51km/h over
08-18-2009, 01:13 AM
#16
Rennlist Member
or at the very least go and meet with the prosecuter and he may offer you a lower speed ticket.
I suggest you fight it. Zookie has a good guy for that.
or at go to first court and ask for adjournement if cop shows.
glad to hear you weren't towed.
I suggest you fight it. Zookie has a good guy for that.
or at go to first court and ask for adjournement if cop shows.
glad to hear you weren't towed.
08-18-2009, 02:55 PM
#17
Drifting
3. There are no Laser and VG2 equipped cars in Ontario.
VG 2 'was' the standard here in Ontario until recently.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/28/wo...new-snare.html
And the DAMN product is made right here in Mississauga!
However... The use of Spectre 2 models is now becoming common place and the insurance industry here in Ontario is paying for these models and giving them to the OPP for FREE!
Know what your up against!
http://www.stalcar-rdd.com/radar_wars.asp
From http://www.radarbusters.com/:
Radar detectors are legal to use in passenger vehicles in all states with the exception of Virginia and Washington D.C. or while on an US military base. In Canada, only three provinces allow the use of radar detectors in passenger cars: British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
In all commercial trucks (18 wheelers) the possession of a radar detector is illegal.
The first Radar Detector Detector (RDD) was the VG-2. You will find that most radar detector manufacturers advertise that their detectors are all VG-2 proof. The problem with this is that VG-2 is seldom used anymore. Most, if not all police departments now use the Spectre to sniff out radar detectors.
That is why Radar Roy, through his contacts in the law enforcement community, purchased his own Spectre III to test radar detectors immunity to this new threat.
In testing, Radar Roy has only found three radar detectors that can defeat the Spectre. They are:
* Beltronics STi Driver.
* Beltronics STI- R
* Escort 9500 ci
In all commercial trucks (18 wheelers) the possession of a radar detector is illegal.
The first Radar Detector Detector (RDD) was the VG-2. You will find that most radar detector manufacturers advertise that their detectors are all VG-2 proof. The problem with this is that VG-2 is seldom used anymore. Most, if not all police departments now use the Spectre to sniff out radar detectors.
That is why Radar Roy, through his contacts in the law enforcement community, purchased his own Spectre III to test radar detectors immunity to this new threat.
In testing, Radar Roy has only found three radar detectors that can defeat the Spectre. They are:
* Beltronics STi Driver.
* Beltronics STI- R
* Escort 9500 ci
Rule of thumb is with the 'locals' - they don't have the Spectre (yet) but 60 units have been given to the OPP so that your premiums can be raised as I see it.
Pretty funny bubba test of a Spectra 4:
http://www.donspc.com/happyass/Final...herquality.mp4
Last edited by Torontoworker; 08-18-2009 at 03:25 PM.
08-18-2009, 03:38 PM
#18
Three Wheelin'
There's another useful wrinkle here too.
Rulings (case law) have determined that the officer cannot read your speed off the gun and then stop you. In other words, he can't just point the gun at traffic, read a number, then pick a car. He needs to make an "Independent visual observation" that you appear to be speeding - then - and ONLY then - CONFIRM it with technology.
So the notion of him "clocking you" a mile down the road strains the credibility of his sworn testimony (that he'll be required to make under oath) at trial that he "saw you speeding then measured the vehicle's speed with my radar unit".
At trial - you'll usually hear the officer recite, in a VERY strucutred manner, that he did this. They KNOW they have to and will testify that they did. But the JP has to believe it to be possible, and even likely that it happened that way - else - you've got the beginnings of your victory.
Fight this for sure - lots of "reasonable doubt" here.
Plus - you might get lucky like I did last week and have the charge withdrawn, for, as the PP said "lack of evidence". Still no clue why that happened - but pleased as can be to still have a spotless record (for now).
RK
Rulings (case law) have determined that the officer cannot read your speed off the gun and then stop you. In other words, he can't just point the gun at traffic, read a number, then pick a car. He needs to make an "Independent visual observation" that you appear to be speeding - then - and ONLY then - CONFIRM it with technology.
So the notion of him "clocking you" a mile down the road strains the credibility of his sworn testimony (that he'll be required to make under oath) at trial that he "saw you speeding then measured the vehicle's speed with my radar unit".
At trial - you'll usually hear the officer recite, in a VERY strucutred manner, that he did this. They KNOW they have to and will testify that they did. But the JP has to believe it to be possible, and even likely that it happened that way - else - you've got the beginnings of your victory.
Fight this for sure - lots of "reasonable doubt" here.
Plus - you might get lucky like I did last week and have the charge withdrawn, for, as the PP said "lack of evidence". Still no clue why that happened - but pleased as can be to still have a spotless record (for now).
RK
08-18-2009, 04:12 PM
#19
Rennlist Member
The OPP has an Australian RDD called Predator which can detect any RD including Valentine. I talked to Valentine and they confirmed that they are vulnerable. There is one recent RD which cannot be detected. Will see if I can find the name.
08-18-2009, 04:23 PM
#21
Three Wheelin'
Oh - another angle here...
If there were multiple officers working the trap (and you seem to suggest there were) - they ALL need to be there. Now the PP will prolly argue that they don't, since maybe only this guy wrote you up. BUT - you can ask (at trial) if any of the other offices had cause to calibrate, test, use, adjust or otherwise access the unit used to clock your speed.
