“Speeding Conviction Appeal”

Speedtaxed wrote:V = d/t

D = 25m *

T = 2 s **

V = 25/2 = 12.5m/s or 45km/hr

The officer's statements contradict the radar gun reading.

* officer claimed visual estimation started at 75 metre and ended with a radar lock at 50 metres.

** officer claimed visual estimation took 2 seconds and then she obtained radar reading which isn't instantaneous.

So basically you're saying that guesstimates by the officer in time and distance trump the radar reading. Good luck with that.

Or perhaps you believe that the officer was EXACTLY 75 metres away when observation started and EXACTLY 50 metres away when radar lock was obtained and it took EXACTLY 2 seconds. You can believe that but the courts don't need to.

argyll wrote:

Speedtaxed wrote:V = d/t

D = 25m *

T = 2 s **

V = 25/2 = 12.5m/s or 45km/hr

The officer's statements contradict the radar gun reading.

* officer claimed visual estimation started at 75 metre and ended with a radar lock at 50 metres.

** officer claimed visual estimation took 2 seconds and then she obtained radar reading which isn't instantaneous.

So basically you're saying that guesstimates by the officer in time and distance trump the radar reading. Good luck with that.

Or perhaps you believe that the officer was EXACTLY 75 metres away when observation started and EXACTLY 50 metres away when radar lock was obtained and it took EXACTLY 2 seconds. You can believe that but the courts don't need to.

I had her mark it on the satellite map with scaling and points of reference. Confirmed "Guesstimation".

She isn't able to make visual estimations and get radar lock under 2 seconds. No rationale person could believe that especial since visual estimation needs passage of time.

If she isn't able to make accurate estimations as to distance then she shouldn't be a police officer because you need to be able to accurately observe distance to make estimations regarding velocity. If that is the case, that she can't make accurate visual assessments we just have a radar gun to go on which has never been maintained or calibrated and is being operated by a person of questionable skill.

Well you clearly have the argument fixed in your head. It's a shame I'm out of the country because I'd enjoy watching the trial. Police officers routinely make speed estimations followed by radar lock very quickly and with remarkable accuracy due to practice. If a vehicle crests a hill I could guesstimate the speed and get a lock in time to see the vehicles speed drop like a stone as the driver saw the cruiser. You seem to be arguing that the officer is making physics calculations in her head based on time and distance which isn't the case - it's a visual recognition that a vehicle is going a certain speed. We do it in training, we do it every day on the road and we're very good at it.

But as I say, I'm not going to convince you so good luck.

Visual speed estimation is also no longer required for evidence. Simple testimony indicatiimg that the motor vehicle was above the maximum speed is all that's necessary.

So I had my appeal Thursday August 25th.

Stated to judge the officer testified she first saw me at 75m, did the visual estimation at between 70-60 and had the lock at 50m.

The officer stated the first visual happened at just before the blue house and when she maintained line of sight it was as I was passing the blue house immediately to her right. I found GPS coordinates of those two locations by tagging them in Google on the Westbound lane of Huron street and compared the distance to entrance of Haysville community centre. Verified distances were 77m and 65 for start of visual estimation. Therefore no reason to think further 50 metre lock estimation is a bad one. I told the judge the officer stated visual estimation took 1-2 seconds and clarified 2 seconds on follow-up. We know V=d/t. I will give the benefit to the prosecutor for both time and distance estimations even though presumption of innocence is mine and we have V=(65-45)/1.5 and 48km/hr calculation, which is below the speed limit and severely contradicting the radar gun reading of 81k/hr and immediately casting into doubt the radar gun reading.

I then told judge lower courts are just using prima facie evidence of self-test of radar gun and officer's testimony of radar gun reading as a rubber stamp for convictions.

Judge agreed that machines aren't infallible and that he read there are 50,000 lines of algorithms which are sometimes 10 percent wrong. He asked prosecutor is there a law in place that could break the infallibility of the prima facie testimony of the radar gun. The prosecutor stated no since it is strictly a prima facie case (which in my mind is another way of saying you are guilty no matter what since we desperately need to protect our revenue stream and only pretend to have presumption of innocence for defendant.) There was a lot of back and forth with the judge telling David Dyer to lower his voice and not get angry a couple of times. The judge turns to me and states this is a very interesting case but he needs evidence to dispute officer and that I should have taken the stand at original trial. I asked if I could take the stand now. Judge answers no. I stated math is the ultimate witness and is the absolute truth and even though the officer didn't testify against her own radar gun reading her underlying observations and estimations backed with math and corroborated with GPS calculations of referenced objects is evidence that gives reason to doubt the radar gun's accuracy. Judge stated math can't be used while I was thinking our system of law in Ontario is a joke and has been designed top down to protect a revenue tax stream if system of justice now diverges with math.

