OHTA.ca

i have some questions , hopefully one of you can help me out!

i recieved a ticket in brampton ontario for speeding 64km/hr in a posted 40 km/hr zone.(school zone). on my motorcycle.

ok first off i have faught a few tickets myself and although i have had varied success, i cant seem to accept the maxim "the man who represents himself has a fool for a client"... i guess i get some kind of satisfaction in challenging these tickets myself.

in preparing my defense these are my questions;

1) does anyone have case law or information on lidar errors with regards to determining the speed of a motorcycle?

i.e. if the laser was pointed at the front wheel which is of course spinning, would this create an erronous reading? ,any defense with regards to the physical size of a motorcycle compared to a car?

in one of my previous trials the officer clearly stated in his notes that he aimed the device at the HEADLIGHT of my motorcycle, which indicates to me that there must be something either in case law or in the officers training which would prompt him to be so specific about a motorcycle.

in my current case the officer does not disclose what part of the motorcycle he aimed the device at, so if i questioned him about where he aimed the device and he comes up with an answer can i object to that being used as evidence because he didnt put it in his notes?

2) my girlfriend was actually behind me when i was pulled over and she stopped too, (she is a paralegal although she doesnt know about the HTA) she talked to the officer and was kind of hot headed about it, she identified herself as a paralegal, and i think this may have put him on the defensive, he told her that i shouldnt have been speeding etc. so when i got the disclosure i saw that he actually added "girlfriend is a paralegal" at the end of his notes............now is this something i can use? she is not defending me nor will she be at the trial,

- could i argue that the trial will be biased because he maybe assumed that i would have representaion?

- is there anything in law about the officer discussing my offence with a 3rd party?

- is she a witness since he refers to her in his notes?

-could i ask the prosecution to produce her at the trial?

3) i have noticed that the speed limit signs for the school zone are different from the regular speed limit signs in brampton. although there are flashing lights on the sign it is only half the size of the normal signs and you have to be much closer to actually read it, in mississauga they are the same size as the normal signs, but im aware that even with that defense being successful i can still be assumed to be speeding because of the "50km/hr unless otherwise posted" at the city entances.

anyway i appreciate any help or input !

thanks and good luck to everyone who is defending themselves!

Welcome to the forum! Hopefully it proves to be helpful for you.

toybus wrote:1) does anyone have case law or information on lidar errors with regards to determining the speed of a motorcycle?

Depends on the make/model. You'll see some stuff on YouTube about sweep/panning error and "slip effect," but many LIDAR devices used by police in Ontario are built to eliminate those errors. The ones used by the OPP will not produce the errors and if there is any sort of problem the unit will simply read "ERROR" instead of returning a speed. I'm not sure about the devices used by Peel Regional Police, though.

toybus wrote:in one of my previous trials the officer clearly stated in his notes that he aimed the device at the HEADLIGHT of my motorcycle

I'd imagine it's either that or probably the LIDAR manual says to do it that way.

toybus wrote:so if i questioned him about where he aimed the device and he comes up with an answer can i object to that being used as evidence because he didnt put it in his notes?

If there's some part of the manual that says "don't aim it here" and that's where he aimed it, you could question the validity of the reading; conversely if it says "for motorcycles, aim the LIDAR here" and he didn't, you could also question its validity... unfortunately I don't know if it does/does not... Ask for a copy of the parts of the manual that deal with testing and operation of the device (if you haven't already) as part of disclosure. This should tell you more.

toybus wrote:- could i argue that the trial will be biased because he maybe assumed that i would have representaion?

I doubt it. Some people when stopped will say that they are "good friends with" some high-priced lawyer or Justice or whatever. This likely won't bias the JP.

toybus wrote:- is there anything in law about the officer discussing my offence with a 3rd party?

I don't think so, particularly where the 3rd party intervened at the scene.

toybus wrote:- is she a witness since he refers to her in his notes?

