“Speeding And Follow Too Closely”

Thanks for that, screeech. That's a HUGE relief!

argyll, I know you're a former officer. Is driving along the 407, ostensibly looking for potential speeders, considered "lawful performance of a police officer's duty"? I get that responding to a call, etc., is, regardless of whether the lights are on, but, to me, just out and fishing would be completely different. If he's simply patrolling, I would think he'd have to stick to 100.

jsherk wrote:@screech - That is news to me. I thought that you received the points for ALL the convictions.

Screech is correct. If multiple charges are issued from the same incident, the defendant will only receive the demerit points for the offence with the highest number of demerit points. The defendant will still get a record of conviction for each offence that goes to a conviction on their driving record. That driving record will then be visible for third parties such as employers/insurance. So it is important to protect the driving record beyond simply the demerit points.

On a side note, while your questions about the Officer and his/her rate of speed are an interesting discussion. I wouldn't get too focused on them as they have no impact on your case.

OTD Legal wrote:On a side note, while your questions about the Officer and his/her rate of speed are an interesting discussion. I wouldn't get too focused on them as they have no impact on your case.

So you're saying an officer can speed without fear of repercussion? I've read some blogs and official or semi-official police postings. Unfortunately, none of them is from Ontario. Police officers in other Canadian jurisdictions have said that they don't need to have their lights on when they're responding to a call or emergency (and there are valid reasons they may not want to have them on), but most have said they're not supposed to be speeding when they're simply on patrol. I have not been able to find anything that defines "legally performing his/her duties." He does not need to drive 120 to catch speeders. He certainly doesn't need to drive 135 when on patrol unless his intent is to entice someone to follow him. Maybe he wasn't wearing his seat belt. As I understand the HTA, officers are only exempt below 40 km/h.

It will be interesting to see how he claims to have positively identified me. I do that same drive every day. At this time of year, most drivers still have their headlights on (they were required until 8:02 that morning, 8:05 this morning). With headlights on and standard windshield tinting, it is extremely difficult to make out drivers and to read a backwards licence plate without staring at it (and not looking ahead for several seconds). Yes, I'm putting the cart before the horse, but I obviously need to start thinking about my defence.

Zatota wrote:

OTD Legal wrote:On a side note, while your questions about the Officer and his/her rate of speed are an interesting discussion. I wouldn't get too focused on them as they have no impact on your case.

So you're saying an officer can speed without fear of repercussion? .

How do you get that from what OTD Legal said ???

He identified you from your driver's licence. He believes he saw a motor vehicle commit an offence, pulled that vehicle over and identified the driver with a valid Ontario DL.

Zatota wrote:

OTD Legal wrote:On a side note, while your questions about the Officer and his/her rate of speed are an interesting discussion. I wouldn't get too focused on them as they have no impact on your case.

So you're saying an officer can speed without fear of repercussion?

No, I think what he is saying is that whether or not the officer was speeding, has no bearing on YOUR ticket.

argyll wrote:How do you get that from what OTD Legal said ???

He identified you from your driver's licence. He believes he saw a motor vehicle commit an offence, pulled that vehicle over and identified the driver with a valid Ontario DL.

I get that he'd identify me from my DL. But he'll probably say I was following him over a certain distance, etc. How can he be sure I was the same driver following him? Obviously, that would be an angle for cross-examination, but I think I could establish doubt as to whether the same driver was following him the whole time.

jsherk wrote:

Zatota wrote:

OTD Legal wrote:On a side note, while your questions about the Officer and his/her rate of speed are an interesting discussion. I wouldn't get too focused on them as they have no impact on your case.

So you're saying an officer can speed without fear of repercussion?

No, I think what he is saying is that whether or not the officer was speeding, has no bearing on YOUR ticket.

You are really reaching. You are asking your judge to overhaul the entire system.

argyll wrote:You are really reaching. You are asking your judge to overhaul the entire system.

I think you have nothing to lose by challenging it based on the officer speeding illegally, so it is worth a try.

However, my opinion is that YES the courts allow police officers to speed routinely even when there is no need to do so. I don't agree with it, but it seems to be the way it is.

