OHTA.ca

Driving on the highway this past weekend, was pulled over right before my exit by an unmarked car. I pulled over immediately when his lights went on. Cop says I was stopped for not wearing a seatbelt while I was driving (I can confirm that it was fastened when he was at my window, but I can't confirm whether it was fastened before that...). He asks for my licence which was at home with my wallet. Takes my name and DOB and comes back with a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt but a warning for not having a licence. Should I plead guilty to a lesser charge? If I fight it, can the court then charge me for not having my licence with me?

Request a trial, don't plead guilty.

You can't get charged for the "warning".

How did he possibly see that you didn't wear your seatbelt when you were driving 100km/h (im sure you were going faster) on the highway?

t3ch9 wrote:

How did he possibly see that you didn't wear your seatbelt when you were driving 100km/h (im sure you were going faster) on the highway?

He could have followed from behind, looked though the back window, and took note of the position of the belt on the pillar. In that case, speed is irrelevant whether it's 30km or 100km.

If you're looking for answers, they'll usually be found in a disclosure request.

t3ch9 wrote:You can't get charged for the "warning".

It's highly unlikely, but if an officer wants, they have 6 months to issue a Part III summons. Like I said, highly unlikely, but it is possible.

I know this is kind of out of topic, but I'm just curious because I never got a ticket for no seatbelt before, mostly because of the annoying beep noise my car makes when you don't have a seatbelt on.

If you get pulled over for a seatbelt ticket, does the police officer have to provide any sort of evidence in court that you didn't have your seatbelt on? Or is their word of mouth enough to get you charged for it?

The officer just has to witness it. If you're asking whether or not he'd have to provide photos or video, the answer is no (unless it's available). He'll likely recount what he saw and that's about it. The same could be said for most tickets discussed here.

Officers notes are what he will testify, and what he testifies is considered all the evidence that is needed.

So if officers notes say something like he saw you drive by and that you did not have your seatbelt on, then that is what he will testify and that will be enough to get you convicted UNLESS you can bring reasonable doubt to that testimony.

How do you bring reasonable doubt? One way is to cross examine the officer and get them to admit that perhaps they did not see it very well. Another way would be to testify yourself that you did have your belt on. But if it is just your word against the officers word then they will most likely believe the officer. Unless there was somebody else in the vehicle with you that would also testify that you had your seat belt on... in a case where TWO people testify to something different than the officer, then they will usually believe the two testimonies over the officers.

Different province ... atlantic canada ...

Stopped / ticketed for no seatbelt ... 2-3 blocks from my house, still in residential area, vehicle speed 20-30kph.

I decided to not pay ticket and take my chances in court .. in that province you can make that selection on the ticket itself and mail it in.

Was having some problem with leg for approx 2 weeks earlier, and still had that problem at time of ticket. I usually had to readjust my position in seat for comfort reasons, often enough, and did unclip seatbelt when doing that. Not sure if that's what happened on the day of ticket, but since I never drive without a seatbelt on typically ... that would be a plausible thing.

There was no way to challenge officer on whether he did indeed see seatbelt not in use ... I drifted by him when he was outside his car, another two feet closer he could reached in clipped the seatbelt in Doubt officers would issue that ticket if there was any significant doubt.

On initial court date, spoke with prosecutor first as is typical for this stuff I believe. Told him the same story above ... He decided to let it slide. I did also mention the likely insurance increase because of the ticket, and thought that was an excessive consequence for the incident. I was ready to go to court, that day or other, on my own. I think the prosecutor understood that.

Same explanation was given to the officer ... but he mentioned a zero tolerance policy ... so off to court we went. Still costs me money to go to court.

I think you should contest the ticket ...

If you go the route of challenging the officers opinion, you will have to win on that basis ... or you could try your luck on the prosecutor letting it slide. If you go the route of "prosecutor letting it slide", keep in mind they hear BS all day. Most often they already decided what they are willing to do, before they hear your story, it would take a lot to sway them differently. If they are inclined to let it slide, being overly disrespectful, argumentative, or trying to sell obvious BS, just makes them less inclined.