“Minimal Information In The Disclosure - Worth Fighting?”

Got a ticket for going 40km over the limit, by an officer using a hand held "Laser Atlanta" radar gun on from the sidewalk. In the disclosure the officer has only recorded the calibration tests performed less than an hour before, and the weather. Other than the direction and street, there is no other information in the disclosure (no audio, witnesses, video, notes about the surroundings, or any other notes). I was provided with a manual for calibrating the radar gun.

Given that I was on a busy street headed southbound into Toronto, there were other vehicles around me.

With the lack of details in the disclosure and it occurring in June 2015, should I fight the charge or should I accept the lesser plea of speeding under 30Km? Anyone have had a similar situation to this?

Thanks

Post the notes with your personal info blacked out.

What is the exact charge on original ticket?

Can you scan the ticket and the notes and the manual and post it here so we can review? Black out any personal info.

Here is what is included in the disclosure word for word:

sat sun/mild p-50z laser Atlanta 22615 tested 0730hrs ok icc/ist/rat

32m-39.6/h-v 74m s/b p/l 93 137m locc retest 1100

Offence Time: 0819

Location: S/B Bathurst

Municipality: Toronto

Speeding 93km in a 50km zone

HTA Section 128

Actual Speed: 93

Speed Charged for: 93

Speed Limit: 50

Motor Vehicle Involved: Y

Collision Involved: N

Witnesses: N

Memo Book Notes w/ Evidence: N

In-Car Video of Offence: N

Conversation Audio Only: N

Thoughts?

This information and the radar gun manual were all that was provided. The officer did not include any other notes.

Really appreciate help here.

If it was an e-ticket the I would have an issue with the test times being exactly at the start and end of the shift to the minute. I'd love to hear the officers explanation on how the device was tested precisely at that time. If I were a betting man I would guess that the officer always uses the shift start and stop time as the testing time rather that the moment he actually tested the device. I can't imagine that this practice can be seen as acceptable.

I would also want to know if the officer transmitted the notes along with the e-ticket before the end of the shift. If he did then the notes are very problematic as the officer would be including information in the notes that hasn't yet occurred. This possible issue with e-tickets is only a problem if the e-notes are simultaneously submitted when the e-ticket is issued hasn't really been explored in depth on this forum.

So I guess what I would want to know is:

Are the e-notes and e-ticket submitted simultaneously when the ticket is issued? If not are the notes submitted after the shift? If yes, then good news for pretty much anyone with an e-ticket for speeding.

ynotp wrote:If it was an e-ticket the I would have an issue with the test times being exactly at the start and end of the shift to the minute.

The test times in the notes are 7:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. I know TPS has staggered start times, but I was under the impression the majority of their officers work from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on day shift. That would make the test times rather reasonable and certainly well before end of shift.

In terms of e-notes, my limited knowledge of them (with the big assumption all police services use a similar system) is that they can be made at any time after the ticket is issued. Once the notes are submitted, they are time stamped and locked, but you can add new additional notes to the ticket at any time. So for instance you could do notes on the actual stop immediately after the ticket, which get saved and locked. Then if you retest the device at the end of your shift, you could add a second note to the ticket with the test times afterwards.

So according to the notes is says "Laser" so I am assuming this is LIDAR and not RADAR? I think those are also distance meter readings which would also mean it was LIDAR. Can you confirm what the manual says. The reason it is important is because LIDAR uses a laser and the officer uses a sight to target one specific vehicle. With RADAR on the other hand, it is a wide beam and can not pin point one specific vehicle at all. So if it was LIDAR then the officer could have picked you out of group to target you, however it was busy you could possibly bring reasonable doubt in cross-examination if you can get officer to admit it was busy and there might have been other vehicles in between you and officer.

I would send another disclosure request and ask for clarification of these lines:

sat sun/mild p-50z laser Atlanta 22615 tested 0730hrs ok icc/ist/rat

32m-39.6/h-v 74m s/b p/l 93 137m locc retest 1100

- What does p-50z mean (model?).

- What does 22615 mean (serial number?).-

- What does icc/ist/rat mean?

