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

[OpenGambit]

There isn't an amount of money you could pay me to stand in front of anyone and say that with a straight face...

I know it isn't what you want to hear, but this is an argument that I would consider to actually hurt your case if it was brought up rather than help it.

As Rob has already suggested, all facial tissues are kleenex. all moving stairs are escalators, all bottles that keep your food/drinks warm is a Thermos.

In the end though, its your choice, maybe the JP would appreciate the laugh, but everything I have read in this thread is completely garbage. Who cares if its not a blackberry, who cares if you have the handsfree ****. If they ask you straight up whether you were using a handheld device at the time, unless you can say no ( which from the looks of this thread you can't without lying ) you are dead in the water and just wasting your time.

[eastcoast_gsx]

If they ask you straight up whether you were using a handheld device at the time, unless you can say no ( which from the looks of this thread you can't without lying ) you are dead in the water and just wasting your time.

And lying is a big leap from a cell phone ticket.

http://www.defencelaw.com/penalty-administration.html

[Sig_Girl]

What is this disclosure thing, everyone is talking about? I got a speeding ticket today, cop reduced it to $50 and no points, can I use this disclosure thing to save me, or Am I stuck hiring on the the ticket fighting companies?

[Rob MacLennan]

What is this disclosure thing, everyone is talking about? I got a speeding ticket today, cop reduced it to $50 and no points, can I use this disclosure thing to save me, or Am I stuck hiring on the the ticket fighting companies?

Read the sticky post "fighting your ticket" and it'll answer all your questions.

[EngineerJoe]

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.

I think this statement sums it up pretty well. You don't get a free pass because the cop write "blackberry", but you do get to attack his credibility. On that note, what proof do you have that you DON'T own a Blackberry? Having a company phone doesn't exclude the possibility of having a personal phone (e.g. a Blackberry)

[EngineerJoe]

If they ask you straight up whether you were using a handheld device at the time, unless you can say no ( which from the looks of this thread you can't without lying ) you are dead in the water and just wasting your time.

Section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says otherwise... although this may be a stretch.

[OpenGambit]

Section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says otherwise... although this may be a stretch.

but if he is going to say he doesn't own a phone, he is giving up that right.
Its not a cherry picking right, you either testify or you don't.

[Rob MacLennan]

Section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says otherwise... although this may be a stretch.

Section 11c is construed quite differently from what Americans call "taking the Fifth." You have a right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against you. That means you have a right to not be called to the stand, to give testimony for The Crown. You can, however, take the stand of your own volition and, if you do, you must answer all questions put to you truthfully. It doesn't matter who asks them.

[Mighty K]

If you were talking on a phone regardless of being a BB or not, I don't think it will matter. Also, if you work for Motorola, and you don't pay for your phones, then I am sure you would be supplied with a Motorola hands free device because your employer cares about the laws and your safety while working for them.

I am all for fighting tickets though, so I wish you luck in your defense.

[EngineerJoe]

but if he is going to say he doesn't own a phone, he is giving up that right.
Its not a cherry picking right, you either testify or you don't.

Section 11c is construed quite differently from what Americans call "taking the Fifth." You have a right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against you. That means you have a right to not be called to the stand, to give testimony for The Crown. You can, however, take the stand of your own volition and, if you do, you must answer all questions put to you truthfully. It doesn't matter who asks them.

Yup, it was a stretch to assume that 11c could get you out of select questions instead of testifying in general. Thanks for clarifying guys.

[murf]

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.

+ court fees

[Rob MacLennan]

Yup, it was a stretch to assume that 11c could get you out of select questions instead of testifying in general. Thanks for clarifying guys.

Just did a little research on "taking the Fifth" in the US and, rather surprisingly, it's quite similar in use to out 11c. You can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself, but must answer all questions put to you if you do take the stand. This is the same as 11c.

The difference between the two is if you are called as a witness, in a case in which you are not the accused. In the US you can "take the Fifth", refusing to answer questions when doing so might serve to incriminate you. In Canada you must answer, but the information cannot be used against you (Charter part 13).

Just goes to show that I'm also not immune to the American television mind-screw, but at least I look it up.

[Drake76]

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.

Worst case is you take time off work to go to court, pay for parking, waste a day sitting around waiting for your trial and get convicted. Seeing as you are telling us here that you were using a phone, why would you want to go that route? Generally people who plead not guilty are not guilty.

[EngineerJoe]

Just did a little research on "taking the Fifth" in the US and, rather surprisingly, it's quite similar in use to out 11c. You can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself, but must answer all questions put to you if you do take the stand. This is the same as 11c.

The difference between the two is if you are called as a witness, in a case in which you are not the accused. In the US you can "take the Fifth", refusing to answer questions when doing so might serve to incriminate you. In Canada you must answer, but the information cannot be used against you (Charter part 13).

Just goes to show that I'm also not immune to the American television mind-screw, but at least I look it up.

I looked it up as well (thanks Wikipedia) but after reading the Charter and the Wiki (more the Charter than the Wiki), I wasn't sure if 11c applied to the entire testimony or just individual questions, hence stating I think it's a stretch.

Your second paragraph is news to me though.

[OpenGambit]

the 2nd paragraph is 100 % correct.

a witness in canada in proceedings against another is generally compellable and must answer all questions.
You can not refuse to answer questions that are incriminating, but they can not be used against you in separate proceedings against you.

That being said there are other grounds to refuse questions, usually on a privilged basis ( spousal /solicitor client) etc.