“Speeding 141 - Sep 3 Court Date (adjourned From June 4)”

hey guys,

First off, the most similar case and HELPFUL thread has y far come from neo333: a great read and very similar and relevant to my case and of course ticketcombat.com

I'll cole's notes this so that it can be concise and can recap my experience with disclosure, notes and failed stay request and adjourned court date. Thank you for reading and leaving your opinion.

Feb 13 - Pulled over and issued ticket for Speeding, 141 going NB on 416 (towards Ottawa), filed for trial date, received it to be May 12th, 2009 (changed to June 4th 2009 because of JP unavailable on original date).

Filed for 1st Disclosure - March 3rd

Asked for:

- Full copy of officer's notes

- Copy of both sides of the officer's copy of the ticket (notice of offense)

- Typed version of any hand written notes

- witness statements;

- any statements made by the defendant

- copies of the original notes of such states

- the names and address occupation and criminal record of the persons providing such information

Recieved the following March 26th: Photocopy of hand written notes, and my driver's abstract.

- The hand written notes have the following errors: Officer tested before/after (fine)

- HOWEVER: Officer listed model of LIDAR: Laser Atlanta Speed Laser L (Laser Atlanta has confirmed to me that the Model L of the speed laser is a model that doesn't exist)

- Wrote that a pack of cars were going at high rate of speed (135-137) and that my car was the one he stopped at Rear.

- Wrote my vehicle was GREEN when my car is BLACK

FILED for additional disclosure request on MAY 12th:

Asking for:

1. Specifics of the laser unit, owners manual and operating instructions

2. Officer's Training Record specific to said laser unit

3. Repair history of the unit

4. Official procedure for laser equipment testing and operator training standards.

5. Officer's hand written notes because they are unreadable.

With 14 days to go, I filed a STAY application based on non-disclosure because I clearly wasn't getting my disclosure and thus I wouldn't be prepared for trial.

Here is what ensued (wow it sucked):

- Prosecutor tries to make me a deal, twice and claimed to me that he NEVER ASKS his officers to TYPE their notes, never!

- When my name is called, the prosecutor first gives the JP the officer's notes and says they ARE READABLE.

- JP says to me "It's a speeding charge, stop playing games."

- I reply "officer the notes are unreadable and I cannot fully answer or properly defend myself"

- JP says "maybe you should get some glasses?"

- Me: I filed an application for STAY your Worship

- JP says "Sit down, we'll examine it, after a few hours, snicker"

JP comes back and says "Did you do your research?"

- I say "Yes, I 've included case law and precedents there"

JP says: "You are not entitled to the radar manual, and based on case laws that I've decided on in the past, you need to do your research, come back on Sep 3"

After trial:

June 15 - I file disclosure request (citing R v. Egger, R v. O'Connor, R.v. Stinchcombe) for the following, they replied with this 10 days later:

Here's what I asked for, with the bolded text being their response:

1) Copy of both sides of the officer's copy of the ticket - Notes Only

2) Typed version of hand written notes NO

3) Make model and serial number of radar unit In notes

4) Training recrod specific to the laser unit Yes

5) Any repair history of unit (blank)

6) Official procedure for testing and operating laser equipment yes

Problems I find:

- They sent me an ADDITIONAL page of notes saying the laser was RETESTED after he ended his shift (meaning it complies with THIS CASE)

- They sent me the SPEED LASER guide not the SPEED LASER L guide (which is probably the same)

- My vehicle is the wrong colour in the notes.

Is that enough to discredit the officer? Or have I just been screwed by asking for disclosure again? My court date is in about 3 months.

Edit: Also, while the first page and last page of the disclosure is readable, the most important page, the one dealing with the pull over of MY vehicle is VERY unreadable, I'll scan and post a picture of this to see if you can translate ALL of it, thanks guys.

EDIT: I will be filing an additional disclosure request, what case laws can I cite so that I get the following:

- Typed notes

- ANYTHING that can cause non disclosure and stone wall them. What haven't I asked for that I should be asking for?

THANKS again and I look forward to your advice.

m4gician wrote:JP says: "You are not entitled to the radar manual, and based on case laws that I've decided on in the past, you need to do your research, come back on Sep 3"

Most JPs have not been to law school, obviously this one hasn't either and hasn't done his research, either. Many people on this forum are more familiar with case law and precedent than a few JPs. Defendants are absolutely entitled to manuals of the speed-measuring device where it pertains to things like the operation, testing procedures and reliability of the device.

m4gician wrote:Is that enough to discredit the officer? Or have I just been screwed by asking for disclosure again? My court date is in about 3 months.

