he was using a radar - wouldn't that sort of equipment have to already be set up in advance in order for him to use it on me? This was like a spur-of-the-moment thing - bam, lights on, u-turn, pulled over.

Confusing...? Need help! & Advice!

Most likely the officer was using moving radar. It's mounted on the dash of the cruiser and can detect the speed of oncoming traffic. And you're correct, moving with the speed of traffic is not a defence. You'll have to request disclosure and go from there. Disclosure should consist of the officer's notes and at least part of the manual for the speed measuring device.

Just be aware if you go to trial the speed will likely be raise back up to 15 over, though that isn't a big difference. As for the signalling, etc., I wouldn't worry about it if you weren't charged with it.

Yeah sounds like moving radar. My dad drives for the TTC, and along certain routes he routinely see the TPS doing rolling radar. I doubt you would of gotten a ticket if he didn't use radar (I was doing 95 in a 60 one time, the cop (who was stopped it a perpendicular street) pulled me over because he "witnessed my vehicle travelling faster than the other traffic". Checked my info, it cleared, then gave me a warning only, since he couldn't actually prove how fast I was going).

With regards to insurance, I paid a ticket for 10 km/h over, and my insurance went up $25 a month, so it's not too bad, though it varies per provider (though because of this I complained to my broker, so she found me another company and my insurance ended up dropping about $80 a month, so it was a blessing in disguise, sort of).

They can bump it up to 95? Whaaaa.... he only wrote down 90. Verbally he said "you were going about 95" so I guess that could be in his notes... That's kind of bogus. I wish I knew exactly what speed I was going.

Cops shouldn't be allowed to just write tickets for whatever they feel like if the court system can just turn around and bump the tickets back up... oh well.

I appreciate the insurance input - but I literally cannot afford another $25 a month. Not gonna happen.

Well, tomorrow morning I'll head in and request a trial date and we'll see what happens.

you'll know if they'll bump it up to 95 when you receive disclosure. It will state somewhere that he caught you doing 95 but gave you a break and put down to 90. It should also state on disclosure if he used radar or how he clocked your speed.

Basically if you fight it they are going to try to charge you with 15km/h over instead of 10km/h over.

Also if you request a first attendance meeting with the prosecutor which can't hurt you, you can maybe make an agreement with him to have the ticket lowered or changed to something cheaper. In almost all cases a 10km/h over ticket is the lowest its going to go, and since the cop already dropped it from 15 to 10 km/h over the prosecutor is going to tell you there is nothing (s)he can do for you.

From there your options are to fight the ticket where if you lose they are going to hit you with 15km/h over instead of 10km/h over. There would be no points involved in either case but if you have time on your hands to waste in court I say fight it. The only difference between the two tickets is $$$ and really probably less than $30.

Just be warned if you've never been to court before you might be blown away and very intimidated by the legal jargon thrown around between the prosecutor and justice of the peace, and feel almost like you have no chance.

If you do fight it your going to have to really take some time to think about what your defense strategy is going to be. 99.9% of people in your case pay the ticket and move on because its not worth the time. Insurance won't be drastically affected by such a small ticket.

I was all jung hoe about fighting a 22km/h over ticket and really unless you know you weren't speeding its almost a waste of time. If he has radar evidence stating speeds and a somewhat description of your vehicle your basically done.

But make sure you request disclosure because if the cop was to lazy to make notes or didn't write down something critical you might be able to make a case out of that.

Good Luck

gabe wrote:The only difference between the two tickets is $$$ and really probably less than $30.

$12.50 would be the difference in fines or $20 if they go with the HTA versus set fines.

A friend told me something about paralegals submitting some form at the last minute - involving a change of date or rushed date, and that it ALWAYS results in the ticket being dismissed because the court will never both to accommodate such a request for a traffic ticket...

I know that's a really vague description but I'm nervous about this.

Also I've had it explained to me by my insurance broker that it's not necessarily the severity of the ticket but the NUMBER of tickets that affect insurance negatively. So having one big speeding ticket isn't as bad as having even 2 minor tickets.

I don't care if I lose in court, I'm willing to even just delay this process as much as possible - I know it's irrational, but I would rather delay the inevitable than just get convicted.

I realize that "driving with the flow of traffic" is no good reason for speeding, but is there any cogent way of arguing that the radar could have been picking up the speed of any of the 4 cars I was travelling with? We were almost in a "convoy" type pattern, I just happened to be the only car in the left.

littleredecho wrote:A friend told me something about paralegals submitting some form at the last minute - involving a change of date or rushed date, and that it ALWAYS results in the ticket being dismissed because the court will never both to accommodate such a request for a traffic ticket...

Myth. If the court won't accommodate a request for adjournment then you have your trial right then and there. There are no "secret tricks" to getting charges dropped.

did you request disclosure yet? ultimately the longer you wait to resolve the ticket the longer it will be on your record. It's from the conviction date not the date of the ticket. So if this doesn't get resolved until March 20, this ticket will be on your record from that date.

to answer your question about the "convoy" type traffic pattern, you will need to get disclosure before you can begin to put together your defense. If the cop has notes that accurately describe your vehicle being the one he caught speeding, you will have to create reasonable doubt, maybe by means of asking the officer how many vehicles were travelling within 2 metre of your vehicle in front and on the sides of you when he clocked your speed.

in court i know hes under oath but what someone can't remember specifics or thinks he saw something, is not perjury, unless you could prove he's not telling the truth, which you cannot do.

tickets that bear such small fines are a waste of time really to fight. If you have the time, and want to learn a little about the court system I would say go for it, but don't expect to come out on top, and if you do its a bonus. Remember your ticket will be upped to 15km/h over if you do go to court.

When you get your disclosure post it up, (if its legible)

gabe wrote:did you request disclosure yet? ultimately the longer you wait to resolve the ticket the longer it will be on your record. It's from the conviction date not the date of the ticket. So if this doesn't get resolved until March 20, this ticket will be on your record from that date.

The driving record is added via the date of the offence and the conviction date.

For instance offence date of Jan 2, then officer files ticket, no challenge, ticket paid Jan 9. The driving record shows offence date of Jan 2 and conviction on Jan9th.

Similiar if offence is challenged and court was June 17 and there was a conviction, the driving record shows offence date of Jan 2 and conviction on Jun17.

Where it comes to play is demerit points, which goes by date of offence...HTA OREG 339/94 sec 2.