“Two Stop Sign Infractions But One Ticket?”

Hey folks. I just picked up the disclosure for my traffic ticket (I know this is from Ontario, I am from Ontario-but live in Saskatchewan now.. hope it's alright, I plan to move back someday)

On the disclosure, the ticket cites (in almost impossible to understand handwriting, I still can't make out some of his words) two infactions for failing to properly stop, but only one ticket. I asked the court officer today at the police station which infraction he intends to prosecute, and he said the second one- which we can "prove" occurred. He does have a video, the first one imo, which is from a considerable distance away, shows headlights and a probable stop sign violation, though a couple seconds is obstructed completely by a passing vehicle at the time my vehicle was approaching the intersection (which has a stop sign about 7 metres from the highway) on a grid road.

The second alledged infraction, occurred aprox. 5 seconds after the first. It shows the officer speedily approaching my vehicle from behind, accelerating while I came to a near complete stop. The video evidence clearly reflects a full intention and near completion of a stop. My arguement on that one, which I believe the crown intends to prosecute, is that I believed the vehicle behind me was an aggressive, possibly intoxicated driver. Who accelerates towards a stop vehicle at an intersection? The officer does not put his lights on until after I proceed past the stop sign. It's a daunting and intimidating experience to have a large suv accelerate at a close distance while your vehicle is stopped in the darkest of nights. A reasonable person, which I hope the judge is, would clearly see my case here without doubt.

So in a nutshell folks, can anyone please tell me how to go abouts defending myself when it's unclear on the ticket which alleged infraction I'm being prosecuted for? If the video, which shows both potential violations, is used to prosecute the 2nd offense, could they use the first alleged offense which is not being prosecuted as collective evidence in the second? Can the officer/crown chose at the time of the court trial, which of the two infractions the court intends to prosecute? Could they argue I violated two stop signs, which were both mentioned on the ticket and shown in the video, but the officer was a nice guy and only issued one actual fine? Either way, it seems it would be my legal prerogative to know which of the two alleged offences the court intends to prosecute.

I'm not a legal expert, but it seems they should have to define which infraction, clearly, I am being prosecuted for. I intend to ask for an adjournment if the ticketing officer shows up, to give myself more time to prepare for the trial, as I am unsure which infraction to defend myself from. I also cannot understand what the ticketing officer wrote, the chicken scratch writing is not legible.

I also believe the crown (the court officer) believes he has the case in a nutshell. He informed me "this is the video" we will be showing, which is clear evidence. I beg the differ. My hope is that he believes the evidence is "so clear," that the ticketing officer does not make an attempt to show up in court.

Thanks

Hey folks

I uploaded the video to Youtube:

It's 8 minutes but only the first minute is relevant. My argument for the 2nd infraction, which is the 1/2 noted on the ticket, will be that I did my best to stop. But under the traffic act, it also cites that one doesn't have to stop until safe to do so- in this case, I did my best to safely stop but was intimdated by the vehicle approaching at an accelerated rate behind me, hence, why I proceeded.

What do you all think? Any help would be helpful

And folks, if the officer was so confident that I didn't safely stop for the 2nd alleged infraction, why did the officer breeze thru the intersection at no less then 30km/hr without making any verification there were no vehicles coming- assuming he believed that I did not safely scope it out?

Can someone please give me their opinion.

I watched the video a bunch of times. Your brake lights were on for about five seconds. I find it really hard to tell whether you came to a complete stop or were still rolling. The officer was sufficiently far back that it's difficult to gauge where you were relative to the intersection. That's my opinion; the JP could see it the other way.

Zatota wrote:I watched the video a bunch of times. Your brake lights were on for about five seconds. I find it really hard to tell whether you came to a complete stop or were still rolling. The officer was sufficiently far back that it's difficult to gauge where you were relative to the intersection. That's my opinion; the JP could see it the other way.

Thanks for your opinion Zatota.

Was the infraction you're reference the first one (31 second to 45 second mark) or the second one at the intersection, just before he pulled me over?

Any suggestion on the two referenced violations for failing to stop but only one ticket? Do you know if the crown has to specify which infraction he intends to pursue?

Saskman wrote:the first one imo, which is from a considerable distance away, shows headlights and a probable stop sign violation, though a couple seconds is obstructed completely by a passing vehicle at the time my vehicle was approaching the intersection (which has a stop sign about 7 metres from the highway) on a grid road.

You come barreling out of the side street with nothing close to a stop. Your car was not obstructed for a "couple seconds". You'd be lucky if it was obstructed for a single second. I think probable is being generous.

