Off Duty Police officer, tries to race me then gives me a ticket

[RedDragon]

First off what were you thinking racing a 2010 real sportscar against a couple of pinheads in a ford focus of all things.It would be like racing a Lada with a Lambo why bother..lol. Aside from the joking I agree with many of the people who responded to your question. Get a lawyer and a good one or redline. I think the most interesting part will be the disclosure notes. They would reveal the actions of yourself and the constables.

[Rossi86]

Before deciding to lawyer up, I would request the disclosure package on my own first. See what the cops have on you first, then decide if you can win this ticket by yourself or not.
This should be a pretty straight forward ticket to win:
1) See if there is an R for Reduced on the ticket for 49 km/h over the limit. If there isn't, then the cops were just BS-ing you trying to intimidate you not to go to court for a good reason: because they were being ********** themselves!
2) All the cops you mentioned in the story would have to be present at the trial to testify against you, they cannot cover for a cop who doesn't show up by saying: "officer_______ told me the driver was speeding excessively" etc etc, that would be Hearsay. The chances of getting 3 cops in the same courtroom for 1 speeding ticket are pretty slim. If you want to make sure they don't show up at the trial date, postpone the 1st trial date the court assigns you (but then you'd be waiving any charter challenges).
3) Once you get the disclosure package, it will be pretty clear on what your options are to fight this ticket. Then the people on this board can do more to help you decide on what to do next

4) Don't be intimidated by cops, don't be a fool! If you were supposed to be charged with HTA172 for excessive speeding, you would've been charged already! You think they'd have mercy on you?! You didn't get charged with HTA172 becasue they can't prove it that you were doing 50 over, they were driving a civillian car. The only thing they can prove is that they raced you and if they do that they are f---ed themselves! No cop will take the stand and say "The charge should be changed, this guy should be charged with racing because he raced ME while I was in my personal vehicle revving it at a red light, daring him to race me"

5) The most important one! DON'T take advice from dankyz and turbodish, they don't help anyone here. In fact, they are happy you got this ticket and hope it will affect your life as much as possible!

[nobbie48]

You didn't get charged with HTA172 becasue they can't prove it that you were doing 50 over, they were driving a civillian car. The only thing they can prove is that they raced you and if they do that they are f---ed themselves! No cop will take the stand and say "The charge should be changed, this guy should be charged with racing because he raced ME while I was in my personal vehicle revving it at a red light, daring him to race me"

5) The most important one! DON'T take advice from dankyz and turbodish, they don't help anyone here. In fact, they are happy you got this ticket and hope it will affect your life as much as possible!

Someone posted the full HTA and it covers more than 50 over. ANY attempt to outdistance etc is a race. There are a number of other cut-off type offences that will make you walk home. Don't just fixate on 50 over.

The entrapment is a ???. Where is the line drawn? If the cops rolled down their window and said "I bet I can take you" it would be a different matter. If the OP could prove the alcohol suspicion this could be really interesting in court. Did the third cop put that in his notes? If not it didn't happen.

[Rossi86]

Someone posted the full HTA and it covers more than 50 over. ANY attempt to outdistance etc is a race. There are a number of other cut-off type offences that will make you walk home. Don't just fixate on 50 over.

What did I just post above? You're taking one of my points out of context and beating it to death, that's why the OP needs to get his hands on the disclosure first before deciding anything...
If they say the OP was racing, then he was racing the cop himself which would get the cop in just as much trouble. The OP being charged with HTA172 for just "outdistancing" the cop (if the cop lies in court and says I didn't race just thisguy took off first) would be a ridiculous charge at best because any speeding when there's other cars on the road, even 5 over, would be considered racing.

That's why the OP needs to see the disclosure evidence before doing anything, he shouldn't start any fight without knowing what he's up against.

But I wouldn't be intimidated cause some cop told him if he takes it to court he could be charged with racing. I had a cop write me 5 tickets including: no license proof, no ownership, no insurance proof, no sticker renewal. All of them I had in the car, but she didn't give me enough time to bring them out. When she came back with the tickets I gave her everything and she said "You didn't bring them out on time. Don't argue with me cause I'll give you more tickets. And if you take them to court I'll show up, as I always do and I always win!"

I took all of those to court asking for a trial date. You know what the result was? 2 years I wait, no trial notice in the mail. I go to the courthouse to ask and they told me the prosecutor withdrew those charges a long time ago already. No first attendance! No trial! Nothing!
So that's your average power tripping traffic cop, they'll write any tickets and they'll threaten that's how they do their job.

