OHTA.ca

Hey Guys, So I have received a ticket last year June 3rd near Mid night.

I have trial tomorrow, before I go there I would like to double check some points here with you guys:

1. I was driving black vehicle, i got pulled over at 11:25PM for not stopping at stop sign.

2. Cop noted that i was turning at "30km/h" speed

3. Cop was driving (not hiding and waiting for someone to pass stop sign)

4. Incident was placed at T zone intersection, where I only had option to either turn RIGHT or LEFT, cop was on left, but there are some obstructs that he may not have clear view, please see this picture (this is the picture taken by me day after the offence day with police's view (seated in car about 20~30m away)

* picture: http://imgur.com/a/yZsXmYour text to link here...

5. Court emailed me back when I asked if he had any media evidence such as video/photo, they said NO he didn't have anything.

Tomorrow, i'm planning to question police whether he had clear view of stop sign or not, and if he observed that I was driving at 30km/h, not stopped fully with those obstructs in his vision.

Could I have any suggestions, advises before I go in tomorrow? anything will be appreciated

----------------------

Disclosure:

On June 3, 2016 I was operating a fully marked police cruiser in a uniformed patrol capacity in the cities of Waterloo and Kitchener

Prior to observing the following offence I was travelling W/B on Seagram Drive in the City of Waterloo. Seagram Dr runs perpendicular to Lester Street.

At 23:21 I witnessed the above vehicle travelling S/B on Lester Street towards Seagram Drive. Lester Street has a clearly marked and visible stop sign at the intersection of Seagram Drive. The above motor vehilcle approached the stop sign and made no attempt to stop whatsoever before executing a right hand turn onto Seagram Dr. The vehicles wheels were observed to be in continuous motion throughout the approach to the stop sign and throughout the right hand turn. The vehicle passed through the stop sign travelling approximately 30km/h

ggman8988 wrote:Hey Guys, So I have received a ticket last year June 3rd near Mid night.

Tomorrow, i'm planning to question police whether he had clear view of stop sign or not, and if he observed that I was driving at 30km/h, not stopped fully with those obstructs in his vision.

I hope you have more than those two questions to be ready for trial! Also make sure all of your questions are prepared on paper, don't try to wing it.

have 2 words for you

DASH CAM

Reading so many "he said - she said" threads on here I had one fitted,

But for your case... good luck, do come back and tell us the outcome !

The flip side of dash cams is that they also show if someone did, in fact, break the law. Note that the OP in the first post did not claim that he did stop but was basing the defence on whether he could cast doubt on the officers testimony. This is normal as it is very rare (and shocking when it dies happen) that an officer will fabricate evidence.

Do you have any proof that you requested media files from them when you asked for disclosure and they said-- NO.

If so, that would be trickery and you could ask the court for a delay pending review of disclosure not initially revealed to you.

In your position, I would wholeheartedly inform the court I was completely sure that I came to an adequate stop, without any hesitation at all.

Your word against his word; his word has no evidence or merit to back it. Him being a police officer isn't enough to disqualify or discredit your word.

I've come across a Supreme Court decision that says something alongside the lines of: "If the police word vs defendants word varies and there is no evidence backing the polices word, then the testimony should be considered equally with merit." Does anyone know that SCC file number, I have been trying to find it myself.

A lot of cases when the defendant testifies, the justice of the peace or the judge conducts a "W.D. analysis" and it comes from the case law R. v. W.(D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, which states:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

To add onto the "W.D. analysis", some courts also like to refer to the case law R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320:

Even if you believe the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances you must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquit because the Crown has failed to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe that these are the cases that you are referring to.

Whenaxis wrote:A lot of cases when the defendant testifies, the justice of the peace or the judge conducts a "W.D. analysis" and it comes from the case law R. v. W.(D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, which states:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

To add onto the "W.D. analysis", some courts also like to refer to the case law R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320:

Even if you believe the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances you must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquit because the Crown has failed to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe that these are the cases that you are referring to.

Thank you for that information WhenAxis. I've saved it this time.

Saskman wrote:

In your position, I would wholeheartedly inform the court I was completely sure that I came to an adequate stop, without any hesitation at all.

If that were true. Otherwise you are taking yourself into the criminal realm of perjury. Imagine blowing a stop sign completely, testifying that you did stop, subsequently a video surfaces that shows you not slowing down and getting hit with a criminal summons. Unlikely but a very bad outcome.