I then try to introduce case law (for different Genesis gun - Ontario currently uses both).

Ontario Court of Justice R. v. Russell L. Hawkins 20090106 p 3

"6.4 Tracking History

For each enforcement action taken by the police with respect to a speeding offence arising out of the use of this radar unit a tracking history shall consist of:

1) A visual observation of an approaching or receding vehicle...

2) Having made the visual observation and estimate of the rate of speed, the radar unit will be placed in operational mode

3) Note, that the target displayed on the radar unit is consistent and confirms the officer's initial observations and estimate, and that the audio tracking tome emitted by the radar unit is consistent with the visual observations and the target speed displayed.

4) Absence of any one of the above tracking history components and NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION shall be undertaken."

Prosecutor looked up the case and stated it was for the different radar gun. I stated it was for the same manufacturer and was required operating procedures for their radar guns and that NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION should have been taken by officer.

I told the Judge I tried to enter the original radar gun manual as evidence which shows that section 11.3 "Tuning Fork Test" had been purposefully dropped in Ontario. It is obvious from other provinces that the tuning fork test is still a requirement and the same radar gun cant operate differently in Ontario. Judge stated I need to learn how to enter evidence into court properly and that I was asking very interesting questions.

I then quoted the case of R. v. Andrianov, 2015 ONCJ 197 [section 8]

"It is not an essential element of the offence that the officer who observed a speeding offence and wrote the ticket be 'qualified' in any particular manner according to Ontario law; however it would appear in the Alberta [case of] R. v. Werenka, [1981, 11 M.V.R. 280 (Alta, Q.B] the Crown is required to prove that the operator of a speed detection device is qualified by virtue of (i) following a course, (ii) passing an exam successfully, (iii) having several months of required experience. It would appear that the issue of being ‘qualified in Ontario must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt on a standard less defined than it is in Alberta...

A reasonable doubt might be raised regarding the accuracy of a speed measurement where the operator is not qualified...Similarly, where a speed detection device is utilized, the prosecution may wish to call evidence, although it is not necessary to do so, that the device has been properly maintained... Certainly these questions would be asked by the defence if not explored by the prosecution, the defence attempting to raise a ‘reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the rate of speed indicated."

I stated for training a standard less defined for Ontario doesnt imply a standard less strict and that is why judge used Alberta definition. The officer was only trained once in the last 14 years and I had not been provided proof that she passed a radar gun test even though I asked for it repeatedly during disclosure and while she was on the stand. I also requested it under the Freedom of Information act and was denied. <I also asked David Dyer for it before the appeal for her training records via email and told him that he lacked integrity and that he was suppressing evidence and if this wasnt the case give me a plausible reason for not providing the officers training records which he couldnt –didnt mention that though in the appeal >

I asked for the maintenance log for the radar gun and asked officer if she had maintained the gun. The officer stated no to question and that waterloo regional police didnt maintain gun. This is reasonable doubt according to case law.

The judge started to argue with prosecutor about responsibility of radar gun maintenance. Prosecutor stated it was 3rd party and that I needed to get 3rd party records. The judge then declared he would make a ruling and to come back in 3 hours (I am always the last case to go in my 3Abs this year).

Judge came back and stated the prosecutor was right. I needed to testify in order to have evidence to the contrary of radar gun for him to be able to take my mathematical evidence into account and would have probably won if I had testified to my innocence during original trial. He repeated that I asked very interesting questions but needed to get lawyer to introduce expert witnesses since it is a very complicated process. Judge then allowed me to go on my tirade and I did.

I stated a system of law that diverges from mathematical evidence which is absolute truth is just a system of rules and not justice. How can the radar gun operate in Ontario without needing to be externally calibrated but in other provinces it does need to be calibrated? Everyone is this court knows the radar gun reading was disproven by the V=d/t test which is an external test which should be all the evidence required to dispute the radar gun reading. The reason Ontario dropped the tuning fork test from the user manual was to get false convictions and all this has come out in the papers. I turned to the prosecutor and his assistant and stated the next ticket I get I will get expert testimony and blow through prima facie precedent.

