“Received Disclosure - Have Questions”

Information dumped below. Here are my questions:

- How accurate does the vehicle description have to be? The only identifiable information in this entire disclosure is "BLK SUBARU 4DR". I drive a 5DR Subaru (I know, I know).

- Should there not be more information in the officer's notebook? There's no notes at all about the offence except the information in the Traffic log. I was hoping to see some sort of information about what was communicated from the radar holder to the officer who ticketed me to determine that I am actually the offending vehicle.

- Is 595 metres considered a reasonable distance for an accurate reading without chance of it reading the wrong vehicle?

- Which officer shows up in court? The officer that used the radar or the officer that wrote the ticket? I cannot seem to figure out who is what or what is going on here.

- I have to drive 4.5 hours to get to this court date and it is at 9:30am. If I don't have my additional disclosure in time (likely, as the court date is March 11), should I call ahead about anything?

Thank you for any helpful advice. I expected far more information in this disclosure and expected that they had my license plate number on the offence or had something more descriptive than the color, manufacturer and number of doors a car has, especially when it was communicated from one officer to another officer parked on the side of the road.

I was driving down the 401 in the slow lane with steady traffic in an 80 zone. I moved to the "fast lane" to go around a transport truck. As I rounded the bend, Officer 1 was on the left hand side of the road using radar. Approximately .5-/75 kms later Officer 2 pulled into traffic behind me and pulled me over and gave me a ticket, informing me that they have been watching the area for a while because someone died in a vehicle fatality a few weeks before at that location.

1. I requested my disclosure as soon as I got my court date. I received the court date January 19, requested the disclosure on the 20th

2. Today I received my disclosure and my court date is on March 11, 2015

3. I cannot read almost anything that was not typed. I specifically asked for typed copies if the notes were not legible, but what I received is photocopies of chicken scratch.

4. Tomorrow I am going to request further disclosure and ask that they type out these notes

1. A copy of the manual for the radar (did not request this, seems standard)

2. A copy of a sheet titled "Traffic Enforcement Tracking" with a Sergeants name - not the person that pulled me over. This sheet has 5 offences listed and I can read the numbers, but that's about it. (see photo)

3. A copy of the officer's notes. I can barely read these at all, but it appears to be notes from 2hours before and 2 hours after my offence. All details of speedlaser are in the notes with TEST - PASS written.

4. A copy of my request for disclosure

5. A copy of my driving record (clean since 2008, one ticket in lifetime)

6. A photocopy of a Provincial Constable business card beside the notebook. Name does not match any names elsewhere in the paperwork

7. A photocopy of the officer's copy of the ticket. Exactly the same as mine, no writing on the back at all.

1. His location and how far he is from the speed limit signs (entry and exit).

2. The fact that he is patrolling the 401 in a construction zone with workers present

3. Radar test at the beginning of the day

4. Radar test at the end of the day

5. Something about Lunch at Boston Pizza

-- Note: In these notes, there is no reference to my offence that I can see. The only numbers are references to times or distance from 80km/h signs --

The actual log of offences has the following information:

Traffic Condition: [cannot read - road was very busy and 2 lanes so quite compressed]

Weather: Cloudy w Sun Conditions

Road Condition: Dry, Clear

Radar / Laser: Speedlaser (It's a Laser Atlanta unit)

Serial Number: Same serial as listed in tests from earlier

Test Time: 0903 HRS

-- list of offences that aren't mine omitted --

Time: 1035

Speed: 122.1

Distance: 595.42 metres

Direction: W/B

Lane: 1

Subject Vehicle: BLK Subaru 4dr [Very difficult to read]

Tracking Remarks: [cannot really read this] 4 over hur hour some into l2 to pass ver -- my best guess is "Lane 1 over to Lane 2 to pass vehicle"

Charging Officer: [Last Name of Officer - does not match officer name on notes or on top of traffic log. Matches the name on the ticket]

I was really hoping someone here had some advice for me.

My primary concern is twofold:

1. My vehicle doesn't say "Subaru" on it. I believe this information was relayed back to the lidar officer after I was already pulled over

2. The distance from the time the lidar caught a car to the time I was pulled over by a separate officer is approximately .7km. How does the officer on the side of the road, sitting in his car facing the opposite direction, determine which car to pull over when the vehicle description is vague.

gamerzfuse wrote:I was really hoping someone here had some advice for me.

My primary concern is twofold:

1. My vehicle doesn't say "Subaru" on it. I believe this information was relayed back to the lidar officer after I was already pulled over

2. The distance from the time the lidar caught a car to the time I was pulled over by a separate officer is approximately .7km. How does the officer on the side of the road, sitting in his car facing the opposite direction, determine which car to pull over when the vehicle description is vague.

#1 totally correct, the officer knows everything about your driving record once you handed in your DL, car info should be obtained from your displayed license plate

#2 Do you mean there were one measuring your speed while another one pulled you over and wrote you a ticket?

If yes, then your case will either be adjourned or dismissed. Because both of them have to be at court in order to get you charged.

If no, I can't help sorry.

xolunaxo wrote:

gamerzfuse wrote:I was really hoping someone here had some advice for me.

My primary concern is twofold:

1. My vehicle doesn't say "Subaru" on it. I believe this information was relayed back to the lidar officer after I was already pulled over

2. The distance from the time the lidar caught a car to the time I was pulled over by a separate officer is approximately .7km. How does the officer on the side of the road, sitting in his car facing the opposite direction, determine which car to pull over when the vehicle description is vague.

#1 totally correct, the officer knows everything about your driving record once you handed in your DL, car info should be obtained from your displayed license plate

#2 Do you mean there were one measuring your speed while another one pulled you over and wrote you a ticket?