So you're using the argument that he was doing it so I should be able to as well. You are very much falling into the trap of another post on another thread which said examine why you are going to court. It sounds to me like you are expecting to be found guilty but just want your voice to be heard. Sadly it won't be - you will be shut down by the judge in seconds when you go off on a tangent. They only care about if you speeding. If you want to make a complaint about the if fibers driving then so be it but court is not the place.

You are going to be very disappointed. I've seen it several times and, honestly, it's not pretty because the person just goes home feeling more ignored and aggrieved.

I think argyll hit the nail on the head. Remember why you are going to court this argument has no bearing on your charge. Police are exempt from various parts of the HTA s128 is one of them . Focus on your cross examination questions not the fact the officer was speeding, was he in the performance of his duties. I would almost bet he will say yes as he was out doing speed enforcement . Here's an example:

Officer is stationary the median sees a vehicle traveling 165 km/h opposite direction starts from 0 he will most likely get to 200 km/h + to catch up to this vehicle . Was he speeding ...yes...execution of duty...yes. Could the officer have been catching up to a vehicle when the radar was locked and he obtained the reading while already going 135 km/h yes and that's completely likely. Not entirely defending it but that's just the way it is .

jsherk wrote:

No, I think what he is saying is that whether or not the officer was speeding, has no bearing on YOUR ticket.

Correct. There is no case law that I am aware of that would support this argument.

One of the common pitfalls that I see of self-representing defendants in trials is that they open themselves up to cross-examination and promptly convict themselves by doing so. Another pitfall is the natural emotional-investment of the defendant in their situation getting ahead of the pragmatic realities of their case within the context of the legal system. Emotions, assumptions, and desires aside, the ultimate end-goal of any matter is: what will obtain the best possible result?

To the OP: if you are able to afford putting some money into it, you may be well served by seeking out legal representation if you intend to pursue your case in a trial.

Let me clarify one thing, if I haven't already done so. I have no problem with an officer speeding while he or she is fulfilling his or her duties (catching up to and pulling over a speeding driver, driving on the wrong side of the road or running red lights, for example). I'm all in favour of that. If this officer had genuinely been pursuing a speeder, I would have no problem with the fact he was driving 120 km/h and faster. But if he was simply out on patrol, there is no need to speed. He's been trained to spot a speeder and can act appropriately when he sees one. Why would an officer accelerate from 120 to 135, for example, other than to try to entice the driver behind him to do likewise? What can otherwise be gained by doing it? Does he have to drive that quickly just to patrol? Of course not. It's the same thing with officers who don't want to wait at a red light, turn their emergency lights on, go through the intersection then turn the emergency lights back on. If the officer is simply patrolling or driving around, he or she should not be doing that.

Yes, I know I need to be careful and that I could easily incriminate myself as to driving 120. But the officer would still need to prove that I "followed" him to 135 (I didn't). And, again, why would he do that other than to test simply whether I would follow suit. If an officer is sitting on the side of the road or driving legally and catches me speeding with radar, lidar or a speedometer, that's one thing. But when an officer is unnecessarily speeding and doing something that police are constantly telling drivers is dangerous for the simple purpose of trying to entice someone to do the same, I have a problem with that. An officer cannot violate the HTA (or any other law) simply for convenience or simply because he or she is a police officer. While not in the legal performance of his or her duties, an officer must be held to the same standard as ordinary citizens, if not an even higher standard.

I'm trying to avoid speculating. I won't have my trial date for a while and won't have disclosure for a while after that. Obviously, I need to see what method he used to track my speed and to claim that I was the driver behind him the whole way. Maybe I still just have a bad taste in my mouth.

I think you hit the nail on the head Zatota with your last sentence. Your issue is with the actions of the officer and if so then it is your right to make a complaint about him. But the JP won't care and will shut you down very very quickly which is only going to make you pissed off with life. I've seen it so many times. The court is only interested in your actions and, as I mistakenly posted in another thread, miscarriage of justice for police actions are reserved for very egregious things.