Saskman wrote:The video evidence clearly reflects a full intention and near completion of a stop.

I don't think it clearly indicates that at all, but that's just me.

Saskman wrote:My arguement on that one, which I believe the crown intends to prosecute, is that I believed the vehicle behind me was an aggressive, possibly intoxicated driver. Who accelerates towards a stop vehicle at an intersection? The officer does not put his lights on until after I proceed past the stop sign. It's a daunting and intimidating experience to have a large suv accelerate at a close distance while your vehicle is stopped in the darkest of nights. A reasonable person, which I hope the judge is, would clearly see my case here without doubt.

I don't see it. If anything, it shows the officer keeping a safe distance while pursuing a vehicle at the same time. In my opinion, you're grasping.

Saskman wrote:But under the traffic act, it also cites that one doesn't have to stop until safe to do so- in this case, I did my best to safely stop but was intimdated by the vehicle approaching at an accelerated rate behind me, hence, why I proceeded.

I don't even have to read the act from Saskatchewan to know you've read this wrong.

Saskman wrote:And folks, if the officer was so confident that I didn't safely stop for the 2nd alleged infraction, why did the officer breeze thru the intersection at no less then 30km/hr without making any verification there were no vehicles coming- assuming he believed that I did not safely scope it out?

This argument is going to get you nowhere fast.

I agree with Bend---you have not only interpreted the law wrong, but the video speaks for itself that you didn't stop (and the officer was no risk to you).

Re-read section 40(4)(a) of the HTA (Sask).

40(4) The driver of a vehicle shall bring the vehicle to a stop:

(a) at every place where a stop sign is erected...

then, subsection 6

40(6) No person who is required to stop pursuant to subsection (4) or (5) shall proceed until it is safe to do so.

and then finally, the definition of "stop" as per section 2(1)(dd):

"stop" means:

(i) when required, a complete cessation from movement; and

(ii) when prohibited, any stopping, even momentarily, of a vehicle,

whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with

other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or a

traffic-control signal.

This is where you seem to think that stopping at stop sign is merely "prohibited"---its not, its "required"---thus the definition of stop s.2(1)(dd)(i) applies to you. Section 40(6) requires you to not proceed until it is safe to do so.

So, your arguments have no merit.

As for the video, its pretty clear that you made no attempt to stop on the first stop sign---there is not even a slowing down of the vehicle and no loss of sight of it. The latter portion (at the next stop sign) simply clarifies your identity to proceed on the first infraction (if they wanted to). But, the second intersection also shows the same thing----your wheels never stop. The officer is also quite a safe distance from you. So, bottom line: I think the entire sequence (both intersections) will sink you.

I would take a deal, if they offer one. As for the charges, they could proceed on both (and get convictions on both), but they'll likely just proceed on the last intersection since there is no denying who you are at that point (no ID issues!).

highwaystar wrote:I agree with Bend---you have not only interpreted the law wrong, but the video speaks for itself that you didn't stop (and the officer was no risk to you).

Re-read section 40(4)(a) of the HTA (Sask).

40(4) The driver of a vehicle shall bring the vehicle to a stop:

(a) at every place where a stop sign is erected...

then, subsection 6

40(6) No person who is required to stop pursuant to subsection (4) or (5) shall proceed until it is safe to do so.

and then finally, the definition of "stop" as per section 2(1)(dd):

"stop" means:

(i) when required, a complete cessation from movement; and

(ii) when prohibited, any stopping, even momentarily, of a vehicle,

whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with

other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or a

traffic-control signal.

The traffic acts are a carbon copy of each other, that's exactly what the Saskatchewan Act says also.

However the officer's video is grainy and it has a poor frames per second issue in the dark.

If you look at the other lights in the video, many appear to be blinking and expanding; some appear to be even moving when the officer is turning.

Have you considered the poor quality of footage, with the poor night time ISO, not adequately capable of recording video with competency at night.

Even in the first video, you can see my brake lights activate. At that intersection, the stop sign is a significant ways back.

In the video, the vehicles appearing in it are going at difference rates, due to the lighting bothering the camera.

highwaystar wrote:

This is where you seem to think that stopping at stop sign is merely "prohibited"---its not, its "required"---thus the definition of stop s.2(1)(dd)(i) applies to you. Section 40(6) requires you to not proceed until it is safe to do so.

So, your arguments have no merit.