If yes, then your case will either be adjourned or dismissed. Because both of them have to be at court in order to get you charged.

If no, I can't help sorry.

Yes, there were 2 officers involved.

The one with the LIDAR wrote the notes, the traffic log and what appears to be the LIDAR calibration.

The one who wrote the ticket wrote a ticket with no notes on the back and he provided no notes of any kind.

You're saying it will be adjourned if both officers don't show up, or that it's just very likely that they won't both show up?

Well it sounds like the Prosecutor's office did a good job with the disclosure - you got everything you'll need. If you can't read the notes, you can ask the officer to read them to you prior to trial. However, if you then request an adjournment to prepare, the delay will probably be charged to you.

gamerzfuse wrote:- How accurate does the vehicle description have to be? The only identifiable information in this entire disclosure is "BLK SUBARU 4DR". I drive a 5DR Subaru (I know, I know).

Not entirely accurate. BLK SUBARU should be enough in this case, even if there's 4DR vs 5DR. You could use it to raise reasonable doubt, but I don't really think that will work in court.

gamerzfuse wrote:- Should there not be more information in the officer's notebook? There's no notes at all about the offence except the information in the Traffic log. I was hoping to see some sort of information about what was communicated from the radar holder to the officer who ticketed me to determine that I am actually the offending vehicle.

Not really, it sounds like everything was covered. It doesn't have to be super-detailed.

gamerzfuse wrote:- Is 595 metres considered a reasonable distance for an accurate reading without chance of it reading the wrong vehicle?

Yes it is a reasonable distance with LIDAR.

gamerzfuse wrote:- Which officer shows up in court? The officer that used the radar or the officer that wrote the ticket? I cannot seem to figure out who is what or what is going on here.

Both should.

gamerzfuse wrote:- I have to drive 4.5 hours to get to this court date and it is at 9:30am. If I don't have my additional disclosure in time (likely, as the court date is March 11), should I call ahead about anything?

Short answer: No.

The one who wrote the ticket does not really need notes, he only stopped and identified the driver (you) and wrote the ticket. Expect both officers to be present.

I am expecting both officers to be present and am preparing accordingly.

My only thing is that I don't think he accurately identified my vehicle to the second officer. I want the second officer to prove that he pulled over the correct vehicle. It may be a stretch, but I just don't see how there could be no reasonable doubt on a 700m stretch of highway on a busy day.

One more question: All the photocopies of the notebook (with the lidar testing notes) are attached to a photocopy of a business card.

It has a different officer's name on it - says he is a provincial constable. The name doesn't match the ticket writing officer or the traffic log sergeant.

"Traffic Management Unit" and "DRE/SFST Instructor".

Does anyone know who this is? Did he just test the Lidar or just photocopy the notes?

Is he expected to be in court?

So I went to court and it was exactly what I expected except the officer was a bit belligerent.

Step 1 - spoke with the prosecutor and he offered me a reduction to 20 over in a construction zone. $180 and 3 points. Gave me time to think about it while I waited.

Step 2 - I spoke with the officer that showed up. Only 1 showed up but they told me they will simply set a court date weeks from now when both can show up and I would have to make the 5 hour drive there again.

I spoke with Officer XX outside the court room. I asked him if he could clarify some of the notes. He was unable to read the notes either, but he gave me the gist of it. They were not his notes and this officer was not present. He said, "man, that's a really good deal. Take the deal".

I told him it would be a great deal if I was guilty, but since I'm innocent it's still not ideal.

Conversation continued as follows:

XX: listen man, I'm trying to help you. This is traffic court, you're guilty if you go to trial. I do this every day and I'm just letting you know. You'd be a f--king idiot to turn this down.

Me: I understand what you're saying, but I have the right to a trial and I'm innocent so you can't say there's a guarantee I'm guilty.

XX: that's fine man. I'm just telling you how it works. You don't know how laser works bud. You're going to lose.

Me: I do understand how laser works. I also understand it is accurate up to 5km. That's not my issue. I was behind a transport that is governed at 105km/h and therefore could not be travelling 122km/h.

XX :If that's your defence you might want to get your facts straight. They're governed to 115, not 105. Check your facts.

Me: (not wanting to argue) that's fine. I have a right to a trial and there's no guarantee of a guilty verdict.

XX: that's fine man. You want to go to trial. You're from London? I'll set another trial date and you can make the f--king drive again. The ticket goes back to 42 over so you're *EDIT* problem.

At this point he walked away down the stairs, cursing me under his breath.

Very professional of him, witnessed by the other officer sitting outside who gave me a blank faced look.

At this point I went back into the courtroom and accepted their plea, noting that the officer informed me that I'm guilty either way so there is no reason to go to trial.

Well, 20 over is better than 42. Not bad.

And yes you are right, the trucks are governed at 105.

Radar Identified wrote:Well, 20 over is better than 42. Not bad.

And yes you are right, the trucks are governed at 105.

Correct. My truck driver friend came with me and was sitting 4 feet away during this discussion, but the officer wasn't hearing anything. He was all about the scare tactics and calling me an idiot.

Not sure if it's worth bringing to the attention of the Napanee police or just let it go? I don't need further resolution but that behaviour is not acceptable.

You could file a complaint, not really sure if it will go anywhere though. But the big thing is, you came away with a much lower fine and your insurance company would look more favourably on 20 over versus 42 over. So, IMO it was worth it.

Radar Identified wrote:You could file a complaint, not really sure if it will go anywhere though. But the big thing is, you came away with a much lower fine and your insurance company would look more favourably on 20 over versus 42 over. So, IMO it was worth it.

Agreed 100%.

I don't take it personally but he was a bit of a d--- and it was blatant.