“105 In 60, Officer Lost Sight”

Recently I was cited for speeding 105 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. I have two problems, firstly I am 18 and have my G2 (insurance is already expensive) and although I will likely have my G by the time this is resolved I want this to have the least impact on my insurance possible. The second and more important issue is that the officer who alleges I was speeding did not catch up to my car until I was parked at home and had exited the vehicle. He also lost sight of my vehicle several times as I turned down several residential streets to get home. What are my options? I've already requested a court date. Do I have any chance of using the fact that he lost sight of me to have the ticket quashed?

Thanks for any help.

need096 wrote:The second and more important issue is that the officer who alleges I was speeding did not catch up to my car until I was parked at home and had exited the vehicle. He also lost sight of my vehicle several times as I turned down several residential streets to get home.

You weren't trying to lose him by any chance, were you?

need096 wrote:Do I have any chance of using the fact that he lost sight of me to have the ticket quashed?

If he got your license plate - no way. To be technically accurate, you wouldn't get the ticket quashed, although you might be found not guilty at trial. The issue really is, did the officer actually lose sight of your vehicle to the point where it may have been confused with someone else? "Losing sight" is the term that's used by the courts and cops. A more (but not totally) accurate description is that they lost track of it. For example, a car may temporarily go out of "sight" of the officer as it goes around a bend or makes a turn down a road, but within seconds the officer re-acquires sight of the vehicle. That's not enough to introduce reasonable doubt; "shadow of a doubt" maybe but certainly not a reasonable one, which is the standard the courts use. BUT, if the car in question did go out of sight for some time (all depends on the type of road), and another similar vehicle could've reappeared in its place - maybe. You'll have to think carefully about the circumstances after reading the officer's notes. The part about being parked at home and having exited the car falls into the same category.

need096 wrote:I have two problems, firstly I am 18 and have my G2 (insurance is already expensive) and although I will likely have my G by the time this is resolved I want this to have the least impact on my insurance possible.

45 over, for some insurance companies, is a major conviction (some are as low as 30 over). Others are 50 over. If this is your first time being charged with speeding, most Prosecutors will offer a speed reduction... 29 over is likely, 15 over if you're lucky.

Radar Identified wrote:

need096 wrote:The second and more important issue is that the officer who alleges I was speeding did not catch up to my car until I was parked at home and had exited the vehicle. He also lost sight of my vehicle several times as I turned down several residential streets to get home.

You weren't trying to lose him by any chance, were you?

need096 wrote:Do I have any chance of using the fact that he lost sight of me to have the ticket quashed?

If he got your license plate - no way. To be technically accurate, you wouldn't get the ticket quashed, although you might be found not guilty at trial. The issue really is, did the officer actually lose sight of your vehicle to the point where it may have been confused with someone else? "Losing sight" is the term that's used by the courts and cops. A more (but not totally) accurate description is that they lost track of it. For example, a car may temporarily go out of "sight" of the officer as it goes around a bend or makes a turn down a road, but within seconds the officer re-acquires sight of the vehicle. That's not enough to introduce reasonable doubt; "shadow of a doubt" maybe but certainly not a reasonable one, which is the standard the courts use. BUT, if the car in question did go out of sight for some time (all depends on the type of road), and another similar vehicle could've reappeared in its place - maybe. You'll have to think carefully about the circumstances after reading the officer's notes. The part about being parked at home and having exited the car falls into the same category.

need096 wrote:I have two problems, firstly I am 18 and have my G2 (insurance is already expensive) and although I will likely have my G by the time this is resolved I want this to have the least impact on my insurance possible.

45 over, for some insurance companies, is a major conviction (some are as low as 30 over). Others are 50 over. If this is your first time being charged with speeding, most Prosecutors will offer a speed reduction... 29 over is likely, 15 over if you're lucky.

Thank you for your reply.

I would post a map showing the situation, if it didn't reveal my address. I was traveling eastbound on Queen St. in Brampton. I did not actually pass the officer rather made a left turn before I got to him, I highly doubt he saw my license plate as he was several hundred feet away. He lost track of my car for many seconds while he got from his hidng spot to the street I had turned on, I then made two turns fairly quickly and pulled into my driveway. I should add he didn't see the second turn, I suspect he guessed. I have two witnesses who will indicate I was at home and out of the vehicle at least 30 seconds before the officer showed up. He did not at any point has his lights on either, until he stopped in front of my driveway. Thanks again for clarifying the terms, I've never had any tickets or any other reason to go to court.

Radar Identified was pretty spot on.

If you want to make this argument, you'll have to have a full blown trial.

That being said, you're making a case out of assumptions. You have no disclosure and you're interpreting what the officer did and did not see. An officer doesn't need a 100% visual of your vehicle at all times anyways.

Also, your story may end up hurting you more than helping you. It makes it sound like you were possibly aware of your speeding and were hoping to avoid the situation by pulling into your driveway as quickly as possible while your friends kept an eye out behind you.

bend wrote:Radar Identified was pretty spot on.

If you want to make this argument, you'll have to have a full blown trial.

That being said, you're making a case out of assumptions. You have no disclosure and you're interpreting what the officer did and did not see. An officer doesn't need a 100% visual of your vehicle at all times anyways.

Also, your story may end up hurting you more than helping you. It makes it sound like you were possibly aware of your speeding and were hoping to avoid the situation by pulling into your driveway as quickly as possible while your friends kept an eye out behind you.

