OHTA.ca

Hi everyone,

So this past winter, I slowed down to make a right on a red, but decided not to stop because I was afraid the car behind me would hit into me, especially since the roads were wet and slippery; braking distance would of been longer.

There was an oncoming police cruiser (bad luck usually there are not police in this area), he quickly pulled me over and gave me failure to stop at red light.

Here is the disclosure:

"

I WAS STOPPED AT THE RED LIGHT ON UNIVERSITY AVE E AT MARSLAND DR, WATERLOO. I WAS IN LN2 HEADING W/B. THE

TRAFFIC LIGHT CYCLED AND THE LIGHT I WAS FACING TURNED GREEN. I OBSERVED A VEHICLE S/B ON MARSLAND DR

APPROACHING UNIVERSITY AVE E. I OBSERVED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS SLOWING BUT DID NOT APPEAR AS THOUGH IT WAS

GOING TO STOP. I LOOKED QUICKLY AT THE LIGHT FACING THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED IT WAS RED. I LOOKED BACK TO THE

VEHICLE AND SAW THAT IT WAS CONTINUING S/B IN LN1. I STOPPED IN THE INTERSECTION AND THE VEHICLE CONTINUED

THROUGH THE RED LIGHT MAKING A RIGHT TURN (W/B) ONTO UNIVERSITY AVE E, DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME. I ESTIMATE THE

SPEED OF THE VEHICLE TO BE APPROXIMATELY 10 KM/H WHEN IT MADE THE TURN. IF I HAD CONTINUED DRIVING, THE OTHER

VEHICLE WOULD HAVE HIT ME. I IMMEDIATELY STOPPED THE VEHICLE AT 23:54 HOURS, ON UNIVERSITY AVE E. I APPROACHED

THE DRIVER. THE DRIVER WAS NOT ABLE TO ROLL DOWN HIS WINDOW AND HAD TO OPEN HIS DOOR. I TOLD HIM THE REASON

WHY I WAS STOPPING HIM. HE IMMEDIATELY REPLIED "I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE A COP". I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD BEEN

DRINKING. HE REPLIED "NO, I'M SOBER". I DID NOT DETECT THE ODOUR OF METABOLIZED ALCOHOL COMING FROM THE MALE'S

BREATH. HE REPORTED THAT HE AND HIS PASSENGER WERE JUST COMING FROM THE "PEARL" NIGHT CLUB ON MARSLAND DR.

HE PRODUCED A VALID ONTARIO PHOTO DL, OWNERSHIP, AND PROOF OF INSURANCE. I ISSUED HIM PON #WE15001887 FOR

RED LIGHT - FAIL TO STOP, CONTRARY TO SEC 144(18) HTA. I EXPLAINED HIS OPTIONS. I RETURNED TO THE INTERSECTION AT

00:15 HOURS AND OBSERVED THE LIGHTS CYCLE SEVERAL TIMES. I POSITIONED MYSELF SO THAT I COULD SEE BOTH THE LIGHTS

FOR UNIVERSITY AVE E AND MARSLAND DR. THE LIGHTS FACING MARSLAND DR APPEAR TO BE SENSORED. THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS

DID NOT CYCLE UNLESS THERE WAS A VEHICLE FACING S/B ON MARSLAND DR. THERE WERE NO MALFUNCTIONS WITH THE

LIGHTS, AND NO OTHER VEHICLES HAD DIFFICULTY TRAVELLING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AND OBEYING THE TRAFFIC

LIGHTS. THE WEATHER WAS CLEAR, THE ROADS WERE WET, AND CLEAR.

I am an unemployed university student. How could I lower this conviction to a lesser charge?

So if the constable does not show up I win the trial correct?

Thank You,

TTI.

If the officer doesn't show up, they usually do withdraw the charge. The disclosure looks pretty solid so my recommendation would be a plea-bargain. I don't think "defence of necessity" applies in this case, because they will simply say that you were either driving too fast for the conditions, or were braking too late, and the JP will convict.

You may be able to plea-bargain it down to something like "fail to proceed as directed," or "fail to obey lane light." Both of those are a lower fine, and from a licensing standpoint, they are 0 demerit points. If you luck out, your insurance company may shrug off that offence (some won't increase your premiums/rates for one offence they deem "minor"), but no promises obviously.

Radar Identified wrote:If the officer doesn't show up, they usually do withdraw the charge. The disclosure looks pretty solid so my recommendation would be a plea-bargain. I don't think "defence of necessity" applies in this case, because they will simply say that you were either driving too fast for the conditions, or were braking too late, and the JP will convict.

You may be able to plea-bargain it down to something like "fail to proceed as directed," or "fail to obey lane light." Both of those are a lower fine, and from a licensing standpoint, they are 0 demerit points. If you luck out, your insurance company may shrug off that offence (some won't increase your premiums/rates for one offence they deem "minor"), but no promises obviously.

Would you be able to explian how i could plea bargain , it down to those lesser charges you mentioned above?

My record is fairly bad.

Thank You,

Show up on your court date and check in with the Prosecutor. Usually, the Prosecutor will ask if you would like to "resolve" the charge ahead of time. At that point, the negotiation begins. Let the Prosecutor make the offer. You can counter-offer with one of the two I mentioned above.

Radar Identified wrote:Show up on your court date and check in with the Prosecutor. Usually, the Prosecutor will ask if you would like to "resolve" the charge ahead of time. At that point, the negotiation begins. Let the Prosecutor make the offer. You can counter-offer with one of the two I mentioned above.

Thank You

Radar Identified wrote:Show up on your court date and check in with the Prosecutor. Usually, the Prosecutor will ask if you would like to "resolve" the charge ahead of time. At that point, the negotiation begins. Let the Prosecutor make the offer. You can counter-offer with one of the two I mentioned above.

What if I say there was a car behind me and if I braked, it would of hit me

You'll have to look at R v. Perka & Latimer and the essential elements of a necessity defence.

However, it must be "strictly controlled and scrupulously limited." and can only be applied in the strictest of situations where true "involuntariness" is found. Three elements are required for a successful defence :

• the accused must be in imminent peril or danger
• the accused must have had no reasonable legal alternative to the course of action he or she undertook
• the harm inflicted by the accused must be proportional to the harm avoided by the accused

  The peril or danger must be more than just foreseeable or likely. It must be near and unavoidable.

At a minimum the situation must be so emergent and the peril must be so pressing that normal human instincts cry out for action and make a counsel of patience unreasonable.

With regard to the second element, if there was a reasonable legal alternative to breaking the law, then there can be no finding of necessity. Regarding the third element requiring proportionality, the harm avoided must be at least comparable to the harm inflicted.

In general, the courts will exhaust legal alternatives that you could have taken instead of running the red light.

They may ask how close the other driver was? How long has he been paying lip-service to your vehicle? What lane were you in? Did you try changing lanes to avoid the tailgater? Did you try pulling over and letting the vehicle pass?

Why didn't you start braking for the amber light? Was there a crosswalk countdown walkman? Why didn't you start slowing down when the counter was going down to zero? What speed were you travelling at? Why weren't you driving for the conditions?

How do you know the vehicle was going to hit you? "The peril or danger must be more than just foreseeable or likely. It must be near and unavoidable."

Overall, you have to give a compelling story and be unshaken in cross that your life was in danger and that you exhausted all legal alternatives before breaking the law. If you come across as telling a BS or self-serving story, you'll be quickly shot down.