“Red Light Ticket No Camera”

I was going with my friends to downtown Toronto, so we can have some late night chinese food.. (MmmMmmm..)

1 person in the back seat, one in the passenger, and me driving.

I approached the lights in the left lane, I could SWEAR it was green, and made my turn.

It was 3 am.. DEAD.. no cars in site, except for the officer sitting on the same street I was turning into, and a few meters behind me...

maybe 20 meters behind?

Anyways, pulls me over, and slaps me with a red light ticket.

No drinking from all of us, no drugs. (we don't even smoke... we're pretty boring, now that I think of it! )

I went in with 1 of my friends, and delayed the trial to AUG since I want both my friends ( witnesses ) there.

I requested the disclosure. Can BARELY read it, and not all of it to this day.

I have attached a pic of the ticket, and disclosure, and what I can make out to what I think it says....

Can anyone shoot me some advice? My friends in the car also said they didn't notice any red. As far as all 3 of us are concerned,

it was green for us. Also, only 1 officer exited the car, and I believe no other was present in his car.

I believe I can safely argue that 6 eyes are better than 2.

There was some light rain and damp roads. But all our visibility was 100%. No issues.

The disclosure has some extra writing on it clearly added after the original disclosure was written, with different shade, and type of pen from what I can tell.

I do not know if this was done by the officer or someone else, or someone that checks the state of the weather that day, and adds it if the disclosure is requested? I don't know. I feel it should not be touched or altered after the moment it was written. But that's just my opinion.

Anyways, pictures attached, advice appreciated...

This is what I feel the disclosure said so far...

---------------------------------

????? VW Jetta Blue 4 Door

Rain, heavy of fumes, seargant

Southbound on R1 ???? of R2

???? 4 Door sedan, ?????.

proceed through intersection

on a red light.

Cooperative and Compliant.

LyNN ???? - property

----------------------------------

Te bottom says light cycle properly, the officer is saying the lights were observed to be in workin order.

Rain..heavy at times

swontleo wrote:Te bottom says light cycle properly, the officer is saying the lights were observed to be in workin order.

Rain..heavy at times

Ahh.. Thanks. That makes a bit more sense now.

Can I argue the fact the he observed me first according to the order of the disclosure??

Can I argue anything? All three of us in the car really did see green. It was quiet as a mouse, we and the officer

across from us were the only people around.

If I plead not guilty, and lose, can I appeal? Can I still get a reduced fine, and deduction so I wouldn't suffer a points loss in an appeal?

no input on how I can go about beating this?

would me and 2 other people in the car all seeing green be enough against 1 officers word?

Your questions aren't simple yes/no answers. Multiple witnesses could certainly raise reasonable doubt, but it's very dependent on their evidence and how they manage during cross examination. If the Justice of the Peace does find you and your witnesses reasonable and credible, then hopefully reasonable doubt would be raised and you'd be found not guilty.

As for an appeal, there has to be some type of error in law, etc., during the trial. The fact that you lost and want a redo isn't grounds in itself. If you're successful and granted an appeal (not the norm), you could be granted a new trial. At that time the Crown may offer you a plea or may force it to trial.

Just be aware, appeals are costly and time consuming.

prob not...if you feel the officer had some sort of bias towards you thats a different story and shouldn't be brought up in court, I would plea.

admin wrote:prob not...if you feel the officer had some sort of bias towards you thats a different story and shouldn't be brought up in court, I would plea.

No, I don't think he had any bias towards me.

Maybe initially before pulling me over.

Bad neighbourhood (don mills and eglinton) 3AM. No one else, needs to give out something to someone.... MAYBE....

But that's all speculation. I didn't get any sort of bias vibe when he talked to me.

Dang... I am guessing I will get $60 fine and no points if I plea. But I really didn't want my insurance popping up!

Stanton wrote:Your questions aren't simple yes/no answers. Multiple witnesses could certainly raise reasonable doubt, but it's very dependent on their evidence and how they manage during cross examination. If the Justice of the Peace does find you and your witnesses reasonable and credible, then hopefully reasonable doubt would be raised and you'd be found not guilty.

As for an appeal, there has to be some type of error in law, etc., during the trial. The fact that you lost and want a redo isn't grounds in itself. If you're successful and granted an appeal (not the norm), you could be granted a new trial. At that time the Crown may offer you a plea or may force it to trial.

Just be aware, appeals are costly and time consuming.

Can I simply argue that he observed me first and then the light according to the order of the disclosure.

And how it mentions the rain and poor visibility, whereas I, and my 2 witnesses in the car felt no impairment in visibility as he might have since it is mentioned.

sidmuer wrote:Can I simply argue that he observed me first and then the light according to the order of the disclosure.

And how it mentions the rain and poor visibility, whereas I, and my 2 witnesses in the car felt no impairment in visibility as he might have since it is mentioned.

If he only observed the traffic light after your car entered the intersection, I would say that's a good defence. However nowhere in disclosure do I see that. Looking at his notes, it would indicate he observed a stale green light for himself when you entered the intersection, therefor indicating you had a red.