- What does "32m-39.6/h-v 74m s/b p/l 93 137m locc retest 1100" mean?

It is important to be able to decipher these lines in order to properly cross-examine officer.

Did prosecutor offer you a plea deal for 29 over instead of 43 over, or are you just asking what to do IF they offer that to you? Remember that your insurance can still go up even if the demerit points are 0. Insurance does not care about the speed, just whether there was a conviction or not.

1 to 15 over = 0 demerits = insurance considers this MINOR conviction.

16 to 29 over = 3 demerits = insurance also considers this MINOR conviction the same as 1 to 15 over.

30 to 49 over = 4 demerits = some insurance companies consider this MINOR conviction but some consider this MAJOR conviction.

So if your insurance company considers 43 over a MAJOR then you may want to consider a plea deal down to 29 over so that it is only a MINOR. But if your insurance company considers 43 over only a MINOR then you have much less to lose if you try to fight it.

TixHelp wrote:Thoughts?

This information and the radar gun manual were all that was provided. The officer did not include any other notes.

Really appreciate help here.

There really isn't any additional disclosure to be expected for a speeding charge. The notes themselves cover off the basic points required for a conviction. I know you said it's a busy street, but keep in mind the officer is using a laser, not radar, to measure your speed. The laser would have a targeting sight like you'd find on a rifle, that allows for the precise targeting of a specific vehicle. The laser also has a very narrow beam compared to radar (something like a 1:100 width to distance ratio versus radar's 1:10).

Stanton wrote:

ynotp wrote:If it was an e-ticket the I would have an issue with the test times being exactly at the start and end of the shift to the minute.

The test times in the notes are 7:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. I know TPS has staggered start times, but I was under the impression the majority of their officers work from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on day shift. That would make the test times rather reasonable and certainly well before end of shift.

What I am getting at is that is from the e-notes I have seen is that often officers seem to write their test times at approximations of the middle and top of the hour such as 0730 and 1100 rather than the exact time 0737 and 1118. If this is so, can one successfully make the argument that if the notes are based on approximations rather than exact times then the officers testimony based on those notes will hold less weight?

Stanton wrote:In terms of e-notes, my limited knowledge of them (with the big assumption all police services use a similar system) is that they can be made at any time after the ticket is issued. Once the notes are submitted, they are time stamped and locked, but you can add new additional notes to the ticket at any time. So for instance you could do notes on the actual stop immediately after the ticket, which get saved and locked. Then if you retest the device at the end of your shift, you could add a second note to the ticket with the test times afterwards.

OP if you have e-notes are there time stamps on them? If not, how can the OP confirm the time stamp on the notes to see what was added when? Would including this in a disclosure request and having this debated prior to trial be worth exploring?

Thanks for the responses.

To answer some of the questions:

The device used is a laser, not a radar - so based on what some of you said, it is much more accurate and seems like less wiggle room to argue.

Yes it is an e-ticket and the disclosure is in a electronic form (not notes, or notes converted to text) and there is no time stamp on the e-ticket/notes, just the offense time with the date.

At early resolution they did offer the lesser charge of 29km over instead of the current 43km over.

Still wondering if using a laser gun is a strong enough argument that, even with no notes for the offer to refer to except the calibration times would be sufficient to dispute the charge......or take the lesser offense???

Again - really appreciate the opinions and if anyone else has had a similar experience.

Thanks.

The notes are sufficient for the officers testimony to get you convicted as is if left un-contested.

The only way to beat the charge is that you have to cross-examine the officer and bring reasonable doubt to one of the elements that officers testimony would prove if letft un-contested.

So your cross-examination would have to bring doubt to one or both of the following elements:

- Was it your car that was actually targeted? So questioning would involve around amount of traffic and officers training and ability to use device.

- Was the measured speed accurate? So questioning would involve around was testing procedure followed exactly as stated in the manual and were test times entered when it was actually done.

This is certainly not an easy slam dunk case. An experienced cross-examiner might have a chance at beating this. A first time self-represented person, probably not.

Read these: