“144(18) - Disclosure Review Help And Similar Case Studies”

First off, thank you to everyone who will offer help and support. I greatly appreciate the input.

First, the ticket.

I approached the intersection of Meadowvale Rd and Sheppard Ave. E in February 2015. The light was green and then turned amber. I slowed down and checked the intersection for pedestrians, turning traffic, or anything else that would deem the turn unsafe. I proceeded into the intersection and made my right turn without stopping. Shortly after a police cruiser pulled me over and gave me a ticket for failure to stop at a red light - 144(18).

My court date is December 18 and is exactly 302 days after my issued ticket. I know I've looked at pleading for a stay based on 11(b) but I'm borderline 10 months. and previous case studies have granted 11b after around 11 months. Is this something to attempt? I know my time is getting short on filing an 11b stay.

Now, for the disclosure. I requested everything including the kitchen sink and got very little back. There was only 1 sentence shared between me and the officer when he pulled me over as it was -20*C out that day. The only thing I received in the disclosure package was the officers notes (all spelling errors are his):

"I WAS STOPPED ON SHEPPARD AVE EAST AT MEADOWAVLE ROAD IN THE PASSING LANE. 4283. I WAS THE FIRST VEHICLE IN THIS LANE AND I HAD A CLEAR VIEW OF THE ENTIRE INTERSECTION. THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS TURNED TO AMBER FOR MEADOWVALE ROAD. THE DEFENDANT WAS SOUTHBOUND ON MEADOWVALE ROAD IN THE CURB LANE. THE DEFENDANT SLOWED DOWN TO APPROX. 20 KM/H. THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS TURNED TO RED. THE DEFENDANT MADE NO ATTEMPT TO STOP, ENTERED THE INTERSECTION ON A RED LIGHT AND MADE A RIGHT TURN. HIS VEHICLES WHEELS WERE IN CONTINUOUS MOTION.

... {Vehicle Identification Information}

MEADOWVALE ROAD 2 LANES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE CROSSWALK, SOILD WHITE LINE.

SHEPPARD AVE EAST 2 LANES EASTBOUND WESTBOUNT LEFT TURN LANE, CROSSWALK, SOILD WHITE LINE.

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION, ADVANCE GREEN NORTHBOUND MEADOWVALE AND EASTBOUND SHEPPARD AVE EAST

4 SECOND AMBER 2 SECOND RED, GOOD WORKING ORDER"

Is this something defensable? The officer doesn't mention my position when the light turned red and only that I entered the intersection once the light had turned red. Are there any similar cases that were one on doubt? I've done my best looking into CanLii cases but it's not super easy.

To add to this, why would the vehicle not have video evidence if the police cruiser was on and active in the intersection? Is there any possibility to use this in my defense?

You have to file the stay request about 15 days ahead of time, so I always recommend to do it 21 days before your trial. It is worth a try, and worst case is that JP will just say no to it, and the trial will continue.

Not sure what else you asked for in disclosure, but the officers notes are the only thing they need to convict you. If there was video and you asked for it, they would have had to provide it, but not having any video is not an issue that you can use. Unless you asked for video and they did not give it to you AND you can get the officer to admit on the stand that there was video, then you have something because they did not provide you the disclosure you asked for. But otherwise, they do not have to have it.

My last comment is that the officers notes are what he will testify. He will say you did not stop and went thru a red light. Your testimony seems to be that you did not go thru a red light, but thru a yellow light. So if it is your testimony only against the officers testimony they will probably side with the officer and you will lose.

However, from the way I read the disclosure, you were heading south and turned west, and the officer was facing east. So the officer would have been looking to his left thru the drivers side window in order to see you make the turn. How can he be watching you AND see the lights that you see since the lights you see would be to his right? He would be able to see the northbound lights, but not the southbound ones.

So with some good cross-examination questions AND your testimony that it was yellow, you might bring a reasonable doubt to his testimony.

So an idea for cross-examination questioning would be along the lines of:

- ask officer if he observed your vehicle the whole way from entering the intersection on the north thru the whole turn to leaving the intersection to the west

- ask if he ever lost sight of your vehicle thru that turn process

- ask if he ever looked away from your vehicle thru that whole turn process

- then finally ask "so you were looking to the north, thru your left thru drivers side window thru this whole turn"

Then you would get on the witness stand and give your version of the story, being very specific that the "southbound light on the far south side of the intersection" turned amber as you entered the intersection and you proceeded to complete your turn safely and that you did not see it turn red.

Now in closing arguments you can make the claim that the officer admitted to looking north the entire time to watch your vehicle and therefore could not see the "southbound lights" that you could see. Based on your testimony that the southbound light was yellow, and the officers testimony that he never saw the southbound lights, there is reasonable doubt and the charge should be dropped.

NOTE: In cross examination questions, notice that I never actually asked the officer about the southbound lights. This was on purpose as I do not want the officer to make a comment like "I quickly glanced at the southbound lights" because that throws the whole defense off. Cross examination is tricky, so what I wanted to do was get him to admit that he was only looking north which is the same thing as not looking south.

jsherk wrote:Not sure what else you asked for in disclosure

I asked for video, officer's notes, anything else relevant to the case, witness statements if any, the whole shebang.

The disclosure I received was typed notes. Along with some form data which states that there is no video of the offense.

Thanks for the great analysis. This gives me a better understanding on how to look at bringing doubt into the officer's statement.

I also just realized that based on his location I can potentially bring in further doubt into the case but could use your expertise on whether this is a good idea or not. The intersection in question has left turn lanes in all directions including the direction the officer was facing. Is there any merit in questioning the officer whether there was a vehicle in the left turn lane to the left of him? Since it's not in his notes, can I argue that there could have been a vehicle that blocked his view of my entrance into the intersection?

I suppose you could ask, but he will probably say no at which point you would be best not to pursue it anymore. If he says yes or that he does not recall, then you can ask "so it's possible this vehicle partially obscured your view of my vehicle?"