If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer dwell upon my dilligence to scope out the intersection? The officer made no attempt to stop at the intersection. I had my stop lights on for around 10 seconds, which is evidence of stopping in my opinion. The officer's cruiser accelerates towards mine while my brake lights were on, intimidating my vehicle, which is now under the assumption there is a dangerous driver behind me.

If it wasn't safe to proceed- why did the officer, who didn't even yield whatsoever to traffic?

Do you think that's an argument?

highwaystar wrote:

As for the video, its pretty clear that you made no attempt to stop on the first stop sign---there is not even a slowing down of the vehicle and no loss of sight of it. The latter portion (at the next stop sign) simply clarifies your identity to proceed on the first infraction (if they wanted to). But, the second intersection also shows the same thing----your wheels never stop. The officer is also quite a safe distance from you. So, bottom line: I think the entire sequence (both intersections) will sink you.

They can proceed to try to get me on both with only one ticket issued?

Could I ask the judge to adjourn the hearing in order for me to retain a digital video professional (at the time of the hearing, due to new evidence given at the disclosure)?

Also, I have a feeling the crown will be the one to show the video and the police officer will not show up. If the police officer doesn't show up, could the charge be dismissed?

bend wrote:

You come barreling out of the side street with nothing close to a stop. Your car was not obstructed for a "couple seconds". You'd be lucky if it was obstructed for a single second. I think probable is being generous.

Could we say the officer's camera was too far back and only reflects lighting. If you review the other lighting in the video at that distance especially, such as the stars or lamposts, all appear to be flashing, expanding and enlarging, due to the cameras inabilities to process lighting under those conditions. Objects in the video appear to be moving at different rates, the frames per second go from choppy to less choppy, but there is no question that the lighting objects in the video are being falsely manipulated by the low quality cruiser camera. Even higher end cameras have difficulty taking clear pictures at night without changing the ISO settings and using a tripod to remain still.

Do you see any way to lessen the credibility of the evidence in the first allegation?

bend wrote:

I don't think it clearly indicates that at all, but that's just me.

If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer dwell upon my diligence to scope out the intersection? The officer made no attempt to stop at the intersection. I had my stop lights on for around 10 seconds, which is evidence of stopping in my opinion. The officer's cruiser accelerates towards mine while my brake lights were on, intimidating my vehicle, which is now under the assumption there is a dangerous driver behind me.

If it wasn't safe to proceed- why did the officer, who didn't even yield whatsoever to traffic?

Do you think that's an argument?

bend wrote:

I don't see it. If anything, it shows the officer keeping a safe distance while pursuing a vehicle at the same time. In my opinion, you're grasping.

If you look closely in the video, you can notice the officer accelerates towards mine. Counting 10 seconds, my brake lights were on. The officer dwelled upon my verification that the intersection was clear, if not, why did he proceed without stopping or even yielding? His lights came on- to identify his vehicle as police unit- at the time of being in the intersection, not exactly a safe deterrent to oncoming traffic, assuming the officer believed my vehicle proceeded when it was not safe to do so?

If you thought a vehicle behind you, at night, was approaching you at a quick rate and may not stop in time, would you proceed or remain? Its clear that my vehicle had made a strong intention to stop, having the brake lights on for 10 seconds and ensuring traffic was clear, do you contest that?

bend wrote:

I don't even have to read the act from Saskatchewan to know you've read this wrong.

HighwayStar below posted from the Ontario Traffic Act, which is worded the same.

bend wrote:

This argument is going to get you nowhere fast.

How do you feel that my argument re the officer cruising thru the intersection without yielding, after my vehicle made intention to stop is useless?

Does a 10 second brake light mean nothing? If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer, who did so without yielding or stopping?

And guys, one more things.

Here is the non legible ticket I was issued, detailing or summarising the offense. Can you read it, cause I can only read bits and pieces (and I love reading, and writing!)

Do you think my intention of forcing the officer to translate this in court (assuming he shows up, I hope he doesn't- but if he does) is a good idea that will work?

If he does show up and reads this, I would like to adjourn the trial to a later date, based on new evidence (the summary of what he charged me with!)

I don't see how this can justly be denied, given it's impossible to read his handwriting, which is imperative for the trial.

Saskman wrote:

However the officer's video is grainy and it has a poor frames per second issue in the dark.

If you look at the other lights in the video, many appear to be blinking and expanding; some appear to be even moving when the officer is turning.

Have you considered the poor quality of footage, with the poor night time ISO, not adequately capable of recording video with competency at night.

Even in the first video, you can see my brake lights activate. At that intersection, the stop sign is a significant ways back.

