Oncoming radar

[oomis]

Firstly - I'm fighting.

I was pulled over for speeding (in a car) by an officer who was in the oncoming lane. He basically saw me, flashed his cherries, pulled a u-turn and pulled me over. I was the only vehicle on the road at the time.

He indicated that I would be charged with speeding, and gave me the figure that he said I was driving at.

I have two questions. One - does the OPP have radar that can get speed readings from oncoming traffic? The officer didn't say anything about radar, and the speed that he told me I was going at was a round number. If he had been using radar, I'm more inclined to think he would have given me a number that wasn't so nice and round. I think that he thought that I was speeding and just pulled me over.

Secondly - on the ticket the location of the offence just says the name of the road. No house number, no "near XX location", no location information of any kind. Can I use this to my advantage?

[CruisnGrrl]

they do have radar that can get you coming or going while they are moving.

did you have gps running that tracks?

[kiwi]

On coming radar is as old as the hills!!

How much faster than the limit were you alleged to be going?

[oomis]

1. Yeah, I know it's old, my question was whether or not the OPP is in regular use of them.
2. No GPS running
3. I was unaware of my exact speed at the exact moment the officer pulled me over.

So - maybe they did get me with the radar. Should I question their calibration? There were two officers in the car, both got out to pull me over, so they should both show up to the hearing, right?

And what of this business with the road name but no exact location?

[Rossi86]

Book a trial date, then ask for disclosure. Start with this first then speculate

[frekeyguy]

Book a trial date, then ask for disclosure. Start with this first then speculate

Disclosure = first attendance? is that the same?

[spankayf]

1) Yes the OPP use them all the time usually in constant on mode

2) Only one officer has to show unless it was a 'tag team' arrest ..this wasnt



Ask for disclosure and write down all the details you can remember from the incident

[oomis]

Book a trial date

Done. I'll see what disclosure offers.

[backmarkerducati]

1) Yes the OPP use them all the time usually in constant on mode

2) Only one officer has to show unless it was a 'tag team' arrest ..this wasnt



Ask for disclosure and write down all the details you can remember from the incident

You may still cast doubt if the ticket writer was not the driver or was not the last one to calibrate the radar. He cannot testify to things the other officer did (hearsay).

[ATTS]

1. Yeah, I know it's old, my question was whether or not the OPP is in regular use of them.

I can't remember the last OPP I saw that didn't have it.

1) Yes the OPP use them all the time usually in constant on mode

I know a bunch of them don't usually have it on and just flip it on and off when there is a car coming....that noise is incredibly annoying.

[Rossi86]

Disclosure = first attendance? is that the same?

No. First attendance is going to a meeting with the prosecutor to discuss the charges before a trial date is booked. So the defendant can maybe get the charge dropped if it's a bs one or get it reduced or plead to some other charge etc. The prosecutors love this cause they don't have to waste time by having a trial.

Disclosure is the evidence the prosecutors have gathered from the cop and will use it against you at the trial to prove your charges. As a defendant, granted by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act it is your right to know all the evidence the prosecutor has against you. So people ask for the disclosure package before a trial to prepare and hope the prosecutor won't provide it so the JP can dismiss or adjourn the trial.

[MarcosSantiago]

And what of this business with the road name but no exact location?

To be honest, the fact that the officer did not indicate the exact location in the ticket is common to most current tickets, and it may be of limited help to you. If the whole deal gets to cross-examination and he cannot remember where the alleged offence took place, you can raise additional doubts on his version of the incident.

Obviously, if he remembers the details or not depends on many things - his memory, if he keeps proper notes or not, the time from the ticket to the actual court date, how many tickets he writes per month, etc.

Now, if you suspect that he will NOT remember the location, AND the location is not in the disclosure, then the cross-examination by the defense may be based on the "independent recollection" thing.

