“Fail To Stop At Red Light For Right Turn, Got Disclosure”

Hello all,

I would appreciate it if I could get some advice or insight to my situation. The ticket I got was for a failure to stop at Red Light, 144(18). I got the officer's notes and the in car camera video.

Scenario:

I was going Eastbound on Denison St and making a right turn onto Southbound Old Kennedy Rd. This turn has a really long arc, there was some distance I had to cover in the intersection before entering the other street which feels like a little bit more than 1 car length. The light was amber when I approached and slowed down getting ready to turn. I saw the lights turn red after entering the intersection and during my turn. There's also almost a car length cap between stop line and the crosswalk. There were no pedestrians and I turned safely.

In the officer's disclosure, they write about checking the traffic lights for 3 cycles and that they were working fine. The part of the disclosure I'm sharing is:

I OBSERVED A 4 DOOR TOYOTA COROLA TRAVELLING EASTBOUND ON DENISON ST IN THE RIGHT TURN LANE ENTER THE INTERSECTION ON A RED LIGHT. MV FAILED TO STOP AS IT NEVER STOPPED MOVING AND WHEELS NEVER STOPPED ROLLING. MV WAS IN CONTINUOUS MOTION THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. TRAFFIC LIGHT TURNED RED BEFORE FRONT TIRES PASSED THE STOP LINE.

HOWEVER, in the video my front tires had crossed the stop line before the lights turned red. The lights turned right red my vehicle was half way crossed. My vehicle was still behind the crosswalk lines but had passed the stop lines. This disagrees with the notes that says the lights turned red before the front tires passed.

That's the one discrepancy I found in the officer's notes and his ICC video.

My questions now are:

1) Am I considered in the intersection after crossing the stop lines with the front half of my car but still behind the crosswalk lines?

2) Would this be enough to raise reasonable doubt in the officer's testimony/notes?

I can post the whole disclosure of his notes if someone is willing to look over to give me some more insight. Not sure if they'll bother looking at pictures of the intersection or screenshots of the video.

Thank you.

Since there is a stop line, yes, you are considered in the intersection after crossing that line. If there was no stop line, then it would have been the cross walk lines, and then you would have gotten charged. Just curious, do you drive a smart car, because thats the only car I can think of that fits between those two lines.

You have a pretty good case if the video shows your front tires in front of the stop line.

Section 144(18) states:

"Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18)."

Since you were already in the intersection (passed the stop line), you are no longer approaching the intersection, you are in it, therefore the charge is incorrect.

You have an excellent case and should win.

The prosecutor should drop the case if they watch the video.

But if it proceeds to trial then you need to bring your copy of the video on DVD or USB stick and bring a laptop to play it on. Very important that you bring your own device to play the video on because there is a good chance they will not have anything to play it on in the court.

Once the trial starts, the officer will take the stand and give their version based on their notes. You will then be asked if you want to cross-examine and you should say yes. You would then ask the officer to confirm that your front wheels had not passed the line before the light turned red (and they will say yes). You will then ask JP permission to show the officer video that was provided to you in disclosure. You then show the video and ask the officer if your front wheels had already passed line before the light turned red (and they will have to say yes). You say "no more questions". Then the prosecutor gets to re-question the officer specifically about what you asked(so pay attention) and then you get to re-cross-examine the officer based on these questions the prosecutor asked the second time.

You can then say "I would a Motion of Non-Suit" and when the JP says to go ahead, you would say "the prosecution has failed to prove one of the essential elements of the charge, as I was not approaching the intersection when the light turned red, but was already in the intersection when the light turned red as shown on the video and agreed to by the officer."

@UnluckyDuck - Thank you for the clarification. I drive a 1998 Toyota Corolla. The gap between the stop line and the crosswalk is particularly far at the Old Kennedy Rd. and Denison St. intersection. The intersection also meets as at a wide angle instead of the regular 90 degree ish. I have driven there multiple times and even checked with street view on google maps that I was not seeing things.