Probably not enough to discredit the officer. Green/black - only introduces some doubt but not really that much. The JP probably ruled that the adjournment was asked for by you so technically the clock stopped ticking on an 11b (unreasonable delay) application.

By the way did the JP ever bother to explain why he was telling you that you needed to "do your research," or did he just throw that out there? Did he also examine the "unreadable" notes himself or did he also just throw out the comment "maybe you should get some glasses"? Side note: Write down everything the JP said.

Radar Identified wrote:

m4gician wrote:JP says: "You are not entitled to the radar manual, and based on case laws that I've decided on in the past, you need to do your research, come back on Sep 3"

Most JPs have not been to law school, obviously this one hasn't either and hasn't done his research, either. Many people on this forum are more familiar with case law and precedent than a few JPs. Defendants are absolutely entitled to manuals of the speed-measuring device where it pertains to things like the operation, testing procedures and reliability of the device. .

We are not allowed to give a "copy" of any part of a manual to anyone as it is a copyrighted. We have provided a manual at the court for someone to peruse thru if their so intent.

hwybear wrote:

We are not allowed to give a "copy" of any part of a manual to anyone as it is a copyrighted. We have provided a manual at the court for someone to peruse thru if their so intent.

What about the typed notes. How can I request that after a prosecutor has flat denied me them because he "doesn't ever ask for his officer to type notes"

m4gician wrote:

hwybear wrote:

We are not allowed to give a "copy" of any part of a manual to anyone as it is a copyrighted. We have provided a manual at the court for someone to peruse thru if their so intent.

What about the typed notes. How can I request that after a prosecutor has flat denied me them because he "doesn't ever ask for his officer to type notes"

Over 12years, I have never typed notes out for traffic offences....ever. Come to think of it, I have never been asked to type notes out for criminal court either

hwybear wrote:

m4gician wrote:

hwybear wrote:

We are not allowed to give a "copy" of any part of a manual to anyone as it is a copyrighted. We have provided a manual at the court for someone to peruse thru if their so intent.

What about the typed notes. How can I request that after a prosecutor has flat denied me them because he "doesn't ever ask for his officer to type notes"

Over 12years, I have never typed notes out for traffic offences....ever. Come to think of it, I have never been asked to type notes out for criminal court either

Thank you officer, your side story is helpful. But I really can't read and understand the shorthand and poor penmanship the officer used, especially in relation to the pull over of my vehicle.

hwybear wrote:We are not allowed to give a "copy" of any part of a manual to anyone as it is a copyrighted. We have provided a manual at the court for someone to peruse thru if their so intent.

Okay, but the JP in this case said "you are not entitled to the radar manual." Looks like he was going to deny him any access to the material when he should've ordered a stay. Crown could've said "hey I can't give you photocopies of the material due to copyright laws but you can come in and look at the manual," but they didn't do that. They gave him no disclosure or offers of it at all, initially anyway. JP was going against all kinds of Canada-wide precedent and rulings on disclosure of speed-measuring device manuals, such as:

It's irrelevant now; after the shenanigans in court, looks like he did get the manual.

As for typed notes... probably not going to get them.

Radar Identified wrote:

hwybear wrote:We are not allowed to give a "copy" of any part of a manual to anyone as it is a copyrighted. We have provided a manual at the court for someone to peruse thru if their so intent.

Okay, but the JP in this case said "you are not entitled to the radar manual." Looks like he was going to deny him any access to the material when he should've ordered a stay. Crown could've said "hey I can't give you photocopies of the material due to copyright laws but you can come in and look at the manual," but they didn't do that. They gave him no disclosure or offers of it at all, initially anyway. JP was going against all kinds of Canada-wide precedent and rulings on disclosure of speed-measuring device manuals, such as:

- R. v. Vanier 2005 - R. v. Bourget, 2007 - R. v. Robichaud, 2008

It's irrelevant now; after the shenanigans in court, looks like he did get the manual.

As for typed notes... probably not going to get them.

Thanks for the opinion. One thing I'd like to know is that the operating manual I received was generic: Speed Laser and does not specify it is for the Speed Laser L (which again, doesn't exist according to Laser Atlanta the manufacturer).

Can I pursue this angle? Or should I keep barraging for disclosure related to the speed measuring device?

Is there disclosure that would be useful to me that I haven't asked for yet? What would be the proper way to ask for it?

m4gician wrote:

Radar Identified wrote:

hwybear wrote:We are not allowed to give a "copy" of any part of a manual to anyone as it is a copyrighted. We have provided a manual at the court for someone to peruse thru if their so intent.