In the video, the vehicles appearing in it are going at difference rates, due to the lighting bothering the camera.

You were not charged based on the video evidence. The video evidence is just extra.

Saskman wrote:If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer dwell upon my dilligence to scope out the intersection? The officer made no attempt to stop at the intersection. I had my stop lights on for around 10 seconds, which is evidence of stopping in my opinion. The officer's cruiser accelerates towards mine while my brake lights were on, intimidating my vehicle, which is now under the assumption there is a dangerous driver behind me.

Having your brake lights on isn't evidence of stopping and they weren't on for around 10 seconds. They were barely on for 5, not that it matters.

Saskman wrote:If it wasn't safe to proceed- why did the officer, who didn't even yield whatsoever to traffic?

Lets pretend that this was a valid argument for a second. How does the officers failure to stop cancel out yours?

Saskman wrote: Could we say the officer's camera was too far back and only reflects lighting. If you review the other lighting in the video at that distance especially, such as the stars or lamposts, all appear to be flashing, expanding and enlarging, due to the cameras inabilities to process lighting under those conditions. Objects in the video appear to be moving at different rates, the frames per second go from choppy to less choppy, but there is no question that the lighting objects in the video are being falsely manipulated by the low quality cruiser camera. Even higher end cameras have difficulty taking clear pictures at night without changing the ISO settings and using a tripod to remain still.

Again, you were not charged based on the video evidence. The video evidence is just extra.

Saskman wrote:

How do you feel that my argument re the officer cruising thru the intersection without yielding, after my vehicle made intention to stop is useless?

Does a 10 second brake light mean nothing? If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer, who did so without yielding or stopping?

Does any of that prove you stopped?

bend wrote:

You were not charged based on the video evidence. The video evidence is just extra.

True, but without the video evidence, the officer lacks the competency to determine that my vehicle came to an adequate stop.

It was the darkest of nights.

bend wrote:

Having your brake lights on isn't evidence of stopping and they weren't on for around 10 seconds. They were barely on for 5, not that it matters.

True, I actually miscalculated. They were on for five seconds, which is a sufficient duration required to come to a stop?

Brake lights are evidence of an attempt to reduce or cease kinetic motion. Can you, without a doubt, verify that my vehicle didn't stop for the slightest of a second?

Honestly, I've watched this 100x and I cannot.

bend wrote:

Lets pretend that this was a valid argument for a second. How does the officers failure to stop cancel out yours?

Well I would say that if the officer failed to stop, as he did, not even yielding whatsoever, he would have endangered public safety.

My question to the officer, "would you endanger public safety to stop a motor vehicle that you felt engaged in a rolling stop?"

If the officer wasn't convinced I stopped, then did he knowingly endanger public safety by not stopping himself?

Or did he sufficiently believe that my vehicle safely proceeded?

Basically, my argument here is to insinuate, that the officer believes I adequately stopped sufficiently to safely proceed.

Saskman wrote:

How do you feel that my argument re the officer cruising thru the intersection without yielding, after my vehicle made intention to stop is useless?

Does a 10 second brake light mean nothing? If it wasn't safe to proceed, why did the officer, who did so without yielding or stopping?

bend wrote:

Does any of that prove you stopped?

Well it doesn't "prove" I stopped, but it either proves that the officer believes I did safely stop my vehicle to an extent that it was safe to proceed, or he himself put other motor vehicles at risk by failing to stop and rather activate his lights to pull my vehicle over.

His video does not prove I didn't stop for the slightest of a second, 5 seconds of braking shows an intention to cease movement. Of course I understand your side, the argument in favor or against, on the 2nd infraction could potentially go either way. Failure to stop carries a levy of 4 demerit points, is the slightest of doubt, or a near completion of a stop, worthy of being given a whopping 4-demerit points to an otherwise, flawless, driver, who has never had any infraction in his driving career?

But again, my argument, assuming it gets to an actual trial-trial, would be I quickly proceeded due to a quickly oncoming vehicle behind me.

Bend, can you tell me what you think of my poor ticket handwriting photo. This is a summary against me, yet I cannot determine without question, exactly what it says. My trial is set for Jan 19th, but I intend to request the ticketing officer identify his writing and translate it. Upon him doing this, assuming he shows up, I intend to ask the judge to adjourn the hearing based on "new disclosure" as the statement being properly translated into mainstream legible English handwriting, would be tantamount to.

I want to prevent this from getting to an actual trial. Do you think I have a convincing argument for this? I'm hoping to deter the crown or an absence of the ticketing officer.

