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?
Am really confused about this one, this morning i got a reduced speeding ticket (80km speed in 60 zone), and in the ticket the cop wrote 10km over the speeding limit.. and it has the 'R' code in it.. and the cop said i need to pay this and it doesn't have any points on it..
im fine with paying the ticket which is only 40 dollars but my biggest concern, will it show in my record ? or only tickets…
I got a ticket for driving with handheld device in Oct 2015 and I had requested for a trial. Yesterday I received the notice of trial (notice is dated 26-Jan-2017, court of trial is Newmarket, ON) and trial date is Mar 8, 2017. Today, I have sent in a registered request for disclosure (i.e on 29-Jan-2017).
Need some help here for the 1st time speeding ticket?
Sunday morning 12:10am when I was going home from work I was doing bit speeding on Gardiner. I was going with about 130km/h. I know its fast. I always take the same way and I know where the cops hide. They always hide entrance of the highways. If I will do speeding I always look my back and did look this time too. I took gardiner…
I just have a question in regards to the summons Under Part 1 I received for an rear end accident:
I was driving on the 2 lane road, and the car in front of me suddenly stopped, I had seen the car, and so I started to brake, however I heard noise from the back and looked int o the rear view mirror and saw a huge "truck" so I decided to go right, took the feet out of brakes but couldnt…
I have searched and I know the general rule is no, barring criminal charges or tresspassing. So let me use 2 specific issues I have.
1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can…
In June at 401 London and Wellington I got hit twice, speeding which I didn't realize I was doing and cell phone. The Officer made me open my purse and show him my phone. I was going to meet a Rep of my Company in Kitchener, he called I answered. WRONG! The Officer wasn't even nice. My record was clean and he slapped me twice. I sat in the car and sobbed for 20 minutes as I was scared out of…
I wanted to "reply" elsewhere...but the more appropriate areas were "locked" to replies....so, here are a couple of questions...from a newbie to this site:
1. Who ARE you? (I'm a little edgy about conversing on a forum whose ownership is not stated anywhere on an "About" page") No offense intended whatsoever. Just like to know who I'm talking with/in front of.......your honor!
You are coming off of a highway exit and there are 3 lanes: right hand lane for right hand turn; middle lane for left AND right turn (but no straight thru since it is only a three-way intersection); and left lane for left hand turn. You are first in the middle lane, signalling to make a right.
CAN YOU make a right hand turn from the middle lane on a red if the traffic is clear?
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Hello! I'm under 16 currently and really want to drive. I know that section 37(1) says you have to be 16, but I've read that the HTA does not apply when you are in private property, so does that mean I can drive in a parking lot if I wanted to?
I was heading northbound on my bike downtown on friday. After the east/westbound lights went red and after a long pause I decided to get a head start and proceed before the light changed to green. About a block north of me an officer stepped out of an unmarked cruiser and pulled me over and gave me a $180 ticket. Now I see on this site that I should have been given points for it..but…
Got a ticket Saturday for insecure load. The officer was a real jerk and unfair. I had nothing hanging out the sides and the load wasn't that high. Just taking some junk to the dump. I was doing 40 on Ashley St in Foxboro, 4 ways on taking my time and nothing was going to fall out. I'm thinking about fighting it. Anyone experienced this before?
So I got convicted of a dui.. I have been riding my bike in the snow and taking the bus. I am a driving enthusiast and I will be going to the race track all summer but I NEED to drive something right now!
I have done lots of research and even an electric assisted bike that a 16 year old can drive legally on the road is not an option to someone with a dui suspension.
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
So I was heading home to today and I was in the left lane of the off ramp, some lady cut across her lane of traffic and across the off ramp median and hit the back side of my car! After a few meters of bumping (I was dazed and confused) I stopped the car.
I call 911 and was told to move the car to the shoulder.
Cop comes, interviews both of us, and lets the lady go! The cop proceeds to give…
An undercover cop, well not sure if he was even a cop to be honest, maybe a constable pulled me over after I passed him shortly after a construction zone. He asked me if I was in a rush and said that he was going 105 and I was going 120. It seems mostly from our conversation that he was pissed off that I passed him, because he never told me that I was speeding. None the less the ticket says…
I got this ticket last year in toronto and received court date recently.
Basically I parket on a street where there are marked spots for car parking but they were all faded with only the white edges showing. I assumed I was in the correct spot when I got out. I never noticed the fire hydrant in the bushes.
When I returned I saw the ticket and then noticed the fire hydrant and when I to the…
I would like to know if anybody could tell me what "V" stands for on the Code section of the Form 4. I think that it will be useful to understand what information is on this form in order to make a decision on what option we should chose.
I recently received a ticket for red light fail to stop under section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act at the intersection of Dupont St. and Dufferin St. in Toronto with a set fine of $150 and total payable of $190. I think I entered the intersection on a yellow, however that is not the way the officer saw it. During the traffic stop the officer was polite bordering on friendly…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
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. 