As for visibility and rain, I really don't see that aiding your defence unless the argument is the officer couldn't properly see the light.

And just quick FYI, looking at your earlier comment about two shades of pen on disclosure. The notes on the front of the ticket are part carbon copy (from the original ticket) and pen. Likely they were done at the time of the stop (you can confirm this with questions at trial), officer simply adding further details to aid his recollection.

Stanton wrote:

sidmuer wrote:Can I simply argue that he observed me first and then the light according to the order of the disclosure.

And how it mentions the rain and poor visibility, whereas I, and my 2 witnesses in the car felt no impairment in visibility as he might have since it is mentioned.

If he only observed the traffic light after your car entered the intersection, I would say that's a good defence. However nowhere in disclosure do I see that. Looking at his notes, it would indicate he observed a stale green light for himself when you entered the intersection, therefor indicating you had a red.

As for visibility and rain, I really don't see that aiding your defence unless the argument is the officer couldn't properly see the light.

And just quick FYI, looking at your earlier comment about two shades of pen on disclosure. The notes on the front of the ticket are part carbon copy (from the original ticket) and pen. Likely they were done at the time of the stop (you can confirm this with questions at trial), officer simply adding further details to aid his recollection.

So I guess I'm stuck at a plea down unless he doesn't make it out for some reason.

I guess the way I saw it was that he describes my car first, and just basically says I went through the red.

But he doesn't say he observed the lights first. He just mentions that the lights cycle properly afterwards.

It's like me, saying, Oh look, that car just ran that light. And submitting that as my evidence.

Ok, but, where are the details as to, was the light red when I was approaching the intersection. Was it red when the car crossed that white line threshold and proceeded into a turning formation?

I feel those details should be in there.

At least, a once mention of him observing the lights before I entered the intersection.

ie: properly observed light in green state on R1 (where he was facing), then description of the vehicle approaching the turn, then an observation of completing the infraction, and then seeing the state of the lights again to confirm no state change of lights occurred before, and after the vehicle came upon the turn and completed the turn. There, guilty as charged as long as no other factors came to play. ( broken light, etc.. )

But I feel he more or less says he sees my car, and then says I ran the red in that sort of vagueness.

Also, I apologize. I mention in the OP that the disclosure had some writing added to it. In fact, it is the copy of the ticket that has it, that came with the disclosure. Most notably in the top right describing the weather conditions of that night. I am wondering if that is from his actual observation that night, or was it something looked up, and added after for the purpose of the disclosure requested.

Can I argue that the original ticket from it's original status that night has had some altering to it then? ie: the weather conditions noted on it? It's clearly different from the original imprint ink of the ticket.

You're not stuck with a plea option, it's really up to you if you want to go to trial or not. In terms of the officer's evidence, they don't write down every detail verbatim. You won't know exactly what their evidence is until you hear it at trial. If your certain it was green and you and your friends can confidently testify to that, maybe you should take your chances at trial.

In regards to disclosure, it again simply looks like part of the writing is the carbon copy of the top ticket, while the additional writing was made directly on the officer's copy while completing notes. Simplest way to find out is at trial. When the officer requests to use his notes, question when they were made.

Hi Stanton.

Thanks for all your advice.

Yes, I went to a late night meal with them last night just like before, and I asked them.

They said again, they all recall seeing green, as do I.

So I think I will take it to trial and just be straight up.

I've never done this before. But from what I've read, I will have to call my own buddies as witnesses and

just have them both go over the event that night.

I have no idea how this will go. But I will report back and tell you how it went.

sidmuer wrote:

Stanton wrote:

sidmuer wrote:

Can I argue that the original ticket from it's original status that night has had some altering to it then? ie: the weather conditions noted on it? It's clearly different from the original imprint ink of the ticket.

They used a pen. They have been known to stop writing and a new pen is used. Happens all the time. Just because different ink is present does not mean something was added after the fact.

OPS

OPS Copper wrote:

sidmuer wrote:

They used a pen. They have been known to stop writing and a new pen is used. Happens all the time. Just because different ink is present does not mean something was added after the fact.

OPS

Oh I understand that.

However, if you look at the ticket picture above ( not the disclosure, just the ticket. ), you can see that it is a carbon copy. print transfer from carbon paper, and then, you can clearly see PEN writing is added to it. Most notably, to the top right mentioning weather conditions.

Now, if another pen was used to write on the original through the carbon paper, I can see the carbon print being transfered as a different thickness, or thinner lines, etc... But, from anyone with past experience with carbon paper, ie: the old VISA slips with the manual imprint swipers from back in the day, knows that is not carbon transfer. But in fact, direct pen writing.

Hence, my reasoning for seeing writing added to it in an inappropriate way after the fact, and altering a copy. ( ie: was the original added/altered to it as well, and who would have it?

Again, your scan is a copy of the ticket that the officer uses for his NOTES. The officer can add whatever information he wants after the stop. Clearly there is additional information added directly to the note copy that won't be on the original ticket, since the information was made for the officer's recollection. It's not an actual amendment to the ticket itself, which would be improper.