Judge told me not to be so cynical, that he understood the question about the radar gun and how the user manual is different across provinces and that it is relevant question, and not to wish for another ticket. He then upheld the conviction and I walked out of court.

Through all this I still dont understand why I need to testify to have evidence that contradicted the radar gun reading. If the officer claimed that my car was going 300km/hr and that the radar gun self-tested positively could I not claim the mathematically impossibility of the claim since my car doesnt go that fast without my testimony of innocence? I proved a mathematical impossibility from the officers testimony and her distance estimations were pinned to objects and validated as accurate through GPS coordinates and calculations.

How would this case play out in the court of public opinion? What if I took it to the Kitchener Record with my court transcript? Will the appeal get published at some point so that there is transparency (I dont want to pay another $400 for transcripts)?

This is awesome that you did the appeal! Most people are not willing to go that far! So congratualtions on at least trying.

I agree with you that math, based on the officers own testimony, should not require you to take the stand to prove it. However, based on how appeals work, new evidence like GPS co-ordinates and distances that were NOT given during the original trial, do not need to be accepted by the Judge. I am not saying that it is right, just saying that is how it works.

One way to get that information added, is to ask the officer about it directly when they are on the stand. Another way is to bring a friend with a math degree so they could be considered an expert witness when it comes to math calculations and ask them the questions. A third way is to take the stand to tell them all the information you want told (but hopefully by this time you "don't remember" how fast you were actually going or you do remember that you were going the speed limit or less than the speed limit... but never lie on the stand as you will get in much more trouble.)

In the court of public opinion you would most likely have won because you bring up a lot of good points. Unfortunately those in charge do not really care about the court of public opinion.

The transcript will NOT get published anywhere. You will have to pay for and request an official transcript yourself.

It would be great if you could get some newspapers to cover a story on stuff like this. I hope you can!

I've just showed this to two family members and two friends all of who are quite left wing and suspicious of the police. The consensus was that police should nedd to be re-trained and maintenance records are relevant but that your maths argument was splitting hairs. They said that of course if the math showed you weren't going 300 kms an hour if that were claimed then that would be relevant but when it is the difference between 25/50/75 metres and 1/2 second then the argument makes you appear desperate. I'm sure there will be differing results in the 'court of public opinion' but there's some feedback for you.

Good luck getting a paper even vaguely interested.

Argyll I get your bias. I am not above bias either, I think cops are f'ing parasites. I ran occurrence data from the WRPS for 2014 that shows how many tickets were issued and when. For this one school location I was interested in it shows cops issued 19 tickets between 8-9am and 3 tickets between 9am-10am. Guess how many one and dones there were in the 8-9am timeframe? There were 17 out of 18. However the cops are saying they were there for school safety. So they leave the area after they get the one rush hour traffic ticket and don't bother to stay for school hour. Absolutely pathetic. I learned about this kind of data from the Kitchener Record which posts interactive maps of officer's favourite locations and how their top spots aren't often in zones which are safety concerns.

I walk my dog at 7:30am in the morning. In August I saw a cop take off like a bat out of hell after a speeder. When he came back to the location we had a discussion about how pathetic he was using a school zone and private property to enforce a bullshit 40km/hr zone when kids aren't even in school. He was accelerating full out and going 90km to get a speeder going 60km/hr. I noticed he didn't even maintain line of sight on the car since I had a better vantage point but of course he will testify in court he did to keep the tax revenue. I filed a complaint against the officer and told him I was way more concerned about his speed and my children than the mark he was going after. The next time I saw him with my 4 year old son at 7:30am in the morning in August buddy took off 5 minutes later. I sure hope I haven't killed his honey pot ticketing location for him.

Most everyone I know, think police are corrupt and aren't people serving people but people serving fat politicians. No one I know thinks police officers care about safety or that is the reason they are issuing traffic tickets. You don't hear the real truth since the people you are talking with know your background. The cops and the judicial system is in a bubble. Outside of their domain of influence and power most people know the real deal and have no respect for them.

So if you want to talk about someone looking desperate and disingenuous just ask a cop why he issues speeding tickets.

You clearly haven't read enough of my posts. I agree there are fishing holes (that's what we call them) that get cops quota tickets (there are no quotas but it looks better on your assessment if you get more tickets) and that frustrated the hell out of me.

