OHTA.ca

I have a trial scheduled for Monday and finally went to pick up the notes and DVD. Would love some advice.

This is a ticketed 70 in a 60, reduced from an alleged 84.

xxxx car with PC <officer>

Sunny Clear Morning Roads Dry and Bare

Rds in good condition with clearly marked lanes.

Bee III tested at 0725 hrs

Police are W/B Observe a blk <my car> weaving through traffic passing all other traffic in the same direction.

Police measure the speed of the <my car's make> with the Bee III (front, Opposite, moving with Fast features on)

Speed of veh was 84 km/hr at approx 120 meters, then dropped to 82 at 60 meters to moving S/C

Police make U - Turn and without loosing site of the vehicle activated the emergency lights and siren and stopped the veh near Faircroft Blvd on Kingston Rd E/B

The driver ID'd himself with a valid ON DL and vehicle permit but the Insurance card had expired in July 2017. Police issued a reduced speed POT and a warning for the insurance card.

This took place in August. I presented the valid insurance card upon receiving the ticket, which is not acknowledged here but is in video disclosure.

The DVD is in-car, beginning after the U-Turn has been made. The video shows police traveling at about the speed limit with no other traffic, coming across me at a stop light. I am stopped in the middle lane. 2 vehicles are on my left, and 1 on my right. No one behind me. I pulled away, moved to the right, and was then pulled over. The conversation is almost totally obscured by traffic noise. I did not hear my voice at all.

I'm leaning toward pleading to the reduced ticket on the actual day, but had these thoughts:

There's no HTA defition of "weaving." I'm charged with speeding, not careless driving or anything that would more closely match that description. How can I be weaving through 2-3 other cars?

If the question is speed, can the Bee III accurately measure an oncoming vehicle's speed? The video shows a great deal of traffic in the W/B lanes where the police came from. I didn't see which lane this cruiser was in when I passed him. I'm assuming it was not the left lane, since I probably would have seen him. Every other lane would have had a restricted look angle.

I don't quite understand. The notes seem to say that you were travelling in the same direction as the cruiser but then it says they used opposite mode and did a U-turn ?

I think "in the same direction" refers to the traffic being passed.

whaddyaknow wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 10:07 am

I think "in the same direction" refers to the traffic being passed.

ah yes, that makes sense.

But to respond to the original poster, I don't see much of a way out of this one.

To the best and brightest: I don't see post-stop testing of the speed measuring device in the disclosure, does this matter?

Thank you for the replies.

"in the same direction" also confused me.

I guess it will come down to luck. Do both officers have to be present?

Big Russ wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 10:31 pm

Do both officers have to be present?

If two officers help piece together a charge , then yes.

If two officers are simply sitting in a vehicle together, the answer is most likely no.

In my case, I interacted with both officers. The first one initially spoke to me. Then the other returned with the ticket. In the video disclosure, one says to the other that he will write up the evidence (or something to that effect).

How would I know on the day of if both are present? I will have a 15 minute window to speak to the prosecutor in advance to just plead out.

The dashcam video also appears to contradict the statement that they did not lose sight of the vehicle.

I guess we'll see what happens on Monday.

Either the officer who shows up can provide first hand knowledge of the evidence relating to the charge (speeding) or not. If the officer who is present can account for testing the unit and all the relating evidence, then the second officer wouldn't necessarily show up simply because they spoke to you.

Also, you've left us hanging with no explanation for why the dash cam footage contradicts losing sight. The dash cam footage is not the be all and end all. If you're suggesting that you're not always in sight of the dash cam, the officer was not limited to that footage.

The officer didn't appear. Thank you all!