[FiReSTaRT]

Some caveats regarding the disclosure package:
1) Do not use the disclosure request form that the prosecutors are "nice enough" to hand out. Those basically let the Crown decide what you need for your disclosure package. This page http://ticketcombat.com/step4/disclosurehow.php has a link to a very nice disclosure request form. I downloaded it it, took out the logo and modified the list of items to suit the particulars of my case.
2) While you should be nice enough to include some information that appears on your ticket/notice of trial (like when the court date is, which courtroom etc etc), do not include your phone number and make sure you modify your fax machine's settings not to include your phone number. That prevents the Crown from claiming "we called him to tell him that the disclosure package is ready, but he never came to pick it up." By the way, if the Crown complains that you did not include a phone number, your response (to the JP) should be "Your Worship, I was going through a transitional period with my telecom services [sob story about a VoIP switch (in my case it's always true because I tweak my VoIP accounts all the time lol)] so I did not have a reliable telephone service, but I am sure that the Crown had heard of Canada Post and its ability to send me a pickup notice with them. I heard that they are even certified to ship restricted firearms, so a notice should not be a security issue."
3) Keep your fax receipts and make sure that your fax machine's time settings are correct. Printing out your outgoing call logs is very helpful if you're with a reputable VoIP provider. When going to court, make sure you print 4 copies of each document you're submitting (1 for your reference, 1 for the JP, 1 for the Crown and 1 spare), which includes original request (signed in ink), fax receipt and your call log (if you have it).
4) Ideally you wanna send 2 requests. One as soon as you get your notice of trial (quick action also good for an 11b argument) and one about a month before the trial date. If you haven't received full disclosure 3 weeks before the trial, fax your form 4F (and a factum if necessary) to the AG's of Ontario and Canada and the Prosecutor's office. Bring extra copies to the court for the JP and the prosecutor.
5) If the Crown hasn't sent you all relevant information, you can still request a stay of your charges regardless of the fact that they sent you something.

[Carriers]

What did I just post above? You're taking one of my points out of context and beating it to death, that's why the OP needs to get his hands on the disclosure first before deciding anything...
If they say the OP was racing, then he was racing the cop himself which would get the cop in just as much trouble. The OP being charged with HTA172 for just "outdistancing" the cop (if the cop lies in court and says I didn't race just thisguy took off first) would be a ridiculous charge at best because any speeding when there's other cars on the road, even 5 over, would be considered racing.

That's why the OP needs to see the disclosure evidence before doing anything, he shouldn't start any fight without knowing what he's up against.

But I wouldn't be intimidated cause some cop told him if he takes it to court he could be charged with racing. I had a cop write me 5 tickets including: no license proof, no ownership, no insurance proof, no sticker renewal. All of them I had in the car, but she didn't give me enough time to bring them out. When she came back with the tickets I gave her everything and she said "You didn't bring them out on time. Don't argue with me cause I'll give you more tickets. And if you take them to court I'll show up, as I always do and I always win!"

I took all of those to court asking for a trial date. You know what the result was? 2 years I wait, no trial notice in the mail. I go to the courthouse to ask and they told me the prosecutor withdrew those charges a long time ago already. No first attendance! No trial! Nothing!
So that's your average power tripping traffic cop, they'll write any tickets and they'll threaten that's how they do their job.

No doubt I agree to this. Remember is there 3 side of every story. The OP, the police officer's and the truth. Everyone will bent the facts to favor them. I wouldn't make any judgement on the situation unless you were there. Request full disclosure like everyone else who had stated. See what you will be up against then decide your next step. I still think this story is fishy in the sense some crucial parts of it was neglected. I highly doubt a off -duty police officer would racing a civilian in risk of losing their jobs. But what the hey! It's your story! As of now request full disclosure and go from there. I wouldn't count the police officer not showing up. Unless they have something important to do that day they will show me. If they neglect to show up without reason, the police officer will get written up under their union agreement.

[turbodish]

Someone mentioned pacing - oh yeah, turbo again. Pacing is the LEAST practical and LEAST reliable of measuring speed. Further, pacing is only valid where the pursuing officer maintains speed at the same rate of the other vehicle, over some distance. Pacing is not estimating visually a vehicles speed or accelleration. These tickets often get thrown out before trial - I know, I've been the subject of a "pacing" aka b.s. ticket.

Yet so many tickets get issued and convictions obtained on the basis of pacing.

The pursuing cop doesn't have to maintain the "same" speed as the car being paced in order to secure a conviction. If a cop is doing 60 over the limit and the speeder ahead is still opening up a gap, the cop doesn't need to "estimate" the speed of the speeder. The cop can simply lay a charge for doing the 60 over the limit.

The evidence stated at trial will be the speed the cop was doing, that the speeder was still pulling away, therefore the speed of the speeder was at least 60 over the limit, thus sustaining a conviction for doing 60 over. No estimate of the higher speed is required at all once you get to a certain threshhold.

In actual practice, the charge laid will often be for something less than that observed on the cop's speedometer, though the cop's notes will note the actual observed speed. Doing so help short circuit any defence-raised issues about speedometer accuracy in the cop's car.