Generic sample

”Q. Officer, you indicated you do have an independent recollection, correct?
A. That’s correct, sir.
Q. Did you have you had an opportunity to review your notes before Court or anytime? Did you have the opportunity to review your notes before Court?
A. Well I’ve looked at them, yes sir.
Q. Is it possible that you’re confusing your independent recollection with an assisted recollection, that being refreshed by your notes?
A. I look over the notes, just to refresh. I do remember the incident.
Q. Without the assistance of your notes?
A. Not specifically without the assistance. It does bring back what the incident was. Without any kind of notes, how would I remember any of it?
Q. Right. Do you have any trace of an independent recollection before reading your notes, even if it was just the colour of his ball cap, the speed, the colour of the car?
A. I can – I can say after looking at the notes, there are things that I remember that are not in my notes, ah, like the shade of blue, it was a lighter blue colour.
Q. Do you have any recollection before reading your notes?
A. As I walked in here sir, I didn’t even know that I had a trial in this matter today.
Q. So, you have no independent recollection before reading your notes?
A. I walked in and was told that there was a trial in this matter, so...
Q. So, is that a yes?
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer, Mr. Houlahan.
MR. HOULAHAN: Sorry, Your Worship.
A. As I – as I looked at the notes, I remembered the incident.”


Source: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...07oncj239.html

[MarcosSantiago]

Example:

”Q. Officer, you indicated you do have an independent recollection, correct?
A. That’s correct, sir.
Q. Did you have an opportunity to review your notes before Court or anytime?
A. Yes sir, I looked at them.
Q. Officer, could you please tell the Court the location, THE EXACT LOCATION, of the incident?
A. It was on Eglinton Ave. East.
Q. Can you narrow it down for the Court, officer? Eglinton Avenue is a very long road. What was the street number?
A. It was on Eglinton, but I do not remember the steet number.
Q. What about the closest major intersection? Do you remember that?
A. I think it was close to Avenue Rd.
Q. Is that written down on your notes?
A. Mmh, no, I am just trying to remember
Q. So, you do not have it on your notes and you do not remember, do you?"


Proper questions about radar, training, etc. etc must follow. Just because the officer may not remember the location is not enough to dismiss the ticket. You need to seriously cast doubts on what happened that day.

[Brian P]

^ Have a read-through of the rest of the case from which the above excerpt is made. The appeal that was attempted to be made on the grounds that the officer did not have independent recollection of the events, was dismissed.

[MarcosSantiago]

^ Have a read-through of the rest of the case from which the above excerpt is made. The appeal that was attempted to be made on the grounds that the officer did not have independent recollection of the events, was dismissed.

Yes, I know the final outcome, because I researched this case for another situation.You are correct, that appeal did not succeed.

However... let me mention a few things:

I posted it as a generic sample of that line of questioning (I think I even wrote "Generic Sample" above). If I just mention "independent recollection thing" without an example, the original poster may not understand what I was talking about.

More important, I am suggesting that, during cross, he tries to establish that the officer neither remembers the facts, and that his notes do not include that information - therefore the line "you do not have it on your notes and you do not remember, do you?"

Obviously, if the witness does not remember, and he didn't write it down.... well, not a very good witness, is he?

The appeal was a completely different situation - the information was on the notes.

[Metastable]

Don't bother with first attendance with this one.... if you still want to go, do it AFTER you get the court date, like that you can still use an 11b appeal.

Now you can use the 2 officers as an advantage. If the location is not on the disclosure and they both show up, you can have one sit outside the court room and one inside and ask where you were pulled over. Then you can bring the next one in and ask: So this stop occurred in location X (completely different than what the other guy said) correct? If he says yes, then you can cast further doubt.

HOWEVER - if they both show and they both collaborate with each other, than you have 2 cops against you. I'd rather only have the 1 guy show up and see if you can trip them up with things like radar calibration, who did it, etc etc... because if the other guys is not there and he was the one who calibrated things.... THEN... you again can start to cast doubt on the correct procedure.

[zooropa_chris]

Good luck on fighting it. Stick to your guns. Worst case sinario you pay the larger fine which is peanuts compared to the insurance scam. Try to get off, not just a lowered ticket.