If the officer CANNOT confirm, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the unit was in his EXCLUSIVE care at all times - who knows if it was; bashed, adjusted, calibrated, altered or otherwise compromised by another officer moments before taking your reading?
Reasonable doubt is your friend. : )
Now, the JP might have none of this and simple ignore your request for observance of legal proceedure and precedent. But I think that's offensive. Depsite the casual tomfoolery that occurs in traffic court and most people's utter lack of understanding as to what's going on (JPs, PPs, cops and defendents alike) it's STILL a court of law and deserves respect. Not sure if you'd get away with it - but you might remind a JP of this concept. Remember - many JP's DO NOT have a law degree.
RK
If there were multiple officers working the trap (and you seem to suggest there were) - they ALL need to be there. Now the PP will prolly argue that they don't, since maybe only this guy wrote you up. BUT - you can ask (at trial) if any of the other offices had cause to calibrate, test, use, adjust or otherwise access the unit used to clock your speed.
If the officer CANNOT confirm, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the unit was in his EXCLUSIVE care at all times - who knows if it was; bashed, adjusted, calibrated, altered or otherwise compromised by another officer moments before taking your reading?
Reasonable doubt is your friend. : )
Now, the JP might have none of this and simple ignore your request for observance of legal proceedure and precedent. But I think that's offensive. Depsite the casual tomfoolery that occurs in traffic court and most people's utter lack of understanding as to what's going on (JPs, PPs, cops and defendents alike) it's STILL a court of law and deserves respect. Not sure if you'd get away with it - but you might remind a JP of this concept. Remember - many JP's DO NOT have a law degree.
RK
08-18-2009, 10:57 PM
#25
Drifting
The ship will soon hit the rocks for the 50 over law.
http://canadianfreestuff.ca/macleans...e-the-charter/
Simply put, speeding has always been considered an “absolute liability” offence. Once a person is clocked over the limit, there is basically no possible defence (unless he can prove the radar gun was defective). As a trade-off for such swift justice, the Charter guarantees that anyone who commits an absolute liability offence—i.e., he has no fighting chance to defend himself—can’t be locked away. Yet now, thanks to the new stunt-driving legislation, a form of speeding is suddenly punishable with prison. “It is unconstitutional,” says Brian Starkman, a lawyer who specializes in street-racing cases. “You can’t have an absolute liability offence co-exist with the potential for jail. That is settled in law.”
Starkman, among others, has tried to argue that point in court, hoping to have the “50 over” section scratched from the act. The courts have been unsympathetic—until now. Maclean’s has learned that earlier this month, a man in Burlington who was clocked at 60 km/h over the limit had his charges stayed after a justice of the peace, Barbara Waugh, agreed with the constitutional challenge. “I am the first one to win,” says Gary Lewin, the man’s paralegal. “She ruled that speeding is speeding, it is an absolute liability offence, and that the stunt-driving law breaches the Charter because now you can go to jail.”
Starkman, among others, has tried to argue that point in court, hoping to have the “50 over” section scratched from the act. The courts have been unsympathetic—until now. Maclean’s has learned that earlier this month, a man in Burlington who was clocked at 60 km/h over the limit had his charges stayed after a justice of the peace, Barbara Waugh, agreed with the constitutional challenge. “I am the first one to win,” says Gary Lewin, the man’s paralegal. “She ruled that speeding is speeding, it is an absolute liability offence, and that the stunt-driving law breaches the Charter because now you can go to jail.”
http://canadianfreestuff.ca/macleans...e-the-charter/
08-19-2009, 01:12 AM
#26
Drifting
Brother in law got pulled over this weekend on the QEW in the construction zone - doing 138 in the 80. Cop asked him if he knew how fast he was goin, he thought about givin the shrug and 'dunno' for a sec, but told him 138. Cops gives him a 138 in a 100 and said only because he told the truth did he cut him a break and not put the car on the back of the tow truck. Roadside judge and jury at its best.
AFAIK, a cop can lower the speed recorded on the ticket.... however, he cannot arbitrarily change the speed limit. That is outta his/her jurisdiction....
Someone I know, once had a ticket overturned because of the 'community zone' - which legally means doubling the fine amount, and the cop was nice and didn't charge double on the ticket etc. The crown appealed the initial judgement, meaning someone had to do a lot of reading on the HTA, luckily the JP allowed the Crown (in Shelbourne - orange county) to win the appeal, but asked them to drop the charges.
P
08-20-2009, 10:09 AM
#28
Racer
Thread Starter
Called a lawyer who seems like a really straight-shooter. He basically told me the risk was quite high. Unless he didn't show or his notes were incomplete/faulty the best we could hope for is a reduction to 30 over. This would be pretty useless since the points are the same and the fine reduction wouldn't make a difference due to the cost of his services. He went on to say, though unlikely, the case could be fought at the original 51 over. He was more than willing to give it a try but agreed that this was one was probably best left as is.
08-20-2009, 01:09 PM
#29
Nordschleife Master
Having 1 ticket on your record is ok. My insurance didn't go up over 1 ticket. Though you need to not get another one for 3 years before it gets taken off.