The only potential issue in the OP's case is that the cops were in a personal car that is unlikely to have a calibrated speedometer. However, the law does not require pacing to be done by a vehicle with a calibrated speedometer, and case law notes that as speeds rise to extremes above the speed limit, slight inaccuracy in a speedometer reading ceases to be an issue. If the cop was in fact doing 60 or more km over the limit and the OP was still pulling away, a 49-over charge laid would be reasonably sustained unless the OP has evidence to refute the speed reading on the cop's speedometer.

[caboose483]

Ok, they're supposedly revving the engine in the Focus while stopped at the lights beside the OP. A reasonable person as you claim would accelerate or slow down, but they're both stopped at the lights and not moving so neither of that applies, does it?

Then according to the OP, the lights change and the Focus "races" away. What would a reasonable person do according to you? Accelerate to catch up to them and pass them? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for the OP to maybe wait for a bit and let them get far ahead and then proceed slowly, maybe even turning off and going in a different direction?

In any case, the OP own actions showed that he felt no threat whatsoever from the two in the Focus. He accelerated to catch up to them and then pass them. Then, after "winning" his race he even slowed down to let them catch up so he could, in his own words, "comemorate them for at least trying". Hardly the actions of someone in fear of the two in the Focus.

This. I don't like it when I agree with Turbo but I do here.

What would a reasonable person do? What would I do in that situation? What does beating a Focus in a sports car prove? I'd let the Focus drive away. I don't swing at the slow pitches.

[Harvest]

I would take it to court for the reason alone that it is an unreliable method to gauge the speed of another vehicle by your own speedometer.

Not sure about the entrapment thing though.

[Grimmy]

If the charge was to be increased to a proper Street Racing charge, the driver of the focus would also be subject to the charge as a competing vehicle. Point to ponder.

[turbodish]

If the charge was to be increased to a proper Street Racing charge, the driver of the focus would also be subject to the charge as a competing vehicle. Point to ponder.

A cop following a speeding vehicle past the 50+ range in order to pace its speed is not racing.

[Rob MacLennan]

A cop following a speeding vehicle past the 50+ range in order to pace its speed is not racing.

"... in performance of his duty..." There might be a valid argument against that sort of behaviour, in there, when talking about off-duty officers.

[turbodish]

"... in performance of his duty..." There might be a valid argument against that sort of behaviour, in there, when talking about off-duty officers.

I doubt it. A sworn police officer retains his policing powers even when not on an active duty shift. Come to think of it, you yourself have repeatedly stated that cops "always on duty".

[Grimmy]

I'd like to see your statistics Turbo.

My professional experience has found that numerous "pacing" tickets to not hold up in court, and any competent paralegal worth their weight in salt and a minor amount of research regardin the ticket specifics can easily beat the quality of the evidence.

Further, the speed indicated must be supported by fact. Simply estimation of speed is insufficient.

"I was traveling at 60 kph, and he was pulling away at a rate of speed which I'd estimate in my experience as being no less than 80 kph" is far from accurate, and is VERY easy to poke holes in.

Now, if the officer was to say: "I was travelling behind the car for a distance of 1 km, at an indicated rate of speed of 80 kph, and the defendant was in front of me ever so slowly distancing itself from my vehicle, and I estimate the defendants vehicles speed at 83 kph based on this observation", now we have a different story, and somewhat more credible evidence.

Moreso - specific to this Topic - the offender was charged with speeding of 49 over, for accelerating in a rapid matter and a subsequent estimation of top speed acheived. The off duty police officers estimated his speed at lets say, 99 kph in a 50 kph zone (adjust figures to match actual speed limit of area, but we'll use these figures for discussions sake). The OP notes that the Focus accelerated additionally after its initial hard acceleration, but not enough to come close to matching the defendants vehicle.

From the description of the circumstances, a street racing charge straight up would have been the correct charge, but the evidence for either a speeding or street racing charge in either case is weak at best.

[Grimmy]

"... in performance of his duty..." There might be a valid argument against that sort of behaviour, in there, when talking about off-duty officers.

And further, off duty police officers who were in their own personal vehicle (and therefore, not a police cruiser marked or not), behaving in an inappropriate manner to incite perceivable aggressive driving, who may have consumed alcohol.

[Grimmy]

A cop following a speeding vehicle past the 50+ range in order to pace its speed is not racing.

It is street racing if the officer(s) meant to race, or to incite a race. It is not if they are within the bounds of their duties. Fine line, I'll agree, but that the officers inciting, encouraging, and then actually racing is not part of their normal duties. That it was mentioned that the police officers made a second acceleration after the initial hard acceleration shows that the officers went from racing, to pursuit.

One can still be street racing, and not exceed the speed limit. ie: "Lets see who can get to 60 kph the fastest/first, and then stop accelerating at that point to see what the gap is". No form of speeding, excessive or not, would take place, yet it is still racing.