Thank you for your opinion, I understand I will have to wait until I get disclosure to know what the officer has against me. While I admit my story isn't perfect (also had to write it on my phone at work) it is what I have to work with. As for my "friends" keeping a lookout, one of my witnesses is in fact my mother who had been driving behind me. The other witness is a neighbour who was outside at the time and witnessed myself parking and the officer showing up some time later.

Technically it sounds like your odds are pretty good for winning. Always remember, the onus is on the state to prove its claim, not you to disprove it. That's the biggest mistake people make in court. However, that means putting a lot of time and effort into unless you can hire a lawyer - I'd skip paralegals as they lack training in trial advocacy and basically just want to plead down your fine which you can easily do yourself. So, the real question is whether it's worth your time or not? The prosecutor will definitely offer you a reduction to 129 which is a minor conviction and won't affect your insurance, so small fine and no headache or trial and potentially lots of work?

If they're willing to appear as witnesses I'd say go for it, as there's no way he can prove it was you without video evidence. That is unless your car is very distinctive. If it stands out from the crowd it'd be much harder to argue.

Halsy wrote:Technically it sounds like your odds are pretty good for winning.

I disagree. Until he's got disclosure of the officer's notes, we don't know that.

Halsy wrote:I'd skip paralegals as they lack training in trial advocacy

Not exactly. For example:

... The program emphasizes development of written and oral advocacy and focuses on all areas of authorized paralegal practice...

While lawyers certainly receive more training than paralegals, paralegals do get training in how to conduct a trial. The difference is, the lawyer will usually cost you more. In highly critical cases like stunt driving or careless driving, depending on what you may be faced with, a lawyer might not be a bad idea. But for a 45 over speeding ticket, a lawyer is not too likely to get you any better results.

Halsy wrote: and basically just want to plead down your fine which you can easily do yourself.

Some do, some don't. However, most offences paralegals are dealing with are absolute liability and strict liability offences, where the standard for conviction is much lower. Of the times I've observed trials and been in traffic court, some of the paralegals have packed it in and not given a flying rat's @$$, but others have been absolute tigers and quoted all sorts of highly complex case law, picked witnesses apart and blown the Prosecutor's case out of the water. Like anything else: Caveat emptor. I always tell people that when hiring legal assistance, talk carefully to the person they're intending to hire. Some blow you off and want to do as you suggested (just plead it down); others take the time to explain to you what the situation is, what they're going to do, and figure out the best solution. But in all fairness you can't really conclude what's better based solely on whether one is a paralegal or lawyer.

Halsy wrote:If they're willing to appear as witnesses I'd say go for it, as there's no way he can prove it was you without video evidence. That is unless your car is very distinctive. If it stands out from the crowd it'd be much harder to argue.

I'd be careful with that one. "There's no way he can prove it was you without video evidence" is not accurate. The officer's testimony that he was tracking the vehicle is enough, even if he momentarily lost sight. Once he's given clear testimony to that effect, the job of the OP (should he choose to go this route) will be to introduce doubt by asking questions about how long he lost sight of the vehicle, were there other cars on the road/how many, where did you see the vehicle turn, how long until you saw it again, how far away, did you get the license plate, did you get a general view of the driver, etc. To give a complex example:

Officer: "I was on Queen Street in Brampton, and observed the defendant's vehicle passing others. Based on my training on estimating vehicle speeds, I had reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle was travelling approximately 40-45 km/h over the speed limit. I activated my Laser Atlanta, which was tested before and after the stop and shown to be in working order, and obtained a reading of 105 km/h in a 60 km/h zone at a distance of 200 metres. I then began to follow the vehicle, which was (make and model) which made a right turn off of Queen Street at Whatever Street. I turned onto Whatever Street and saw the same make and model vehicle. I concluded this was the same vehicle, as it was the only one on the road in the direction of travel and its distance from the intersection would have made sense based upon the time from which it turned to the time I reached the intersection. The vehicle then made a turn onto Some Avenue. At this point, I temporarily lost sight of the vehicle, so drove to Random Road and saw the same make and model vehicle with its brake lights on, having just pulled into the driveway. I saw the defendant exiting the vehicle and proceeding towards his house. Based on time, distance travelled, and the position, I concluded that it was the subject vehicle..."

While it's not perfect or "ideal" from an evidence perspective, it is sufficient. Unless you can testify in an unshaken and reliable manner that you didn't come from that direction, or that there was a big time gap (neighbour and mother's testimony) at that point, you are toast! If the officer's testimony is garbage, well then you might have a good shot there. The standard is reasonable doubt, and what you or I might think is reasonable doubt is probably different than many JPs. Best thing at this point is get disclosure of the offence and see what the officer's notes have. Now if the officer says "no way did I ever lose sight of the vehicle for a single second," then that actually works in your favour, because your mother and neighbour could probably provide convincing evidence contradicting that - and making the officer look unreliable.

need096 wrote:The other witness is a neighbour who was outside at the time and witnessed myself parking and the officer showing up some time later.

This time gap also has to reflect when the officer would've possibly seen your vehicle pull in to the driveway. They are trained to look for people who are trying to elude them, whether it is intentional or not. As I'm sure you know, the time the officer arrived doesn't necessarily reflect him losing sight of the vehicle for the same amount of time.

Thanks again everyone, good to here different opinions. It seems the general consensus is I'll have to wait until I receive disclosure and find out what evidence the officer has. I am going to consult with a paralegal however it seems this is mostly a waiting game.