Okay, but the JP in this case said "you are not entitled to the radar manual." Looks like he was going to deny him any access to the material when he should've ordered a stay. Crown could've said "hey I can't give you photocopies of the material due to copyright laws but you can come in and look at the manual," but they didn't do that. They gave him no disclosure or offers of it at all, initially anyway. JP was going against all kinds of Canada-wide precedent and rulings on disclosure of speed-measuring device manuals, such as:

- R. v. Vanier 2005 - R. v. Bourget, 2007 - R. v. Robichaud, 2008

It's irrelevant now; after the shenanigans in court, looks like he did get the manual.

As for typed notes... probably not going to get them.

Thanks for the opinion. One thing I'd like to know is that the operating manual I received was generic: Speed Laser and does not specify it is for the Speed Laser L (which again, doesn't exist according to Laser Atlanta the manufacturer).

Can I pursue this angle? Or should I keep barraging for disclosure related to the speed measuring device?

Is there disclosure that would be useful to me that I haven't asked for yet? What would be the proper way to ask for it?

The manuals are pretty much the same across the board. All the testing procedures are almost exactly the same. You just need to read the manual for the Laser Atlanta....... If you find a hole, your path will shine........ooooooohhhhhhmmmmmm.

Reflections wrote:

The manuals are pretty much the same across the board. All the testing procedures are almost exactly the same. You just need to read the manual for the Laser Atlanta....... If you find a hole, your path will shine........ooooooohhhhhhmmmmmm.

Sorry, but to clarify you're saying that what they've sent me is sufficient in terms of laser testing and calibration procedure? How can I know that this is model specific?

Also, my issue with the model not existing as written in the officer's notes, is that something I can pursue in court after creating doubt by having the officer wrongly describe my vehicle's colour?

And based on Neo's post as well as the replies above, I should be asking for will say statements, I will do that. It doesn't appear I will get a typed version of the notes and I'll have to get the JP to order them. However, the JP says he finds them readable so that won't happen as he has that "i hate punk kids" attitude.

I think my avenue in persuing the "officer wrote down testing model number doesn't exist" is basically going by the fact that if he wrote down and is adament that he did test a speed measuring device,

he did not officially test the one he used to nab me. Therefore making it impossible for him to have measured my device accurately as he has testified to the fact that his notes are accurate and credible.

At trial based on any further will-say statements I get, I'll try to discredit the officer by:

- Improperly describing my vehicle and number of occupants

- Citing that he believes his notes are accurate (hopefully he doesn't have an independent recollection of the event)

- Then bringing up that my vehicle is infact different from his description and that he used a device which officially doesn't exist.

That should be the avenue I should practice on during cross-examination. However, I'd like this trial quashed before that point.

Can non-disclosure be argued on:

- Not providing original ticket

- Not providing typed notes?

Also: for my evidence if I have to cross examine:

- Signed affidavit by JP certifying my claim as to the model of laser doesn't exist

- vehicle ownership with colour

Are those sufficient?

Do I need some sort of certification saying that I had a passenger in the vehicle? (if the officer says I didn't).

Hey guys,

First and foremost. I am attaching a picture of page 2 of 3 of my disclosure of notes. I can't read it, but numerous attempts to get typed notes from prosecutor have been denied, as well as the JP insulting me telling me that they are readable and that I need glasses.

About me: I have 20/20 vision, training as a security officer (therefore I know how to write and read notes written in a notebook like this).

However, the shorthand is unreadable and this part basically pertains to the pulling over my of vehicle.

For my OWN protection I've blacked out the officers information as well as my own personal infromation aside from the vehicle I was driving and it's colour.

m4gician wrote:However, the shorthand is unreadable and this part basically pertains to the pulling over my of vehicle.

I can easily read all that ...that is actually very legible compared to some notes i have seen

hwybear wrote:

m4gician wrote:However, the shorthand is unreadable and this part basically pertains to the pulling over my of vehicle.

I can easily read all that ...that is actually very legible compared to some notes i have seen

Hi officer, would you be willing to translate and PM that to me? Being an officer, you'd probably understand more than what us normal folk think (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/show ... p?t=757721).

****inside brackets is my adding and may not be correct****

2003hrs, Stationary Hwy 416 northbound,

south of 20 (cross road or km marker....I don't know the area, but it is a cross reference on Hwy 416)

observe a pack of vehicles north bound at high rate of speed

several vehicles registered 135-137 (km/hr)

at rear of pack, lane #1, observe vehicle at high rate of speed

vehicle registered 141, 140, (km/hr)

last (reading) 141(km/hr) at 525.86m (metres)

pulled vehicle #1 over

without sight lost, driver #1 said

he was just keeping up with traffic

Driver # 1

male, Woodbridge, Ontario

Drivers Licence #

Vehicle #1, 2003 green

Volvo

Driver #1 Passenger #1 female

10-60 (driver criminal record check) (female not checked)

141-100 141