Hi all, I got ticket this morning to disobey the Sign U turn. I was going down an airport road and took a U turn right before the Bresler drive and the undercovered officer pulled me over and gave $110 ticket. He put 09 in year field on the ticket. Is that for the plate# or the vehicle year? If it for vehicle, then it is wrong. I was reading through different forums and ticketcombat.com and learned that if there is a fatal error on the ticket, the case will be dismissed. What are my options to fight and defend the case? Thanks in advance for help
Hi all,
I got ticket this morning to disobey the Sign U turn. I was going down an airport road and took a U turn right before the Bresler drive and the undercovered officer pulled me over and gave $110 ticket. He put 09 in year field on the ticket. Is that for the plate# or the vehicle year? If it for vehicle, then it is wrong. I was reading through different forums and ticketcombat.com and learned that if there is a fatal error on the ticket, the case will be dismissed. What are my options to fight and defend the case?
Do I have to go to the same location as on the ticket or file a trial in any other location? Also, how are the chances of dismissal as I really don't want to pay fine and loose 2 demerit points. I am really worried about my insurance rate.
Do I have to go to the same location as on the ticket or file a trial in any other location? Also, how are the chances of dismissal as I really don't want to pay fine and loose 2 demerit points. I am really worried about my insurance rate.
Your best bet is to go through the process and see what technicalities are out there. That could include 11b, lack of disclosure, the cop not showing up etc etc etc. Check out the Ticket Combat site as it has a great primer. I wish I could lose demerits every time I get ticketed :D Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates. Unless you get nailed for something SERIOUS like going 49+km/h over the limit, careless driving, drunk driving, the insurance companies treat all convictions the same, regardless of the demerit points. That's why it usually doesn't pay off to accept a lesser charge (even if it doesn't carry demerits) after going through the trouble of showing up in court. And yes it is the location noted on the ticket. You can't have your Toronto West case heard in Sudbury.
Your best bet is to go through the process and see what technicalities are out there. That could include 11b, lack of disclosure, the cop not showing up etc etc etc. Check out the Ticket Combat site as it has a great primer.
I wish I could lose demerits every time I get ticketed Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates.
Unless you get nailed for something SERIOUS like going 49+km/h over the limit, careless driving, drunk driving, the insurance companies treat all convictions the same, regardless of the demerit points. That's why it usually doesn't pay off to accept a lesser charge (even if it doesn't carry demerits) after going through the trouble of showing up in court.
And yes it is the location noted on the ticket. You can't have your Toronto West case heard in Sudbury.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
I am posting an image to show exactly what happened. The cop was looking in the door mirror waiting 25meters ahead of me and as soon as I made a Turn and entered in the side street, he made a U turn and caught me on the side street. Looking at the image and the details of what happened, wht are my options?
I am posting an image to show exactly what happened.
The cop was looking in the door mirror waiting 25meters ahead of me and as soon as I made a Turn and entered in the side street, he made a U turn and caught me on the side street.
Looking at the image and the details of what happened, wht are my options?
From your diagram it looks like you made a big left turn. A u-turn is You originally posted that you made a u turn. Did you? Did you completely reverse your direction of travel or did you make a wide coat hanger left turn? This makes all the difference. And it also looks like you can turn left into that parking lot which is not prohibited (unless there's a sign). If you made the u turn farther ahead, went back and then made a right hand turn, that would be prohibited. But if you made a wide left turn, that is not illegal.
From your diagram it looks like you made a big left turn. A u-turn is
a turn, made by a vehicle, in the shape of a U, resulting in a reversal of direction.
You originally posted that you made a u turn. Did you? Did you completely reverse your direction of travel or did you make a wide coat hanger left turn? This makes all the difference.
And it also looks like you can turn left into that parking lot which is not prohibited (unless there's a sign). If you made the u turn farther ahead, went back and then made a right hand turn, that would be prohibited. But if you made a wide left turn, that is not illegal.
Thanks for your reply ticketcombat. You are right. I did not make a U-Turn. It was a wide left turn and at any point I was not in a reverse direction. I made a Left turn and entered in the parking lot. The cop was standing ahead of me observing everything in his door mirror. I am also sure that people always take that turn to enter the parking lot. If you can give me some wordings to fight, I will greatly appreciate. Thanks again.
Thanks for your reply ticketcombat. You are right. I did not make a U-Turn. It was a wide left turn and at any point I was not in a reverse direction. I made a Left turn and entered in the parking lot. The cop was standing ahead of me observing everything in his door mirror. I am also sure that people always take that turn to enter the parking lot.
If you can give me some wordings to fight, I will greatly appreciate.
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Unlike certain MPPs who want to change the law because of one accident or fatality? *************************************** Wilchris, I think your diagram and what I posted (the definition) should be more than enough to beat the ticket. Although it would be fun to cross-examine the cop and then have him read a definition of "u turn" from a dictionary, you should take the higher road. Just monitor his testimony to make sure he doesn't say you reversed direction. Get him to state you went "around" the sign onto the parking lot. Then when it's your turn, show the diagram, testify as to what you did and read the definition. That should be enough. Good luck and good fight!
hwybear wrote:
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
Unlike certain MPPs who want to change the law because of one accident or fatality?
***************************************
Wilchris, I think your diagram and what I posted (the definition) should be more than enough to beat the ticket. Although it would be fun to cross-examine the cop and then have him read a definition of "u turn" from a dictionary, you should take the higher road.