@jsherk - Thank you for the very clear explanation. Now I have a better idea of how to prepare for this case and feel a little bit more at ease. My court date is on April 5th so I still have some time to prepare. If this is doable for myself then I would not have to hire legal help and save some money as I am still a student.

Thank you again, if I have any more questions, I'll come back and post them.

One thing to know to add to what Sherk said is that it is:

Keep quiet about this until the trial actually starts. It is important that your court date be at least six months from the date of the alleged offence. If it is not and the officer or prosecutor is made aware of the error then they can withdraw the charge for the red light and recharge you with the proper charge.

jsherk wrote:

Very important that you bring your own device to play the video on because there is a good chance they will not have anything to play it on in the court.

York Region court in Richmond Hill has a big screen TV with capability of playing ICC video, they set it up during a break at the trial day to show other drivers who failed to stop at a red light or stop sign to prove their case to an average Joe who is not looking for details and figures I better plead guilty and take the deal. But if prosecutor figures the video is working against him, he will not use that equipment, so you should have your own.

ynotp wrote:One thing to know to add to what Sherk said is that it is:

Keep quiet about this until the trial actually starts. It is important that your court date be at least six months from the date of the alleged offence. If it is not and the officer or prosecutor is made aware of the error then they can withdraw the charge for the red light and recharge you with the proper charge.

I do not know the details, but I read on trafficticketcombat.com that the prosecutor can revise/amend the charge at the trial, can't they do that in this case here? Can't they just change what he was charged with at the trial?

Also, at what point it is too late for the prosecution to amend the charge?

Amending the certificate means to change a speeding ticket from say 75 in a 60 back up to original speed of say 85 in a 60 or it means to fix a minor error on the ticket like a mis-spelled name. They can not change it to a whole new/different charge.

Note also that they only have 6 months from the date of the offence to issue a ticket for any new charge.

It will be well over 6 months by the time I have my trial. Good to hear that they only have 6 months to issue new charges but in the back of my head, I still have a lingering feeling that they could find reasons for other charges based on the ICC video.

In the video, I can see that my front wheels did cross the stop line before it turned red but the lights turned red like a second or less after I crossed when watching the video as a whole. Now question now is, when presenting the video, do I get to show you multiple times at a slower speed?

Am I to pause it at the frame where my front wheels have crossed and the lights are still amber when I question the officer?

Out of curiosity, 3 questions:

A. How was ICC video provided to you? Was it given to you in a DVD?

B. When did the incident happen?

C. How long did it take for a trial date to be issued to you?

A. Given to me as a DVD. It has it's own player to play their video format that includes information of when certain equipment in their vehicle was turned off/off. The player allows me to play the video at half speed and rewind at half speed.

B. Back in August 2015.

C. Got my Notice of trial in January 2016.

They have 6 months to issue new Highway Traffic Act charges, so since it's more than six months that should not be an issue. Now if there is some kind of Criminal Code charge that they could lay because of the video that is a different story. So assuming there is no Criminal Charges then you are fine.

And you should be able to pause the video at the point where your tires are past the line and the light is still yellow. You will have control of the video playback.

jsherk wrote:They have 6 months to issue new Highway Traffic Act charges, so since it's more than six months that should not be an issue. Now if there is some kind of Criminal Code charge that they could lay because of the video that is a different story. So assuming there is no Criminal Charges then you are fine.

And you should be able to pause the video at the point where your tires are past the line and the light is still yellow. You will have control of the video playback.

If they want to, they could lay Dangerous Driving charges, but the chances of that are like me winning Lotto Max, from a lottery ticket I found on the ground, in Las Vegas.

You said you made the turn in safety so why would you think there could be a Dangerous Driving charge out there.

Yes in theory police have 6 months to lay a charge but in reality unless it's something very serious they won't bother. If I got a late filing notice or fatal error back from the justice I'd just turf it and move on with my day.