I believe the crown is so confident, that he believes he "scared" me from proceeding to trial, when he released the CD-rom containing the video footage at the police station when I went to pick up the disclosure. I would prefer to have the ticket dismissed or reduced based on the crown or court wishing to complete the matter without further delay in costs or time, I would like to deter them from pursuing and would be willing to make a plea deal to a non-demerit point offense. If I could do this based on a technicality, that would be ideal.

First off,I posted sections of the Sask. HTA; not the Ontario one. The Ont. HTA is very different in structure, style, wording, and detail. Its far from a carbon copy!!!

Secondly, if the officer doesn't show, the prosecutor can't proceed. They would be unable to ID you as the driver and the video would not be able to be authenticated (and so, inadmissable).

As for the officer proceeding through the stop, he could--he was in pursiut of you and it was safe to do. The question is not whether it was safe to proceed---that's not what you are being charged with---rather, its whether you stopped (i.e. a cessation of movement as per the definition of stopping). You clearly did not.

Its irrelevant if your brake lights are on or not---all that matters is whether you stopped, which NEVER occurred. Even your own argument is going to be proving that you didn't stop (out of fear of getting rear-ended). Not only are you helping the prosecutor by admitting you didn't stop but then you have to find out if the charge is absolute liability (in which case your argument is useless) or whether its strict liability (in which case I don't think you'll be able to satisfy the due-diligence defence with your argument).

highwaystar wrote:

Secondly, if the officer doesn't show, the prosecutor can't proceed. They would be unable to ID you as the driver and the video would not be able to be authenticated (and so, inadmissable).

Well I live in a small town, unfortunately, courthouse is right beside the police station.

However I'm hoping that the police discourage their officers from attending court, or encourages the crown to minimize court expenditures by making deals.

Each court appearance is 4 hours in pay, a hefty amount for a small town.

Assuming he does show up, what do you think about my adjournment request in regards to the non-legible handwriting on the ticket (summary section?)

highwaystar wrote:

As for the officer proceeding through the stop, he could--he was in pursiut of you and it was safe to do. The question is not whether it was safe to proceed---that's not what you are being charged with---rather, its whether you stopped (i.e. a cessation of movement as per the definition of stopping). You clearly did not.

How could he competently determine whether it was safe to do so? Did he trust my judgement?

My likely argument will be that my vehicle 99% stopped, but quickly accelerated due to fear of being hit from behind.

highwaystar wrote:

Even your own argument is going to be proving that you didn't stop (out of fear of getting rear-ended). Not only are you helping the prosecutor by admitting you didn't stop but then you have to find out if the charge is absolute liability (in which case your argument is useless) or whether its strict liability (in which case I don't think you'll be able to satisfy the due-diligence defence with your argument).

I'm not going to use two different arguments, I'm merely trying to get your opinion on which is the better defense.

Can you please let me know about my plan for adjourning the trial, based on new disclosure, with hopes the court will seek to deter that and lessen the ticket?

Hey folks. Sick me yet? I enjoy the replies and I hope they keep coming.

I used the resources on this awesome forum and our SaskLawCourts website to decide on my next step, additional disclosure.

I requested disclosure on the same day of the 1st appearance, Nov. 9th. It wasn't until January 6th I received it, the court case is Jan 19th.

Upon receiving the disclosure, I've been left with more questions then answers. Hence, the additional disclosure.

What do you all think of it??? Any feedback??? Thanks

In regards to the charge above, and with respect to the guidelines established by the R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 (SCC) and subsequent cases, I request that you provide me with all relevant information so that I can prepare a defence, and make full answer, to the charge mentioned above. Without limiting this request, I specifically ask that you include:

* A typed copy of the "details of offence" section on the ticket. Current detail of offence section, which is hand written by ticketing officer is not legible

* There are abbreviations involved in the "details of offence" section, please define full meanings

* A copy of the manual for the dash cam used on the police cruiser, including the specs and camera capabilities, as well as any other relevant information

* A copy of the dash cam footage recorded showing actual date and time as a sub section

* A copy of any previous malfunction reports or operation issues with dash cam

* An elaboration of the meaning of "equipment problems" regarding dash cam footage as handwritten in black marker on the CD-Rom package on initial disclosure.

I also request that you inform me of any information that is not being disclosed, with an explanation for such. If you require further information from me or have any questions regarding my request, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please notify me either by phone or e-mail when my request for additional disclosure has been complete, alternatively, you may send the additional disclosure to my address listed below.

Thank you.