Yes she's a witness, but not one that the Prosecutor would use. She'd be a hostile witness for them, anyway.

toybus wrote:) i have noticed that the speed limit signs for the school zone are different from the regular speed limit signs in brampton. although there are flashing lights on the sign it is only half the size of the normal signs and you have to be much closer to actually read it

Well... I'd have to look at O.Reg 615, which sets the standard for road signs... you may have an invalid road sign which would mean the speed limit reverts to 50 km/h (default speed limit). It would be worth looking in to. However... as you said, unfortunately you'd still be speeding, but it would be 14 over as opposed to 24 over.

so i went to my trial with the intention of asking for an adjournment if the officer was there and to go to trial if he was'nt.

i got there on time but i went out to use the washroom while the prosecutor was going through his list. maybe 5 minutes later i went in and the justice was there, the court had started.

i saw that my officer was there so i was going to ask for an ajournment. the prosecutor went through his list of "plea bargainers" and they had one trial, it was a woman who was ticketed by the same officer as me, so i at least got to see him go through his testimony.

after this trial the officer left the court.......im still there ,they havent called me so im thinking wow maybe i have a chance here... i went outside briefly to see if the officer really left, i actually knocked on the officers "office" right outside the courtroom and there was no one there so i assumed he must have left the building!

i go back into court and they finally call my name, when i went up the prosecutor asked me if i wanted to plea to a lesser charge and i declined. then he asked the justice to put the trial off to another day!

i voiced an objection saying that i was prepared for trial today and that i was ready to proceed. the justice basically gave the prosecutor leave to postpone the trial!

i again very humbly voiced my objection but the justice wasnt going to move from his decision. i thought it wise to not say anym more and accept it.

so they potponed my trial for another month and a half.

did i get screwed?

was there anything or is there anything i can do to debate the fairness of this decision?

thanks for the feedback.

and also thanks for this

"

If there's some part of the manual that says "don't aim it here" and that's where he aimed it, you could question the validity of the reading; conversely if it says "for motorcycles, aim the LIDAR here" and he didn't, you could also question its validity... unfortunately I don't know if it does/does not... Ask for a copy of the parts of the manual that deal with testing and operation of the device (if you haven't already) as part of disclosure. This should tell you more. "

radar identified, i went right to the disclosure office and requested the manual.....

toybus wrote:was there anything or is there anything i can do to debate the fairness of this decision?

Since it was the first trial, it's the discretion of the JP, although you did make a reasonable attempt to stay the charge. By the way, how long has it been since you were first charged? If the officer doesn't show up for the second trial attempt, now you have a compelling argument for the charge to be stayed and very few JPs would grant the Crown a second adjournment. Despite the best efforts of many others in the exact situation you found yourself in, often the JPs do give the Crown a second chance, just as they do so for defendants who need an adjournment at trial.

toybus wrote:i went right to the disclosure office and requested the manual.....

Hopefully there will be something in the manual that will prove helpful. If they refuse to give it to you, that's another reason for staying the charge. There's lots of case law out there regarding that, let us know if you need the links.

thanks for the reply.

i was charged in october.

i see what you mean. he did say that he would make my case a priority at the next trial though. in the meantime im going ahead with further disclosure requests. they provided me with a copy of the manual but its not the full manual, its from daytech services here in canada.but there is a mailing address for laser atlanta in atlanta.

so...

can i request the full manual?

how do i do that?

can i request a copy of the actual police training procedures for this laser?

thanks again for the help!

sorry i missed this part;

Hopefully there will be something in the manual that will prove helpful. If they refuse to give it to you, that's another reason for staying the charge. There's lots of case law out there regarding that, let us know if you need the links.

yes i would like the links that have reference to the disclosure.

thanks

Radar Identified wrote:

toybus wrote:1) does anyone have case law or information on lidar errors with regards to determining the speed of a motorcycle?

Depends on the make/model. You'll see some stuff on YouTube about sweep/panning error and "slip effect," but many LIDAR devices used by police in Ontario are built to eliminate those errors. The ones used by the OPP will not produce the errors and if there is any sort of problem the unit will simply read "ERROR" instead of returning a speed. I'm not sure about the devices used by Peel Regional Police, though.

toybus indicated it was a Laser Atlanta = probably same model that OPP uses.

thanks im going to investigate the errors you indicated.