Just monitor his testimony to make sure he doesn't say you reversed direction. Get him to state you went "around" the sign onto the parking lot.
Then when it's your turn, show the diagram, testify as to what you did and read the definition. That should be enough.
Yeah, Mississauga and Brampton don't let the grass grow under their feet on many different levels... Toronto is the opposite... on many... yeah that's what we get for voting in David Miller. :evil: Anyway you've got a good chance of beating this at trial. You didn't commit the offence as charged. You've got a good diagram of what you did. Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence. TC already gave you a good foundation to fight it and he knows more than I do, so no point in repeating that. Even better: Go back to Airport Road, park in the parking lot with your camera, and take photographs of people making the same turn. :shock: That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You didn't disobey the sign and you should not have a hard time convincing the JP of that. By the way has your disclosure package been made available to you yet?
Yeah, Mississauga and Brampton don't let the grass grow under their feet on many different levels... Toronto is the opposite... on many... yeah that's what we get for voting in David Miller.
Anyway you've got a good chance of beating this at trial. You didn't commit the offence as charged. You've got a good diagram of what you did. Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence. TC already gave you a good foundation to fight it and he knows more than I do, so no point in repeating that. Even better: Go back to Airport Road, park in the parking lot with your camera, and take photographs of people making the same turn. That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You didn't disobey the sign and you should not have a hard time convincing the JP of that.
By the way has your disclosure package been made available to you yet?
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
Radar Identified wrote:
Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc. On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
hwybear wrote:
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc.
On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc. On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed? - time/date must be the same as offence date as person can not prove things were identical on another date (even growth of vegetation changes daily, etc.) - photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program - qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training) Basically all the same things defences have hammered on police for years, working in reverse against the defence.
Radar Identified wrote:
hwybear wrote:
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc.
On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
- time/date must be the same as offence date as person can not prove things were identical on another date (even growth of vegetation changes daily, etc.)
- photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program
- qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
Basically all the same things defences have hammered on police for years, working in reverse against the defence.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Hmm... that's interesting. Will add that to the "checklist." :D Only issues I've seen here in T-dot are: - Photo is trying to show sign/view was "obscured" by something other than a building or permanent fixture; - Photo is trying to show road conditions caused by weather (it was snowy, wet, etc) but the photo was not taken almost immediately at scene of the offence; - Defendant did not have originals (if using old roll film) or did not have the camera with data card and originals on the data card to verify no tampering had occurred; - Photographer was not present in courtoom. That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.) :shock:
Hmm... that's interesting.
hwybear wrote:
- photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program
Will add that to the "checklist."
Only issues I've seen here in T-dot are:
- Photo is trying to show sign/view was "obscured" by something other than a building or permanent fixture;
- Photo is trying to show road conditions caused by weather (it was snowy, wet, etc) but the photo was not taken almost immediately at scene of the offence;
- Defendant did not have originals (if using old roll film) or did not have the camera with data card and originals on the data card to verify no tampering had occurred;
- Photographer was not present in courtoom.
hwybear wrote:
qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.)
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.) :shock: I can not use a simple point an shoot digital camera and enter it as evidence. JP will not accept that I am not trained to use a camera for taking pictures of a crash. I would have to call out a officer trained in the use of a camera. Our prosecutor takes the same stance towards defence and it works. We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court. All this makes no sense when digital will imprint date/time....but arguement is ability to distort the digital images with a photoshop program.
Radar Identified wrote:
hwybear wrote:
qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.)
I can not use a simple point an shoot digital camera and enter it as evidence. JP will not accept that I am not trained to use a camera for taking pictures of a crash. I would have to call out a officer trained in the use of a camera. Our prosecutor takes the same stance towards defence and it works.
We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court. All this makes no sense when digital will imprint date/time....but arguement is ability to distort the digital images with a photoshop program.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Would be $6 well spent. (Note to self: Carry $6 35mm camera next time driving through Chatham. :) Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. :shock: )
hwybear wrote:
We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court.
Would be $6 well spent. (Note to self: Carry $6 35mm camera next time driving through Chatham. Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. )
I am bit confused now. I have the photos of the location taken from different angles by a professional photographer named Bill Knudsen (link= ://buytelescopes.com/imagegallery.aspx?c=16193) but by no means there is a date and time stamp on it. He shoot them and copied over to his hard disk and gave it to me. Can I make a CD of it as a raw data? Disclosure is yet to be received.
I am bit confused now. I have the photos of the location taken from different angles by a professional photographer named Bill Knudsen (link= ://buytelescopes.com/imagegallery.aspx?c=16193) but by no means there is a date and time stamp on it. He shoot them and copied over to his hard disk and gave it to me. Can I make a CD of it as a raw data? Disclosure is yet to be received.
Well, today was my date and I got adjournment for not providing me a disclosure. So it is now set to November10. However, the prosecutor and cop gave me a copy of Cop's notes and said that he gave me a disclosure. It is just few lines about the incident. Is it called a disclosure? Shouldn't I get something more in more details? Very perplexed what to do?
Well, today was my date and I got adjournment for not providing me a disclosure. So it is now set to November10. However, the prosecutor and cop gave me a copy of Cop's notes and said that he gave me a disclosure. It is just few lines about the incident. Is it called a disclosure? Shouldn't I get something more in more details?
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates.
That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested.
Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. 
