As I understand it, the way insurance companies look at things is 3 minor convictions in 2 years = rate raise. Every policy I've ever had has had a check box for "2 or less minor convictions", minor conviction ebing defined as under 20 over (i.e. up to and including 119 in a 100 zone). Keep under that and your rates are fine.

POINTS, ex-copper all go to the plea bargain session and NOTHING MORE. At the plea bargaining session the JP will offer you a reduced rate to avoid trial - take it or leave it. When I went to the plea bargain session there was one rep each from points and ex-copper. The JP actually had a chart of accused speed/reduced speed. She looked up the speed I was accused of and offered me the corresponding reduced fee. It was clockwork, nothing to it.

So I guess to summarize, for a $50 ticket, POINTS will get it reduced to maybe 105-110 km/h and the matching fine. I'd say NOT worth it for $300 and no insurance hike. Just keep your nose clean for the next while and you should be fine.

 

Agree with everything Christien said, however, there are guys out there that will do the whole 9 yards and try everything to get the ticket DROPPED.

 

You will find it when you go to your free consultation. They usualy want to tones that they can plea down and make a quick buck . I would be interested as to what they say to you as they cannot guarentee you a win ( plead it down more ) . They would have to get the ticket thrown out.

 

Who? I've got a date with a judge in February. I was going to go it alone, but if there was a service that could get it dropped, I'll give them a call.

 

pm'd

 

A “win” to them is not really win for you. If they manage to even reduce the cost of the ticket, they will consider that as a win so be careful when hiring them. Also, since your ticket was already reduced by the office, he/she will bring this up in court and you’ll be lucky if the judge doesn’t raise the ticket up to the original speeding violation.
When the office talked to you, did you EVER say the words “I’m Sorry”, “Sorry about that”, “I apologize” or anything like that? If you did, that is an admission of guilt and you are pretty much screwed.

I would just pay it and leave it alone.

 

No, I did not say I was sorry, or admit.
I said I never speed.

A friend of mine works for a lawyer, and he is going to fight it.
It is not about the 50, it is the record and insurance.
John

 

Good for you. It is BS, just artificially set low speed limits so they can collect $$.

 

ok but be prepared that they will bring up the fact that the officer has reduced your ticket and the actual speed that he/she clocked you at was much higher. In all fairness, you were not going 15 over and got a ticket for it, it was much higher and they will exploit this fact.

I really hope you'll win.

 

They will say "Hey you seem like a good guy so I will cut you a break. I'll knock the ticket down to 15 over so it won't affect your insurance rates."

The police want you to buy that load so you tell everyone how lucky you were that you got your ticket reduced.

The court may bring up that your actual speed.

 

Not may, they will, I 100% guarantee it. That's why he needs to think twice about fighting it.

 

bottom line is 0 - 40 is considered a minor infraction be it 0, 3 or 4 points it is still a minor conviction. Take your one minore conviction and be carefull if Pointts can not guarentee you an acquital. I don't think they will. let us know how your free consultation goes.

 

One could also argue that since he reduced the speed of the ticket, perhaps the copper thought that there was something wrong with it on his end, decided to give it anyway just at a reduced speed so that there was a better chance you wouldn't fight it. That is a valid arguement that has helped win trials before. Make sure you get full disclosure: ALL his notes (his notebook, the back of the ticket... EVERYTHING to do with that T-stop), test times of the instrument at the begining & end of shift, the dates of his/her certification on that instrument (radar or laser?). Make sure at trial someone asks about tracking history (what did he estimate your speed at, how far away were you, were there any other vehicles on the road...). Your lawyer knows this, but remember, you only need to prove reasonable doubt; which means, if he doesn't have written somewhere that he tested the instrument - Not Guilty. If he didn't/can't estimate your speed BEFORE he locked you in - Not Guilty. If he can't find his certs proving he is trained to use said instrument - Not Guilty. I think you get the idea.
And try not to get up and give evidence. From the Crowns side, they only need to prove that you were speeding over the limit, not how much, just that you were over. So when you say "Yeah I was at like 108 not 135" or whatever, then you admitted you were speeding (thus losing any reasonable doubt your team may have created with the above advice), and they win.

Good Luck.

 

One rule of thumb from the FYST site is to NOT take the stand in your own defence, because that gives the prosecution the right to cross-examine you, and they'll crucify you. Include your own evidence in your closing argument, rather than testimony.

 

That’s not so at all. In traffic court the police has the advantage, all they have to prove is that it probably happened that way and nothing more and the officer’s testimony has a lot more weight that yours. In criminal court you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, not in traffic court. I don’t remember what the proper term is for this but, there is one that describes the difference between traffic and criminal court. This is where a lot of people get too confident and think they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and win. When in fact they need to go beyond that.