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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.