Yay first ticket. Quick question.

[calvin_chan]

I was doing a right turn at a stoplight with no cars in sight on the road.

After the turn a undercover cop immediately pulled me over. He claimed I ran the red light by not "coming to a complete stop" or at least in his perspective.

He wrote me a lovely $325 ticket with 3 demerit points.

My question is though, he pulled me over for "running a red" on the lights at Lakeridge Rd. and Bayly St. But my ticket, he wrote I ran a light at Audley Rd. and Bayly St. which is a set of lights that are a block further down.

Does this pretty much render the ticket untrue instantly, since the ticket claims I commited the offence of ST RED LGHT - FAIL TO STOP at AUDLEY RD AND BAYLY ST? When I was never at that light?

Edit: Also after giving me the ticket, he immediately told me to do option 3 and go to court... I feel like he did this on purpose to meet a quota? But that's just my speculation.
Thanks. Any advice or tips would be appreciated for fighting it!

[infernobuster]

One thing is for sure, Lakeridge and Bayly isnt a "rural" road.

Its a major city street. As for your ticket you may have grounds for fighting it. Maybe go see the JP and see what he/she says .

[calvin_chan]

Well in my mind I just think of lakeridge as more of a rural road than a street inside a town, but that's more further up north I suppose. I don't consider bayly a rural road :P

Thanks for the advice though!

[Rob MacLennan]

Unfortunately an incorrect location, on the citation, isn't a fatal error. I don't understand that myself, since the location can invalidate the charge itself, but that's the way it is.

[GayManLoveIsOK]

take it to court...it's points, that's gonna hurt...i would argue that the incident did not happen at the location specified on the ticket and say no more...it'll be worth your time to do so rather than have your insurance go up for the next 3 years...

[OpenGambit]

take it to court...it's points, that's gonna hurt...i would argue that the incident did not happen at the location specified on the ticket and say no more...it'll be worth your time to do so rather than have your insurance go up for the next 3 years...

This is very risky, I wouldn't necessarily go this route.

I would 100 % fight it though. Location wrong isn't a fatal error as Rob explained, however, it is a good enough error to go to court on.

However, I wouldn't lay it all down on the location, I would also argue that you did come to a complete stop. (if that is true of course.)

[calvin_chan]

I did stop, the cop claimed I "did not stop long enough"

I made an appointment today where I get to talk to the prosecutor in an office, informally with the officer's notes. There, the prosecutor will decide what to do and offer a resolution. If I'm not happy with it they said I can have a trial after that. Thought I would take this approach to see if the prosecutor is reasonable.

If not, off to court!

I'll still tell the prosecutor that, it was impossible for me to run a red light doing a right turn at Audley and Bayly (which it says on the ticket) since to go westbound on Bayly from Audley. That part of Audley Rd. is a dead end/road for some trucking building.

[DownUnder]

This is very risky, I wouldn't necessarily go this route.

I would 100 % fight it though. Location wrong isn't a fatal error as Rob explained, however, it is a good enough error to go to court on.

However, I wouldn't lay it all down on the location, I would also argue that you did come to a complete stop. (if that is true of course.)

I havent been in the car with a single person so far in Toronto that has actually come to a complete stop at a red light right turn unless there was cars coming. The weird thing is, they believe that they DID actually stop. Its hard trying to explain stopping means the car actually stops rather then just slows its forward momentum.

[OpenGambit]

If the cop said you "did not stop long enough".... You win

because he admitted that you stopped, and there is no legislative amount of time you have to stop for.

And the location might be enough for a prosecutor to drop it. I know a lot of crowns and they have so much of this crap on their desk that they usually don't bother, especially when there is a bunch of ez convictions lying around.

I always meet with the prosecutor. Every one of my tickets in Ontario have stopped at the prosecutor's desk.

[Rob MacLennan]

If the cop said you "did not stop long enough".... You win

because he admitted that you stopped, and there is no legislative amount of time you have to stop for.

And the location might be enough for a prosecutor to drop it. I know a lot of crowns and they have so much of this crap on their desk that they usually don't bother, especially when there is a bunch of ez convictions lying around.

I always meet with the prosecutor. Every one of my tickets in Ontario have stopped at the prosecutor's desk.

Unfortunately it's unlikely that the officers notes say anything about him 'not stopping long enough' and any question, along those lines, will likely meet with the response 'didn't stop.'

