Is that how it works, or we just guessing? It's a valid question posed to those that advocate spending $$ on a dash-cam. What's the process involved with disclosing the footage as evidence, and what has happened through court proceedings of claimants arguing the footage has been altered. IMO, is it not entirely out of this world for an involved party to argue that an individual's dash-cam video has been altered and therefore not admissible.
|
|
|
Question: Failur to stop at stop sign
- Thread starter ashkan
- Start date
Is that how it works, or we just guessing? It's a valid question posed to those that advocate spending $$ on a dash-cam. What's the process involved with disclosing the footage as evidence, and what has happened through court proceedings of claimants arguing the footage has been altered. IMO, is it not entirely out of this world for an involved party to argue that an individual's dash-cam video has been altered and therefore not admissible.
What's wut for you?
Provincial offences court is different from criminal court with respect to evidence. If you have dashcam video, you can bring it to first-attendance and show the prosecutor the video. If the video suggests that the ticket was bogus, it's rather likely that the whole matter will be dropped right then. The good thing is that you are off the hook at that point. The bad thing is that you don't get to discredit the cop in court.
Cops seizing your camera/video at the time of the ticket may be a theoretical possibility but for a simple traffic ticket, I doubt if it would happen, and if it did, MAKE SURE YOU GET A RECEIPT at the time of the ticket indicating that the cops have your property and video, and you are certainly entitled to request a copy of the video as part of your disclosure request.
If the video were to "magically disappear" ... I can't imagine the JP would be very impressed at the cops losing evidence. You present your receipt showing the cops have your memory card / video / camera ... cops are unable to come up with it ... they lost your property ... lawsuit follows.
Bear in mind that if your video camera is in plain sight in the vehicle, at the time of the ticket, if the cop has any doubt in his mind, he's sure to know that you are in a better position to counter anything bogus. "I'm just going to issue you a warning" ...
Cops seizing your camera/video at the time of the ticket may be a theoretical possibility but for a simple traffic ticket, I doubt if it would happen, and if it did, MAKE SURE YOU GET A RECEIPT at the time of the ticket indicating that the cops have your property and video, and you are certainly entitled to request a copy of the video as part of your disclosure request.
If the video were to "magically disappear" ... I can't imagine the JP would be very impressed at the cops losing evidence. You present your receipt showing the cops have your memory card / video / camera ... cops are unable to come up with it ... they lost your property ... lawsuit follows.
Bear in mind that if your video camera is in plain sight in the vehicle, at the time of the ticket, if the cop has any doubt in his mind, he's sure to know that you are in a better position to counter anything bogus. "I'm just going to issue you a warning" ...
Where does it state the 3 second rule. In Detroit they shoot out your back window on the one count.
In one of the southern states apparently a motorcycle legal stop means both feet have to touch the ground.
Was the cop in front of you, behind you, or did he come from the sides? If the scene looked anything like the Google Street Views image then I would have a serious question as to whether an officer in a vehicle, to the right of you, would have been able to see you at the proper stop location. If this is the case you will want to take date and time stamped images showing the intersection, both from your point of view and the presumed position of the officer, in order to call his evidence into question.
As has been previously stated, however, if you did not stop prior to the marked stop line then you did, in fact, not make a proper stop. Given that people rarely make legal stops at all these days, but instead do rolling stops on most occasions, it surprises me that this might have been the issue at hand.
As has been previously stated, however, if you did not stop prior to the marked stop line then you did, in fact, not make a proper stop. Given that people rarely make legal stops at all these days, but instead do rolling stops on most occasions, it surprises me that this might have been the issue at hand.
Some will quote the non existent "3 second rule." While it's good practice to insure that you can be seen coming to a complete stop, the laws states no such thing.
Stop at through highway
136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,
(a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none, then immediately before entering the intersection; and
(b) shall yield the right of way to traffic in the intersection or approaching the intersection on another highway so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard and, having so yielded the right of way, may proceed. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 136 (1).
Acquiring right of way
(2) Every driver or street car operator approaching, on another highway, an intersection referred to in subsection (1), shall yield the right of way to every driver or operator who has complied with the requirements of subsection (1). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 136 (2).
The concept of "stopping" is defined in the HTA as follows:
“stop” or “stopping”, when prohibited, means the halting of a vehicle, even momentarily, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or of a traffic control sign or signal; (“arrêt”)
30 seconds seems like a long time to me.
I was taught that it's like crossing as a pedestrian, you stop and look both ways before you cross.
That usually only takes a second if you're doing it efficiently.
If the cop is watching from the side, they can see if your tires/rims stop rotating, or not.
If you go to an intersection and watch around here, over 90% of people will roll through the sign.
If you stop with your bumper on top of the stop bar then you've technically run the sign.
One of the stop bars here seems to be 10 metres away from the intersection, I wonder if it was meant as a fishing zone.
I was taught that it's like crossing as a pedestrian, you stop and look both ways before you cross.
That usually only takes a second if you're doing it efficiently.
If the cop is watching from the side, they can see if your tires/rims stop rotating, or not.
If you go to an intersection and watch around here, over 90% of people will roll through the sign.
If you stop with your bumper on top of the stop bar then you've technically run the sign.
One of the stop bars here seems to be 10 metres away from the intersection, I wonder if it was meant as a fishing zone.
Some of the stop markings are remarkably far back from the intersection, to the point that you cannot safely see down the street far enough to make a turn. In those cases it is legal to stop before the line and then move up to a position at which you can then see sufficiently far down the street to recognize oncoming traffic, stop again, and then proceed. Your initial stop must be behind the line.
statsman
Well-known member
I know this section of Liberty St. and there are plenty of stop signs.
Sometimes the cops will work as a team.
One of them in an unmarked car and another in a marked one.
The unmarked car will observe a certain stop sign, when people fail to stop he will radio ahead to his partner who will write the ticket.
Are you certain they gave you the ticket for the stop sign you did stop for or was it for another one?
Check the address on the ticket.
On the bright side, if this is what happened, BOTH cops will have to come to court.
The cop who wrote the ticket can't say what the other cop told him. That's hearsay.
Sometimes the cops will work as a team.
One of them in an unmarked car and another in a marked one.
The unmarked car will observe a certain stop sign, when people fail to stop he will radio ahead to his partner who will write the ticket.
Are you certain they gave you the ticket for the stop sign you did stop for or was it for another one?
Check the address on the ticket.
On the bright side, if this is what happened, BOTH cops will have to come to court.
The cop who wrote the ticket can't say what the other cop told him. That's hearsay.
ashkan
Banned
Im sure this is it because right before this, i was driving on Queen st west which is all lights and no stop sign. Then i made a left, going south on this street and on that street, this was the first stop sign.
I dont know if 2 cops were working together or not but i only saw this one guy in an unmarked car.
But who knows if another cop radioed. Im hoping to get a video because again im 100% sure i stopped fully. Or maybe what you just mentioned could end up being the case and helping me out.
Thanks
I rather have a dashcam then no proof at all ....
|
|
|
|
|