Do I have grounds to get my ticket thrown out for this disclosure mistake?

[ajaxguy]

So I received a cellphone ticket on the 401 back in May, filed my disclosure and I received it yesterday. Now here is the problem with it, from what I see.
In the officers notes, he referred to my phone as a Blackberry... not a cellphone or device, he specifically mentioned it on 3 different occasions in the notes and no mention of anything else.

I do not own a BB and wasnt talking on one at the time. I work for Motorola and get my phones free so only use Motorola as i was that day. So based on him first of all being specific on it being a BB and not just a device and second that I can show my Motorola phone and show them my Rogers account stating I own a Motorola plus my work badge.

So the question is, what do you guys think? Mistake on the ticket and its out the door?

[eastcoast_gsx]

I would doubt it. But WTF do I know

[awyala]

Does it have a bb-esque qwerty? If so I think you don't have much of a defence.

[ajaxguy]

Does it have a bb-esque qwerty? If so I think you don't have much of a defence.

No its an Android touchscreen!

[FitzR6]

The ministry states "The law makes it illegal for drivers to talk, text, type, dial or email using hand-held cell phones and other hand-held communications and entertainment devices."

However, if you have some other angle of defense, the fact the cop is sure you had a blackberry and you do not could help you with the credibility of his testimony. Maybe he saw a cell phone device in the car but pulled you over for holding a toy that resembles a cell phone ur kid left in the car lol

Point is that you can argue anything so long as you are convincing and prove the cops testimony to be otherwise.

[awyala]

The ministry states "The law makes it illegal for drivers to talk, text, type, dial or email using hand-held cell phones and other hand-held communications and entertainment devices."

However, if you have some other angle of defense, the fact the cop is sure you had a blackberry and you do not could help you with the credibility of his testimony. Maybe he saw a cell phone device in the car but pulled you over for holding a toy that resembles a cell phone ur kid left in the car lol

Point is that you can argue anything so long as you are convincing and prove the cops testimony to be otherwise.

I think he is right here....the crime isn't against using Blackberries, the crime, which you will eventually confess to under the cross, is that you were using a mobile device. He will admit to goofing on the brand of device, but then the prosecuter will ask you to defend against the claim it wasn't a bb. "if not a bb, then what did the officer mistake for a bb? ohhh a touch screen mobile android device?".

Try for toy gun!

[slogan]

... but then the prosecuter will ask you to defend against the claim it wasn't a bb. "if not a bb, then what did the officer mistake for a bb? ohhh a touch screen mobile android device?".

Try for toy gun!

you have right to not testify against yourself.
I guess the questions like "did you speed" or "did you use handheld device" etc can be rejected. Your point is that you did not use BB while driving because you do not own any. my guess...

[Rob MacLennan]

The law doesn't like Perry Mason-like tricks. Did the officer examine your phone, or did he just write you up? The brand of phone seems to be a minor quibble, in this case.

[turbodish]

you have right to not testify against yourself.
I guess the questions like "did you speed" or "did you use handheld device" etc can be rejected. Your point is that you did not use BB while driving because you do not own any. my guess...

You have the right to not testify, period.

However, once you give up that right, there is no US-style Fifth Amendment protection that you can puill out of your back pocket when faced with a question from the Crown which if answered might incriminate you. The OP trying to prove that his phone is not a Blackberry could easily be seen as the OP choosing to testify, and that would open the OP up to cross-examination questions by the Crown which the OP would be compelled to answer.

[ajaxguy]

I just feel that I am getting charged with operating a car using a handheld device and thats fine, but the officer should have said in his notes , when he used blackberry should have just been phone or device. Cuz my case is that part of my charge is based on the officers notes, and his notes clearly state that i was using a blackberry which I was not, so those could be deemed as false statements and grounds for withdrawl.

Either way, even if I have to testify and get cross examined and get found guilty, its still the same fine no matter what. It cannot be increased or made into a worse fine, so I have nothing to lose. This will be a great case to test my legal abilities, lol.

[Freestyle72]

The way I see this is you have to make it look as though his testimony is false/uncredible. So if you take it to court you basically have to ask him the correct questions. Telling him to confirm that you were using a black berry device. When in fact you don't even own a blackberry device thus his testimony is not credible. However if the judge does not give a **** you will still get charged. The main thing is you need the cop to admit to something which "untrue" and by extension the rest of their testimony cannot be trusted. A friend of mine has gotten out of tickets 3 times this way. He just keeps asking the officers questions until they falter, or hesitate and pretty much when their testimony is incosistent then how can it be trusted against your word?

All you have to do is maintain that you did not use your phone at all and that in fact you do not even own a blackberry. But I am pretty sure you would have to submit your motorola as evidence. Then ask the officer "if that is the device referred to in the notes" etc... and then you prove that is not a blackberry device..... either way it depends on the judge.

[caboose483]

Just like some people think all sport bikes are "ninjas" maybe there are people that think all fancy smart phones are "blackberries"

If i was a judge and you came to me splitting hairs like that, I'd laugh at you.

[Rob MacLennan]

Just like some people think all sport bikes are "ninjas" maybe there are people that think all fancy smart phones are "blackberries"

If i was a judge and you came to me splitting hairs like that, I'd laugh at you.

The same way that all facial tissue is Kleenex and all ASA is Aspirin.

[Torren]

I would give it a try. Worse outcome is you have to pay the $155. Best case it gets dismissed.

If the cop testifys that you had a BB and you can prove you did not then it might cast enough doubt that the judge will side with you, or at least get the cop a talking to about taking accurate notes which is the important part.

[GayManLoveIsOK]

i had a cop yell at me once, before the law came into effect, about me talking on my cel phone...the only problem was, that i was not talking on my cel phone. i was driving in slow traffic, he was a few cars ahead in the left lane while i was in the right lane, i was propping my head up with my hand as my elbow was resting on the sill...so it looked like, from a distance, that i could be talking on a cel phone...needless to say, we have a yelling match, which ended up with me ripping the hands free bluetooth mirror off the mount to wave at him...stupid police, fight the ticket, they are mostly retarded...this cops attitude sucked, he just flat out started yelling at me, not a good way to start a conversation with the public...the fact that you were operating a handheld device while driving won't be an easy defence, even if he says blackberry a bunch of times, but hey, let your lawyer sort that out...i'm no professional...

[ajaxguy]

I can see the points here about the judge thinking its a minor detail, but I will proceed with trial and like freestyle said, will get him to to see that his testimony cannot be trusted based on his false accusation of me using a blackberry. Like I said worst case I still pay the $155.

[Griffin]

You haven't got a hope in hell that the JP will think the cop's notes are "false statements".

As noted by others, Blackberry is to smart phones as Coke is to pop. His testimony will be that you were talking on a handheld device. His notes are for his reference to assist with his recollection of events. They are not an affidavit. You haven't a chance.

But, go to court, the cop may not show up.

I would just suggest that you raise the issue of the cop's notes more in the manner of "I'm concerned the reference in your notes is to a Blackberry. Could you have been mistaken in your observations?" and not "liar, liar, pants on fire".

[ajaxguy]

What would have a better shot of getting it dismissed.... me trying to get the officer to show his testimony was not credible, or showing the judge that I have all the handsfree equipment( including car mount for my phone) and that I wasnt in my regular car with the handsfree stuff, so if I could get a reprieve as a first timer for this?

[Freestyle72]

You will never get off as "first timer". Typically if you don't get that break at the side of the road it ain't happening in court... you fine might be reduced for a first timer though.

[caboose483]

I swear my normal daily driver doesn't have nitrous or drag slicks... i was just driving my other car today, your honour!