OHTA.ca

I followed the procedures mentioned in the previous threads regarding the disclosure and received it today. My court date is November 5 2009 in Whitby. After going through the notes I realized 2 things:

1- the notes are horribly illegible and difficult to read

2- I have notes from two different officers.

Now I am not sure if this means that both the officers will be at court for the hearing or will it suffice to have only one officer appear.

THe disclosure notes for the 2nd cop provides me the notes state the following:

1800hrs On Duty

1815 hrs Test Laser Atlanta Speedlaser #02-029L OK

now the notes that were provided to me jump directly to the following:

2310hrs Obsa a Beige Pot Montana - L3 ????

laser 151 1100-

227m PC

Camron stopp it

I w pass

blank blank blank

It seems as if they have not provided me with the complete disclosure. I am not sure what to say. What do you guys think of this..

What I can decipher from this... (perhaps the officers on the forum can help clarify)...

At 23:10 hours (11:10 PM local time), observed a beige Pontiac Montana in Lane 3, laser at a distance of 1100 to 227 metres recorded a speed reading of 151 km/h, Camron (possibly the name of the other officer) stopped it.

And I don't know about the rest.

If one officer took the reading and the other did the traffic stop, both will be required for court. As for disclosure, they must provide you with a copy of, or access to, the laser manual if the evidence from the device is going to be used "testimonially" in court.

Radar Identified wrote:

At 23:10 hours (11:10 PM local time), observed a beige Pontiac Montana in Lane 3, laser at a distance of 1100 to 227 metres recorded a speed reading of 151 km/h, Camron (possibly the name of the other officer) stopped it..

that is what I would guess.....and/or 2 readings of 151km/hr (one at 1100m and the 2nd at 227m)

Is there note for testing the laser after the infraction or at the end of the shift? If not, then you can use it to question the reliability of the laser reading.

According to the notes provided the laser was testes at 1815hrs. I was not given any notes between 1815hrs and the time of the infraction. Additionally no mention of the test after the infraction. Now is it possible that they did not provide me with the full disclosure because I have no info abour the hours prior to the infraction and after the 1815hrs?

The disclosures provided were very chopped up, as if they are covering their notes and photocopying the portions that relate to my specific event. This way I have no odea whether they had snagged someone between the hours not mentioned that will necessitate another test for my capture.

gotsnagged1st wrote:

The disclosures provided were very chopped up, as if they are covering their notes and photocopying the portions that relate to my specific event.

that is what we do. We photo copy our notes and eliminate other investigations and incidents out.

All there needs to be is a test PRIOR and AFTER the offence.

You get notes related to your stop and your stop only...so you get the test at the start of shift( or when ever that was) and then note related to your stop...You do not get to access to what was going on in between or after..

I test At start of shift and at the end of shift. I do not test after each stop... Here that seems to be sufficient...

OPS

No training record and no manual disclosed to you is ground for a stay application based on isufficient disclosure (s.7 charter violation).

No note of testing after is a point to bring up at trial to disregard the laser reading as it was not reliable at the time.

So there is a winning chance but expect rough road ahead

If two cops were involved at the time of the conviction, they both have to show up to court or is one cop sufficient?

Thank a lot again.

gotsnagged1st wrote:If two cops were involved at the time of the conviction, they both have to show up to court or is one cop sufficient?

Both would have to be present.

Send another disclosure request specifically asking for the manual. Indicate that access to it is required for you to make a full answer and defence. See how they respond. If they continue to stonewall or don't respond... sets up a stay motion for incomplete disclosure.

Wow these guys at the Whitby office are tough.

Well I sent the send disclosure request and received a letter that stated the following

In response to your letter of Sep. 29 2009, please be advised that on Sept. 24th 2009 our office provided all the relvant disclosure to you by regular mail. If you feel there is further disclosure that was not provided, you may make an application to the Trial Justice for production.

I am not sure whther to send a 3rd disclosure request citing the various cases for the specific information required or just wait till the court date to talk tot he Justice?

No, just argue stay due to incomplete disclosure. They are probably rubber-stamping all disclosure requests, and send out the same information to people.