What also frustrated me are those who say that all cops are parasites. There are many many many of us who care deeply for our communities and stick it to those who wrote stupid tickets. But while the bosses write assessments based on numbers you'll get those who 'play the game'.

But so long as people like you see all cops as the enemy then that divide will be there. Instead criticise those chips who are poor at their work. I don't know what you do but let's say you are an accountant or in construction. Wouldn't you frustrated if someone (everyone) said that all accountants/ construction workers were crooked based on the actions of a few.

Oh and you don't know my circles of family and friends - they are ANYTHING but inclined to support the police lol

So you are sitting in your cop car hiding and waiting for someone going 20km/hr over the speed limit at 8:30am in July. You care deeply about the community. The person you pull over is doing 81km/hr in a 50km/hr zone or that is at least what your radar flashes. He has never beaten his wife or robbed someone, done drugs past alcohol and then only in moderation, and has a family with a wife that wants to go back to school. This person has never had a traffic accident and is in no way a dangerous driver. The fine is $200+ in a community zone but the real kicker is the insurance rate hike. The reason you are there is because the department needs revenue to pay for the high salaries of civil servants at the public trough making 50% more than they would in the private sector for the same skill-set. The job is way more about chasing tax revenue than chasing bad guys. The job is basically a mafia-like shakedown of the working class.

If you didn't know this was the real job of a police officer when you first started you would have to have figured it out by the first year. Even you stated the more tickets you hand out the better it looks come evaluation time.

No one likes a shakedown though. Even if the law legalizes it and states the speeding ticket is about community safety.

I will say that I respect officers more than prosecutors though since their job is more difficult. Claiming prima facie evidence of self-testing of radar gun and getting officer to take the stand to read off what he clocked someone at to make 130K is a complete joke. That is all prosecutors are doing right now in the Ontario lower courts besides cutting backroom deals pre-trial so they don't have to go to court.

So you think 81 in a 50 is fine. What about 90.....or 100 ? 120 ?

Speedtaxed wrote:Argyll I get your bias. I am not above bias either, I think cops are f'ing parasites.

So if you want to talk about someone looking desperate and disingenuous just ask a cop why he issues speeding tickets.

So you get one big ticket in how many years of driving and you're whining like a little kid? I'm probably the last one to talk, but I've racked up numerous tickets (like more than I can count on my fingers) in 5 years. I'll agree, there are some nitpickers here and there (like the one that busted me for not using my signal, or the one for doing exactly 10 over), but there are some nice ones out there. Officer's are put on the road to ensure safety. If you think that doing 81 km/h on a road that is designated for 50 km/h, let alone it is a community safety zone as well, is safe, you're sadly mistaken. Honestly, if you were doing 60 km/h, you might have been let off with just a warning, or not even pulled over at all.

Traffic Enforcement is to make the roads safer. If some nut was doing 81 in a residential, community safety zone, with kids playing, if I was an officer, for sure I'd nab them. Let's say someone's child decides to run across the road, with you doing 81 km/h, would you be able to stop your car in enough time not to hit them? Probably not. That's why speed limits have been put in place. To protect the citizens from idiotic drivers. I'll agree if you get pinched for 60 in a 50, that's just horses**t, but anything more, you deserve a ticket.

No, I'm not a cop. Furthest thing from a cop. Think I was pulled over 13 times last year or so, 6 times already this year. But multiple times I have been let off with warnings, or tickets (majority of them I deserved). It's also how you play it off. If you roll down your window a crack saying "I'm only giving you my license because I'm required to do so, but it is not voluntary" of course your asking for a ticket. Arguing with them, and making excuses roadside doesn't help either. Just be sincere, and apologize. I got let off a few 50+ overs with that move right there.

Rant Done.

I appreciate your detailed account.

I also used math to show the impossibility of the speeding ticket I was given. However, my case differs from yours in that I met with the crown before trial and laid out my case, after which the officer changed his story and the charge was dropped so there was never a trial.

I'm also not 100% clear on why the judge said "the prosecutor was right....... your math was inadmissible (paraphrasing)". It would seem you touched on the math defense in the original trial therefore I'm not sure why you couldn't revisit it. Perhaps you didn't get all your math in......But I'm no legal expert.

Did you ever get to view the manual? In my case (moving radar not handheld) there is alot the officer must do to get an actionable reading and he didn't have time to get it done.

Who is Dyer?