“Stop Sign Ticket With Video Evidence From Officer”

Recently received a ticket where the officer has a video shot where it seems to show that my car had not stopped for a stop sign. The video proceeds to show that I was the one driving the vehicle. I do not yet have the video evidence delivered to me, but I presume that the video camera was correctly calibrated.

I am usually a good driver. Will be proceeding to trial with request for disclosure, as I am not in good financial situation and there will be significant impact to my insurance fees. I am aware that the prosecutor may offer me a plea deal to avoid proceeding to trial, but this will not be lowered to anything that does not impact my driving record.

I do not know the residential area too well. This was is probably 'hot spot' for such tickets because the officer can be hidden from view by the corner house from where the stop sign I approached was.

I only have 2 ways to approach this that I can think of to waive the conviction:

1) Officer's evidence is thrown out

2) I claim that I had fully stopped before the line before the video can show that this is the case, and argue against the conditions of the road

Questions:

1) What if the officer doesn't show up? It seems to me that the prosecutor could draw a conclusion where I could be convicted with notes and video alone, so does he even have to show up?

2) The stop line was actually not easy to make out on that day from my point of view, so I could make a case for not seeing where the line was, but according to the act I should have stopped aligned with the stop sign instead, which the video would disprove. I would be making a case that I stopped immediately before entering the intersection. Also I am inclined to think that audio recorded by the officer could be used against me given that I did not explicitly deny the charge.

Would appreciate any insight on this.

The officer must show up and you can not be convicted by the video alone.

Assuming the officer shows up, the video evidence is just icing on the cake as far as getting a conviction meaning even you get the video thrown out, the officers testimony (based on his notes) will be sufficient to get a conviction.

When you request your disclsoure, make sure to ask for notes of all officers involved and "a copy of any videos whether or not the prosecution plans to use them or not".

You do NOT have to stop aligned with the sign. You have to stop at the LINE and if there is no line then you have to stop before entering the intersection.

Just because you did not deny the charge, can not be used against you to prove you are guilty. The law does not require you to talk to the police or to answer any questions other than identifying yourself, so you are not required to deny it.

Once you get a copy of the officers notes, post them here (with personal info blanked) and then we can advise further on possible courses of action. You should go and take pictures of the intersection as soon as possible including from where the officer was sitting. If a vehicle stopped at the line is not visible from the officers location then you might have a defense. If there is no line on the road and you then stopped before entering the intersection then you might have a defense. So go take pictures and request disclosure and let us know.

The Act says:

"Stop at through highway

136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,

(a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none, then immediately before entering the intersection;"

so even if you stop far back you have to stop again in the correct place being the line or 'immediately' before the crosswalk or intersection.

If you take the stand you need to tell the truth. You can't just say you stopped because it might help you win the case. That would take you into the criminal world of perjury. While it's unlikely I have heard of CCTV footage being obtained to disprove an accused's testimony when it was know to be false by the office resulting in a perjury conviction.