“If A Cop Claims That Your Speed Was 84 Km/hr In 60 Zone”

If a cop claims that your speed was 84 km/hr in 60 zone but gives you a ticket for 70 km/hr, what is the meaning of this and should it be mentioned in court?

Thanks

It means he reduced your ticket. You can mention it in court, but they already know anyways. If you go to trial, your ticket goes back up to 84 again.

bend wrote:It means he reduced your ticket. You can mention it in court, but they already know anyways. If you go to trial, your ticket goes back up to 84 again.

Bend, thank you for your reply. Ive never heard that cops can reduce traffic tickets. Are you 100% sure that its legal?

Also, I cannot understand why my ticket should go back to 84 if its already filed for 70. By the way, Ive already requested a trial. So, if somebody can advise what I should do in this situation, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.

I don't know about the legality of the issue. But I do hear most of the time that with your situation that they will amend and bring it back to the "84 in a 60 zone" So request the disclosure after you recieved the trial date, review it. If you have no case or even a small one, plead guilty to the reduce is the best. Otherwise, hire a ticket fighter/paralegal.

Memo1 wrote:Ive never heard that cops can reduce traffic tickets. Are you 100% sure that its legal?

It is perfectly legal. Why wouldn't they be allowed to give you a lower speed and fine? They're doing you (and other drivers) a favour.

Here's a case that talks about a lot of the questions you have:

The Coles notes version:

- Driver was charged with 60 in a 50 zone, but was actually going 73;

- Driver fought the ticket;

- There were other circumstances, e.g. construction zone, etc., but the above points are valid; and

- In court the speed was amended to 73 and the driver was convicted of going 73 in a 50.

So yes, bend is correct on all points.

There are lots of other threads on this forum where people talk about the officer reducing the speed at the roadside, and then getting it amended back to the original speed at trial. It's standard practice.

Waxxt wrote:I don't know about the legality of the issue. But I do hear most of the time that with your situation that they will amend and bring it back to the "84 in a 60 zone" So request the disclosure after you recieved the trial date, review it. If you have no case or even a small one, plead guilty to the reduce is the best. Otherwise, hire a ticket fighter/paralegal.

Thanks, Waxxt. The legality of the issue is important cause if its not legal for cops to reduce traffic tickets then it might be used to fight the ticket.

My understanding is that I can plead guilty anytime during the trial. Am I right?

I would be glad to hire a ticket fighter/paralegal, but so far I cannot see how he can help in this situation. You see, this ticket has the minimum fine and no points, so there is nothing for a fighter/paralegal to negotiate, unless its possible to negotiate pleading guilty to a charge that is a non-moving violation, which won't affect my insurance.

Radar Identified wrote:

Memo1 wrote:Ive never heard that cops can reduce traffic tickets. Are you 100% sure that its legal?

It is perfectly legal. Why wouldn't they be allowed to give you a lower speed and fine? They're doing you (and other drivers) a favour.

Here's a case that talks about a lot of the questions you have:

Durham v. Snowden

The Coles notes version:

- Driver was charged with 60 in a 50 zone, but was actually going 73;

- Driver fought the ticket;

- There were other circumstances, e.g. construction zone, etc., but the above points are valid; and

- In court the speed was amended to 73 and the driver was convicted of going 73 in a 50.

So yes, bend is correct on all points.

There are lots of other threads on this forum where people talk about the officer reducing the speed at the roadside, and then getting it amended back to the original speed at trial. It's standard practice.

Thanks a lot, Radar, for your reply. So, my understanding is that the speed will not be amended automatically just because Ive requested a trial. It can be done only during the trial if I dont plead guilty. So probably I should go to trial and plead guilty if the cop is there.

The legal authority for 'amending up' and recognizing police discretion to reduce the rate of speed is the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Winlow. That's the case the prosecutor and court will rely up since it is the leading authority. When they talk about giving you a 'Winlow Warning'---that's what they mean; they are notifying you that they will be amending the speed rate up.

highwaystar wrote:The legal authority for 'amending up' and recognizing police discretion to reduce the rate of speed is the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Winlow. That's the case the prosecutor and court will rely up since it is the leading authority. When they talk about giving you a 'Winlow Warning'---that's what they mean; they are notifying you that they will be amending the speed rate up.

Thanks, highwaystar. Its a very important decision to be aware of.

Does it mean that in my case the prosecutor can give me a 'Winlow Warning' anytime now, or that he can do it only if I request the disclosure and in that disclosure the police officer claims that my speed was actually 84?

In either case, does it mean that if Im given a 'Winlow Warning' BEFORE the trial, I will not be able to plead guilty at the trial in order to avoid being convicted for speeding at 84 km/hr?

Thanks to Radar Identified, Ive read at http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... ultIndex=1

that, in this case, the officer "showed the driver the laser reading."

In my case the cop didnt show me the laser reading. He just claimed that my speed was 84 km/hr.

So Im wondering whether or not cops are supposed to show drivers the laser reading. Thanks.

No, there is no requirement for them to do so.

Stanton wrote:No, there is no requirement for them to do so.

Thanks for your reply, Stanton. So, basically any police officer can claim anything and in the court of law their claims are believed and drivers claims are ignored.

Im just wondering why then in that case ( http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... ultIndex=1) the police officer did show the driver the laser reading and why that fact was considered relevant enough to be specifically mentioned at the trial?

The JP in the cited case was simply reviewing the officer's evidence. I wouldn't say it was actually relevant to the decision.

Memo1 wrote:So, basically any police officer can claim anything and in the court of law their claims are believed and drivers claims are ignored.

Realistically that's how Court works. It's one person's word versus another's. There is case law (R v. WD) that states an officer's testimony shouldn't be given extra weight simply based on their position. It's up to the JP to assess credibility of each witness.

Stanton wrote:The JP in the cited case was simply reviewing the officer's evidence. I wouldn't say it was actually relevant to the decision.

Memo1 wrote:So, basically any police officer can claim anything and in the court of law their claims are believed and drivers claims are ignored.

Realistically that's how Court works. It's one person's word versus another's. There is case law (R v. WD) that states an officer's testimony shouldn't be given extra weight simply based on their position. It's up to the JP to assess credibility of each witness.

Thank you for explaining it to me, Stanton. It looks like you know a lot about how Court works. Do you happen to know the answers to my questions in another topic?

"Does it mean that in my case the prosecutor can give me a 'Winlow Warning' anytime now, or that he can do it only if I request the disclosure and in that disclosure the police officer claims that my speed was actually 84?

In either case, does it mean that if Im given a 'Winlow Warning' BEFORE the trial, I will not be able to plead guilty at the trial in order to avoid being convicted for speeding at 84 km/hr?"

Thanks.

As per the Winlow decision, the prosecutor must give you the Winlow Warning (notice) BEFORE you are arraigned (i.e. enter your plea). While the prosecution can certainly notify you of their intention to 'amend up' (Winlow Warning) anytime before you plea, in practice they usually wait to see you in person---either at your resolution meeting or on the day of your trial. If they notify you on your trial date, then you are entitled to an adjournment (so as to re-consider your legal options in light of the change in circumstances). That's an entitlement set out right from the Winlow decision.

In practice, this is how it usually happens. Before you enter your plea, the prosecutor notifies you and the court that they anticipate they will be seeking an amendment to raise the rate of speed on the certificate based upon the evidence that is given. That lets the JP know that the prosecutor is planning to seek an amendment the moment the officer testifies to a higher rate of speed. The JP then asks you if you are aware of what that means and may offer you an adjournment to re-consider your position. If you turn down the offer to adjourn and say you want to proceed, then they will arraign you on the charge of speeding as it is stated on your ticket. Once the officer testifies about the higher rate of speed, the prosecutor will then move (request) to amend the certificate to the higher rate of speed.

Now, to address your other question, there is nothing that prevents you from simply entering a plea of guilty BEFORE the certificate is amended. That is, if on your trial date the officer shows up and the prosecutor gives you your Winlow warning, you can still plead guilty before they amend up. Of course, it is always wise to let the prosecutor know that you'll be pleading guilty so that they don't attempt to make the amendment BEFORE you plea and to hopefully allow you to get out of court early. Otherwise, you could be sitting in court all day while they go through their list, under the assumption that your case will be proceeding to trial.

However, keep in mind that if you ARE planning to plead guilty, then it makes more sense to simply pay the fine before you even have to enter a plea. That's because if you simply pay the fine, the amounts used are the 'set fine' rates. If however you plead guilty in court, then they must use the 'statutory rates'; which are always higher.