[OpenGambit]

Unfortunately it's unlikely that the officers notes say anything about him 'not stopping long enough' and any question, along those lines, will likely meet with the response 'didn't stop.'

You'll be surprised =D

I remember one situation where a Crown ended up with an officer that insisted that the driver was going eastbound on yonge street. So sometimes, it is what it is.

[OpenGambit]

I havent been in the car with a single person so far in Toronto that has actually come to a complete stop at a red light right turn unless there was cars coming. The weird thing is, they believe that they DID actually stop. Its hard trying to explain stopping means the car actually stops rather then just slows its forward momentum.

Hah, well in this regard, its what the JP believes that matters. So I have no need to comment.

[toysareforboys]

There, the prosecutor will decide what to do and offer a resolution.

The only resolution that should be acceptable is "Whops, I'm sorry, I'll dismiss the case." Of course that isn't going to happen, the meeting is to get you to plead guilty to a lesser charge, DON'T DO IT.

A guilty plea of 3km/h over is the exact same to your insurance company as 49km/h over, running the red light, etc!!! Only take the plea if you're worried about the $345 and want to pay less and not worry about your insurance in the future.

Request disclosure, the cops notes, and a transcribed copy of the cops notes, and see what he actually wrote down, see if you can use it against him.

Good luck.

-Jamie M.

[revrandy]

I got pulled over once for not coming to a complete stop in the cop's eyes. When I stopped, I only put 1 foot down, not both. Because my right foot remained on the brake, clearly I wasn't stopped properly and that warranted being pulled over.

Thankfully he let me go when he realised I was on my way to church to preach. If I had of gotten the ticket, my sermon sure would have been different

[calvin_chan]

Thanks for the replies everyone. Yea I doubt the officer wrote down I didn't slow down long enough since he only said that to me once.

Hopefully the prosecutor will be reasonable. Or the notes provided are very vague haha

If I get convicted I won't be able to get my M license this summer I won't be able to afford the insurance spike to take my test.

[whetaus-tr]

Thanks for the replies everyone. Yea I doubt the officer wrote down I didn't slow down long enough since he only said that to me once.

Hopefully the prosecutor will be reasonable. Or the notes provided are very vague haha

If I get convicted I won't be able to get my M license this summer I won't be able to afford the insurance spike to take my test.

You can rent a bike for that purpose from GTA Exotics. Or even I'd give you mine in the worst case scenario. That should be the last thing to worry =)

Good luck !

[Rob MacLennan]

I got pulled over once for not coming to a complete stop in the cop's eyes. When I stopped, I only put 1 foot down, not both. Because my right foot remained on the brake, clearly I wasn't stopped properly and that warranted being pulled over.

Thankfully he let me go when he realised I was on my way to church to preach. If I had of gotten the ticket, my sermon sure would have been different

If this happened in Ontario, it shows that the cop has never read the Ontario Motorcycle Permit Study Guide, which tells you to do exactly what you did.

[FiReSTaRT]

If this happened in Ontario, it shows that the cop has never read the Ontario Motorcycle Permit Study Guide, which tells you to do exactly what you did.

Most likely it happened in OC, CA.

OP: Points don't matter unless you already have 6+ and are facing suspension. It's the conviction that may affect your insurance rate, especially if you get another. 2 tickets for 1km/h over the limit are the same as 2 red light tickets or 2 tickets for 35 over in the eyes of your insurance company. Once you get into the 45+ over range or careless is where they start considering it a "major" (and some companies tolerate up to 49 over).

Even though the facts are on your side, unfortunately, many cops either intentionally or unintentionally present untruth on the stand and since the cop is considered to be a "friend of the court", his word is taken as gospel. Your best bet still lies on the "Holy Trinity":
1) Cop no-show, almost automatic dismissal
2) No/incomplete disclosure - typically either a dismissal or an adjournment leading to #3 (unless you already have a valid case for #3)
3) 11b - too much time passed between the charge (ticket) and the trial - You should try for it at 10 months, it's almost certain at 15 months, grey area in between

[revrandy]

Most likely it happened in OC, CA.

South Carolina where the motorcycle handbook tells you to keep the right foot on the brake when stopped and only use the left for balance. I think he was just being a jerk...

[elton_t]

if you are worried about insurance, then go fight it and do a trial. otherwise just plea guilty in court and your fine will be reduced dramatically