OHTA.ca

A friend received a summons for Disobey stop sign -fail to stop-136-1-a. He went through a stop sign in a rural area that he had never driven before and stuck another vehicle. The disclosure states 'there were trees along shoulder of road-possibly due to no lighting /trees stop sign could not have been seen. The officer is agreeing with my friend as to the reason of disobeying the stop sign.

Question-does this raise enough doubt to beat the charge. He does drive for a living and the ticket may effect that. Thanks

IMPORTANT: At no time should your friend ever admit to disobeying the stop sign, to either the prosecutor or the officer. If they ask your friend this question, your friend should answer "I have no comment about that at this time." The only exception is if your friend takes the witness stand under oath (in this case they WOULD have to answer all questions honestly). However your friend has the right not to testify against themselves and does not have to take the witness stand, and if not on the witness stand under oath, they do not have to answer any questions about this.

I would say yes, this portion of the officers notes should probably raise enough doubt to get the charge dropped.

So during trial, the officer will testify and prosecutor will ask them questions to clarify.

Your friend will then get to cross-examine the officer. This is NOT the time for your friend to give their version of events, but this is the time to question the officer on their testimony and their notes. So your friend would ask lots of questions concerning this particular notation in the notebook.

Hey there,

question: if an LEO, stopped a guy for same, and asked the same question; can you refuse to answer or as you have advised, or similar.

Could you not get done for obstruction?

jsherk wrote:IMPORTANT: At no time should your friend ever admit to disobeying the stop sign, to either the prosecutor or the officer. If they ask your friend this question, your friend should answer "I have no comment about that at this time." The only exception is if your friend takes the witness stand under oath (in this case they WOULD have to answer all questions honestly). However your friend has the right not to testify against themselves and does not have to take the witness stand, and if not on the witness stand under oath, they do not have to answer any questions about this.

I would say yes, this portion of the officers notes should probably raise enough doubt to get the charge dropped.

So during trial, the officer will testify and prosecutor will ask them questions to clarify.

Your friend will then get to cross-examine the officer. This is NOT the time for your friend to give their version of events, but this is the time to question the officer on their testimony and their notes. So your friend would ask lots of questions concerning this particular notation in the notebook.

No, obstruction is criminal and different. You do not have to self-incriminate yourself. The debate is always that by refusing to answer anything other than to identify yourself and provide any required details you will almost certainly be issued a ticket where one exists whereas being contrite can get you away with a warning.

Two strategies, both of which can work in different circumstances. In poker parlance, the admit it and hope for a warning is a bit like going all in because if you do get a ticket you're stuffed !

ahh, gotcha

so a reply, like "I'm not sure I did Officer, but if I did I do apologize"

as opposed to, "sorry I reserve the right not to incriminate myself and hereby only giving you my name and address"

You're on the right track but your first one has taken away your ability at trial to say that you did stop (if you did because you don't want to perjury yourself)

Your second one will get you a ticket EVERY time......and possibly any others that might normally have been overlooked.

so a polite "I'm sorry officer, I don't believe I did...." (pregnant pause) > ?

argyll wrote:You're on the right track but your first one has taken away your ability at trial to say that you did stop (if you did because you don't want to perjury yourself)

Your second one will get you a ticket EVERY time......and possibly any others that might normally have been overlooked.