OHTA.ca

Hey all

found this resource online, wanted to ask a few questions

I have my trial today, march 3rd in TOronto East

I got a speeding ticket APril 6th 2009 at 1:12am East bound on the BLoor Viaduct, 74 in a 50, officer was using Lidar and ran out in the middle of the street to stop me

the trial date is today.

I already have filed for an 11b a few weeks back by serving the prosecutor and mailing the attorney general of Ontario, and Canada

I've requested and received a disclosure package, the "officer notes" and the lidar manual

a few questions i have are:

1> trial date is march 3rd 2010 from an offence back on april 6th 2009. will my 11b hold up as it's approx 11 months

2> the "officer notes" are just some scribbling on the ticket itself and a prepared paragraph that has blank lines that the officer fills in. is scribbling on the ticket itself comon practise, or can I use this to my advantage as well.

3> the officer declares that he saw me speeding, flipped on the Lidar, saw i was speeding and flagged me down. by this declaration he's admitting HE lidar'd me. so if i ask him if he lidar'd me and it was actually another officer (there were a few there radaring) can i motion to have the evidence marked as heresay if the actual officer operating the lidar isn't present

Thanks for the help

I know it's last minute but i didn't find the foums till now and wanna be a bit more prepared.

1. depends on the jp. If you can show prejudice, maybe. It's sticky.

2. you should have requested a clarification or typed version of notes if you could not understand it. No advantage.

3. officer who operated lidar and issued ticket must testify. It's unlikely that they screwed this up. This should be clear in the notes.

Did you get any information on how and when the unit was tested that day?

You will likely be offered a deal (reduced speed, fine, points). You'll have to decide between taking the deal or taking your chances with the 11b.

neo333 wrote:1. depends on the jp. If you can show prejudice, maybe. It's sticky.

2. you should have requested a clarification or typed version of notes if you could not understand it. No advantage.

3. officer who operated lidar and issued ticket must testify. It's unlikely that they screwed this up. This should be clear in the notes.

Did you get any information on how and when the unit was tested that day?

You will likely be offered a deal (reduced speed, fine, points). You'll have to decide between taking the deal or taking your chances with the 11b.

Thanks for the reply neo333

the statement i'm going to say for the 11b is:

I ask that the charge be stayed on the grounds that my right to a prompt trial as guaranteed by the Charter has been violated, through no fault of my own, and that

this unreasonable and undue delay has caused my inability to prepare a full answer

to the charge and my inability to recall the details in the alleged offence due to such delay, and that such delay has caused lots of anxiety and stress to me for the past months.

based upon a web site tat i used to help prepare and file for the 11b

also, the notes seem to be haphazardly thrown together, as if they weren't from the offence date, but just created for this trial. probably not going to help me out but i found it odd

on the notes there's a crude hand drawing of how the officer prepared or tested the Lidar, so i'm gonna assume that's the proof that the unit is fully calibrated and fucntioning

Treatz wrote:

on the notes there's a crude hand drawing of how the officer prepared or tested the Lidar, so i'm gonna assume that's the proof that the unit is fully calibrated and fucntioning

This is NOT proofs that the unit is properly functioning. The officer must test the device as per manufacturer's specifications. He must also test the device before and after your stop (i.e. anytime during the day, so start and end of shift is ok). The times of tests must be noted in the officer's notes as "proof". There is case law to support this.

R v Vancrey, R v Niewiadomski, 2004, R v Lounsbury, 1993;

R. v. Schlesinger, 2007 ONCJ 266

neo333 wrote:

Treatz wrote:

on the notes there's a crude hand drawing of how the officer prepared or tested the Lidar, so i'm gonna assume that's the proof that the unit is fully calibrated and fucntioning

This is NOT proofs that the unit is properly functioning. The officer must test the device as per manufacturer's specifications. He must also test the device before and after your stop (i.e. anytime during the day, so start and end of shift is ok). The times of tests must be noted in the officer's notes as "proof". There is case law to support this.

R v Vancrey, R v Niewiadomski, 2004, R v Lounsbury, 1993;

R. v. Schlesinger, 2007 ONCJ 266

the prewritten fill in the blank notes state:

I had an ultra lyte LNBLTI20-20 speed measuring lidar device with serial # 0x018764 which is capable of accurately determining the speed of a moving motor vehicle. the device was tested according to manufacturers specs at the begining and end of my shift and found it to be in proper working order. I am a qualified lidar operator and have been certified by the toronto police service to operate the device.

the hand written notes also say

tests

1> turn on internal check

2> scope alignment (horizantal vertical) - tone changer from high to low pitch

3> Fixed distance - garage door by sally port to fire extinguisher at stn entrance

then there's a hand drawing 22.4 meteres, and basically a box

so i think he has that covered.

however, the actual hand written notes aren't dated at all. there is no date other then the preprinted fill in the blank statemment i wrote prior where hs says it was tested at the begining and end of the shift.

is there room to move there or that's solid?

The prewritten fill in the blank notes appears to be a "will say" statement by the officer.

The key is his handwritten notes from his log books. If you read the court decisions I referred to, you will see that the officer must record the TIMEs of the tests (before and after) to confirm the device was indeed tested. He cannot say that he usually does it as his will say statement eludes. It must be in his notes or else there is doubt.

His hand written notes reveal he did 3 tests. Since they disclosed the lidar manual, you can double check to make sure he performed the tests as required by the manufacturer. If he did not, then there is doubt cast on the reliability of the unit.

The notes provided could be directly on the back of the officer's copy of the offence notice. There is no need to put a date on the back of the ticket.