[turbodish]

Further, the speed indicated must be supported by fact. Simply estimation of speed is insufficient.

"I was traveling at 60 kph, and he was pulling away at a rate of speed which I'd estimate in my experience as being no less than 80 kph" is far from accurate, and is VERY easy to poke holes in.

Now, if the officer was to say: "I was travelling behind the car for a distance of 1 km, at an indicated rate of speed of 80 kph, and the defendant was in front of me ever so slowly distancing itself from my vehicle, and I estimate the defendants vehicles speed at 83 kph based on this observation", now we have a different story, and somewhat more credible evidence.

I'm basing my position on the scenario that you describe in the second quoted paragraph, but with the cop saying "as a result of my observations I laid a charge of 80 kmph" (or more likely lower a lower speed than that to remove defence wiggle room at trial).

Moreso - specific to this Topic - the offender was charged with speeding of 49 over, for accelerating in a rapid matter and a subsequent estimation of top speed acheived. The off duty police officers estimated his speed at lets say, 99 kph in a 50 kph zone (adjust figures to match actual speed limit of area, but we'll use these figures for discussions sake). The OP notes that the Focus accelerated additionally after its initial hard acceleration, but not enough to come close to matching the defendants vehicle.

Huh? The OP did not say in his post that the cop said anything at all about estimating his top speed. The only thing mentioned was the amount of the speeding charge that was being laid.

Again, if the cops noted their own indicated speed as being 50 or 60 or more over with the accused STILL pulling away, the speed they charged the OP with is not an estimated speed but rather a speed that was actually achieved by the OP on his way to even higher speeds.

[AdRath]

Again, if the cops noted their own indicated speed as being 50 or 60 or more over with the accused STILL pulling away, the speed they charged the OP with is not an estimated speed but rather a speed that was actually achieved by the OP on his way to even higher speeds.

This is the part I don't get from a safety standpoint. If one vehicle going 50-60 over the speed limit is dangerous how does 2 off duty officers in a civilian vehicle (no lights or sirens to indicate to others they are in pursuit) doing the same make the situation any better? If anything these officers created a much worse situation by chasing after the OP.

At no point do I condone the actions of the OP but adding another speeding mass of metal to a roadway isn't helping anyone here. Bating people into creating hazardous situations isn't the purpose of police IMHO.

[Araqiels]

You very likely win this on your own, if you take the proper course of action. As someone suggested, dispute the charges, file for trial, request the disclosure, then if you feel it's too much for you to undertake, consult a lawyer, and proceed.

Make sure to take down any, and all notes of everything that happened that night before it begins fading in the memory. If you do not note it down now, you'll question your own version of events. Men with greater charges laid against them have gotten off, so you can do this if you do it intelligently, and without fear.

Who knows, maybe the court will learn these two were just on the way back from some festivities, and had decided to have a little fun with you before they call it a night? People's motivations are strange, and it wouldn't surprise me if this was another case of irresponsible behaviour on behalf of our beloved police force.

Please keep us posted after the trial ends, or the charges are dropped - other than that, do not disclose any more information on here until then.

[Grimmy]

I'm basing my position on the scenario that you describe in the second quoted paragraph, but with the cop saying "as a result of my observations I laid a charge of 80 kmph" (or more likely lower a lower speed than that to remove defence wiggle room at trial).



Huh? The OP did not say in his post that the cop said anything at all about estimating his top speed. The only thing mentioned was the amount of the speeding charge that was being laid.

Again, if the cops noted their own indicated speed as being 50 or 60 or more over with the accused STILL pulling away, the speed they charged the OP with is not an estimated speed but rather a speed that was actually achieved by the OP on his way to even higher speeds.

Firstly, as you know, the charge laid is the one which must be proven in court. Not proving a different charge, and that the lesser and different charge therefore is satisfactory. It would be like arresting for manslaughter, but charging for armed robbery because it seems easier to obtain a quilty plea without trial.

No, the OP did not say anything about estimating top speed. BUT, we do know that the ticket was for 49 over the limit, which would require a form of speed measurement, and since none was present, estimation would be the only method of said measurement. Logic is a cool thing.

To your last statement - I understand the theory - it is like carpet bombing - the target is in this 2 mile stretch, so we'll level it all, and we'll get it. That cannot be the case in court - the charge must be accurate, and the evidence to support it must also be accurate and complete. Hearing an argument of - well, I estimated that he was travelling at least 130 in a 60 zone (70 over) so we laid a charge for 49 over. Remember part 1 and part 3 offenses? Proper charge for offense commited. Further, as Police officers (on or off duty) they have a required obligation by legislation to seize the vehicle for street racing (or 50 over, take your pick) and they failed to do so, which calls their estimation of speed into doubt.

Dude, I could do this all day.