“Wasn't Wearing Seatbelt, Was Delivering A Pizza...”

Well.... All of those pertain to statements and their admissibility.

Identifying yourself with a drivers licence is not a statement..

If you chose to not identify yourself with one, thats your choice. You'll pay the price for that. And if you then decide to not incriminate yourself by speaking to the polices do identifying yourself, I could see you in a fancy pair of bracelets.

Wow.... Nuff said.....

You misunderstand... I am compelled to give my license, which I do, but only after asking "Am I required to give that to you?" followed by "Here is my license but I am giving it to you because I have to and I am not giving it to you voluntarily". Any compelled information obtained (whether a statement or a drivers license) can not be used against you. Nuff said!

jsherk wrote:You misunderstand... I am compelled to give my license, which I do, but only after asking "Am I required to give that to you?" followed by "Here is my license but I am giving it to you because I have to and I am not giving it to you voluntarily". Any compelled information obtained (whether a statement or a drivers license) can not be used against you. Nuff said!

lol

Yup, that should work...but if it doesn't, just tell the Justice of the Peace that a leprechaun jumped into your car a moment before and told you that you didn't need to wear the seat belt, then jumped out just before the officer saw you...+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++

Jsherk, I've been lurking on this forum for about a year now without joining or posting. Your posts continually become more and more borderline freeman of the land or sovereign citizen like. Just sayin..

jsherk wrote:You misunderstand... I am compelled to give my license, which I do, but only after asking "Am I required to give that to you?" followed by "Here is my license but I am giving it to you because I have to and I am not giving it to you voluntarily". Any compelled information obtained (whether a statement or a drivers license) can not be used against you. Nuff said!

Thats a great statement. Are you a paralegal?

So had the trial what do you want me to do or say? ( I already had the early resolution meeting )

I will plead guilty, and then ?...

tryingtoimprove wrote:So had the trial what do you want me to do or say? ( I already had the early resolution meeting )

I will plead guilty, and then ?...

The clerk will hand you a piece of paper, you walk to the cashier, and pay your fine. The conviction will stay on your record for 3 years (may or may not affect insurance), and demerit points (if any) for 2 years (shouldn't affect insurance).

Pretty Straight Forward.

jsherk wrote:You misunderstand... I am compelled to give my license, which I do, but only after asking "Am I required to give that to you?" followed by "Here is my license but I am giving it to you because I have to and I am not giving it to you voluntarily". Any compelled information obtained (whether a statement or a drivers license) can not be used against you. Nuff said!

Complete nonsense. Compelled statements - yes. Providing a driver's licence - no.

If that were the case no-one would ever get charged for a driving offense because the drivers licence is the means of identification.

People come here for simple advice on how best to deal with traffic tickets. Your advice is becoming more and more confusing and therefore less and less helpful. If I was a mod, I'd ban you.

Ban Him? LOL. If he was banned then the only regular contributors here would be police and retired police. Both of which appear (from my limited experience) to be biased. I have read alot of threads here and I can remember very few instances where someone has offered a defence......only criticism and mocking of potential defences. To wit, when I asked "Is radar infallible....i.e. is there ANY way a radar can be wrong", I got a grand total of ZERO replies from the people who operate(d) them. Nobody said it was infallible, which tells me it isn't perfect.....but nobody is willing to tell you HOW it's imperfect. This speaks volumes to me.

Decatur wrote:What do you mean by a secondary offence?

Are you an officer/retired officer? I thought it was a common term. I even googled it before I posted to make sure.

Schreech, you are correct that I meant a secondary offence is one that you cannot be pulled over for. You get pulled over for the primary offence....i.e. speeding, then the officer sees that you don't have your seat belt attached so he lays the seat belt charge also.

I was certain (OK 80% certain) that the seat belt used to be secondary. Perhaps some of you aren't old enough to remember when they brought that charge into law. Perhaps Ontario back doored that change. Pretty sure they back doored it in New Jersey.....i.e. get it on the books as secondary and then sneak the change in when nobody is looking.

You got no replies so you assumed that meant it was fallible. Why not make the other assumption ?

When operated correctly I never saw anything to question the reading. The reading and the observation go hand in hand.

I'm all for fighting tickets at the right time but jsherk goes the extra mile by trying to recommend ridiculous defences which are just going to confuse people coming here for simple advice. To recommend a charter argument that is at the core of traffic enforcement is not particularly helpful to a chap who's come here with a simple question about a seatbelt ticket. If he was so certain this was a valid defence why hasn't he used it himself or recommended it to any other poster for a more serious charge for example.

rank wrote:

Decatur wrote:What do you mean by a secondary offence?

Are you an officer/retired officer? I thought it was a common term. I even googled it before I posted to make sure.

Schreech, you are correct that I meant a secondary offence is one that you cannot be pulled over for. You get pulled over for the primary offence....i.e. speeding, then the officer sees that you don't have your seat belt attached so he lays the seat belt charge also.

I was certain (OK 80% certain) that the seat belt used to be secondary. Perhaps some of you aren't old enough to remember when they brought that charge into law. Perhaps Ontario back doored that change. Pretty sure they back doored it in New Jersey.....i.e. get it on the books as secondary and then sneak the change in when nobody is looking.

I've never heard the term secondary offence - maybe it's a US term. If the charge is in the book then it can be enforced.

100% correct Mr. Argyll

argyll wrote:

rank wrote:

Decatur wrote:What do you mean by a secondary offence?

Are you an officer/retired officer? I thought it was a common term. I even googled it before I posted to make sure.

Schreech, you are correct that I meant a secondary offence is one that you cannot be pulled over for. You get pulled over for the primary offence....i.e. speeding, then the officer sees that you don't have your seat belt attached so he lays the seat belt charge also.

I was certain (OK 80% certain) that the seat belt used to be secondary. Perhaps some of you aren't old enough to remember when they brought that charge into law. Perhaps Ontario back doored that change. Pretty sure they back doored it in New Jersey.....i.e. get it on the books as secondary and then sneak the change in when nobody is looking.

I've never heard the term secondary offence - maybe it's a US term. If the charge is in the book then it can be enforced.

Yes maybe it is a US term. If it was a term here, you guys I'm sure would be familiar. Thanks