If the notes are in the notebook of the officer you should see a time to the left of a margin, that is where the notes start for the incident being photocopied.

just an fyi

ok so here's what happened at the Trial today:

I went into the court room at approx 245 when they were letting in people for the screening

my name was highlighted on the prosecutor's list. Probably because i had filed for the 11b which was my primary attempt, if that failed i'd do a trial and try on other merits.

at any rate they offered me 65 in a 50, no points of course. I declined and wanted to try my case. I had put in all the legwork for the 11b so I may as well see it out.

any way the officer and the prosecutor started to chuckle to dissuade me. "do you know how long the 11b takes, you'll be here all day" I politely told them "that's fine, i took a day off to be here so you can be here with me"

at any rate teh trial started and i told the judge the 11b reasoning.

the prosecutor then stated that the trial was only 11 months from the offence date and in no way was infringing on my charter to a quick trial. I then retorded back "your honour, i filed the 2nd day of having this ticket, so any time leading up to this trial is on the prosecution and not a delay caused by my filing."

the judge listened to that comment and then the officer was sworn in.

in a nut shell he read his cookie cutter statement with 1 glaring mistake which i later addressed. He stated that on april 6th at 11:12 am he pulled me over for speeding 74 in a 50. (i was pulled over at 1:12AM, 14 HOURS LATER)

when it was my turn to cross examine I said:

so officer, you claimed for the record that you pulled me over at 11:12 am on april 6th is this correct. the officer said yes

i then proceeded to ask, you stated that you tested your LIDAR at the begining and end of your shift, is that correct?

officer said YES

so according to your notes, you tested this Lidar at 22.6 meteres correct

YES

according to this usermanual for your LIDAR it states that you must test at a distance of 60 meters, and that if you can't test at 60 meters you must test to the next meter. by your notes you tested at 22.6 meters which is a fraction, correct

YES, but i dohn't iknow what manual that is.

officer, this is the manal for the LIDAR gun yoiu just testified to using, its the same model. this is the manual provided to me by the disclosure package,

Ya but i don't know what that is"

No further questions your honour

then the prosecutor had no further questions.

so then it came back to me and i said "your honour, based on the fact that the officer got the time of the occurence wrong by 14 hours and didn't test the unit as per the manual I wouild like the charge to be dropped"

long story short, i was convicted because the judge didn't think that i created enough reasonable doubt.

my question is now:

how do I file for an appeal, I wanna tie this thing up. and i'm goning to request the court transcript as well

any advice?

hwybear wrote:The notes provided could be directly on the back of the officer's copy of the offence notice. There is no need to put a date on the back of the ticket.

If the notes are in the notebook of the officer you should see a time to the left of a margin, that is where the notes start for the incident being photocopied.

just an fyi

the photocopied notes have neither..

just looks like a generic hand written "i tested the radar" with a drawing showing he tested at 22.6 meters

Treatz wrote:He stated that on april 6th at 11:12 am he pulled me over for speeding 74 in a 50. (i was pulled over at 1:12AM, 14 HOURS LATER)

Sure sounds like the officer had a great independent recollection of the events...

Plenderzoosh wrote:

Treatz wrote:He stated that on april 6th at 11:12 am he pulled me over for speeding 74 in a 50. (i was pulled over at 1:12AM, 14 HOURS LATER)

Sure sounds like the officer had a great independent recollection of the events...

tell me about it, after all that the judge still said i was guilty, hanging judges are the best

does anyone know the process to appeal?

I assume the judge denied your 11b request? What exactly did he say about that?

Let me get this straight. What time was the ticket issued? What time did the officer testify? What time is indicated on his notes?

Lidar manual says to test the device at a distance of 60 meters, but the officer tested at 22.6 meters? That is a huge difference.

Also the fact that the officer did not even recognize the lidar manual "i don't know what manual that is". How can he possibly test it as per manufacturer's specifications??

I think you have merit in an appeal. I would suggest legal representation on arguing an appeal.

If you are going to appeal then you'll have to do it within 15 days of the trial. Go to the court house and ask for the paperwork, they have forms. You may want some assistance in filing out the form. You will need to request transcripts at this point.

neo333 wrote:I assume the judge denied your 11b request? What exactly did he say about that?

Let me get this straight. What time was the ticket issued? What time did the officer testify? What time is indicated on his notes?

Lidar manual says to test the device at a distance of 60 meters, but the officer tested at 22.6 meters? That is a huge difference.

Also the fact that the officer did not even recognize the lidar manual "i don't know what manual that is". How can he possibly test it as per manufacturer's specifications??

I think you have merit in an appeal. I would suggest legal representation on arguing an appeal.

That's why I'm so frazzled. 14 hour time difference and improper testing and they still found me guilty. I'm gonna appeal based on the fact I have a case. And the appeal takes forever usually resulting in a dismissal and refund of transcript costs

neo333 wrote:I assume the judge denied your 11b request? What exactly did he say about that?

Let me get this straight. What time was the ticket issued? What time did the officer testify? What time is indicated on his notes?

Lidar manual says to test the device at a distance of 60 meters, but the officer tested at 22.6 meters? That is a huge difference.

Also the fact that the officer did not even recognize the lidar manual "i don't know what manual that is". How can he possibly test it as per manufacturer's specifications??

I think you have merit in an appeal. I would suggest legal representation on arguing an appeal.

That's why I'm so frazzled. 14 hour time difference and improper testing and they still found me guilty. I'm gonna appeal based on the fact I have a case. And the appeal takes forever usually resulting in a dismissal and refund of transcript costs