Can this charge be negotiated down to something less punitive?
Got one on December 23, 2023 and it's coming up in September after many delays. Wondering if I can delay it further? It was an absolute stakeout by cops posing as construction workers at a huge intersection (Lakeshore & Leslie) and I was 10 cars back.
Can this charge be negotiated down to something less punitive?
Got one on December 23, 2023 and it's coming up in September after many delays. Wondering if I can delay it further? It was an absolute stakeout by cops posing as construction workers at a huge intersection (Lakeshore & Leslie) and I was 10 cars back.
If you delay it, you can't use the delay to apply for 11B. Crown needs to be responsible for 18+ months delay to win that way. Read up on 11b and R v Jordan and that's probably the path you want to take (assuming that you haven't been responsible for delays up to this point). Very very good chance that if you follow the process, the JP kills the ticket entirely.
William Rooney, 3L, Volume 79 Senior Editor The Jordan framework determines whether there is a s. 11(b) violation (trial within a reasonable time). Senior Editor William Rooney argues that the recent decision in R v KGK limits the Jordan framework by excluding the verdict deliberation time from th
OK. That changes things then. I have no idea how much flexibility the prosecution is using in these charges. If you have time, you can sit in court on a random day. There are probably a crap-ton of mobile device charges that come up and you can see how the prosecution handles them and what strategies people try to use to beat them. Most self-represented defendants are bleeping terrible and often end up cementing their convictions by saying the wrong thing.
I haven't looked at wording of the current law. Some jurisdictions had "holding and using" or exemptions for pressing a single button to answer a call. Those may give you something to grab on to. You can try to get the cop to slip up on the stand with their recollection/notes. Odds go up if the sting had a handoff with no pictures where construction cop A sees you and tells you to go to cop B and get a ticket. More opportunities for their documentation to have an issue then.
Look through the HTA and see what other laws might apply. I sure as hell wouldn't want to advocate to change it to careless although that may be an option.
Request disclosure. Then make sure it says that your were observed actually holding the device as opposed to touching the screen while it was solidly mounted to your dash. But if it does, then your best hope is that the office doesn't show at trial. Yes, I know officers are held more accountable these days, but they can still be double-booked for a different/more serious offense. That's how I got off on my last one.
On a related note, I was only able to find mention of solidly mounted phones being legal to operate in Vancouver while driving, but not in Ontario. Does anyone know if the law is any different here? Reason I ask is that Apple Car Play/Android Auto on a built-in screen on your dash is no different than having your phone mounted in the same place, so why would one be legal to operate, and one be illegal?
Request disclosure. Then make sure it says that your were observed actually holding the device as opposed to touching the screen while it was solidly mounted to your dash. But if it does, then your best hope is that the office doesn't show at trial. Yes, I know officers are held more accountable these days, but they can still be double-booked for a different/more serious offense. That's how I got off on my last one.
Officer can be sick (or on paid leave) too. A friend got off because the officer retired right after issuing the ticket. Anyone that challenged the last six months of tickets he wrote won.
On a related note, I was only able to find mention of solidly mounted phones being legal to operate in Vancouver while driving, but not in Ontario. Does anyone know if the law is any different here? Reason I ask is that Apple Car Play/Android Auto on a built-in screen on your dash is no different than having your phone mounted in the same place, so why would one be legal to operate, and one be illegal?
Don't try to inject logic into political whims. You will hurt your brain. Decades ago I rented a ford with 17 buttons on the steering wheel and two screens. That's all legal as the manufacturer put it in. Touch a phone and you get a lynching. Stupid.
I think the section of the law you are interested in for handheld devices being secured here is related to one touch to answer. All of the built in stuff (and probably devices like aftermarket android screens) are covered by exemptions.
"14. (1) A person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while pressing a button on a hand-held wireless communication device to make, answer or end a cell phone call or to transmit or receive voice communication on a two-way radio if the device is placed securely in or mounted to the motor vehicle so that it does not move while the vehicle is in motion and the driver can see it at a quick glance and easily reach it without adjusting his or her driving position."
Exempt devices
7. The display screens of the following devices may be visible to any driver in a motor vehicle driven on a highway:
1. A device that displays,
i. information on the conditions, use and immediate environment of the vehicle, or
ii. information on road or weather conditions.
2. An ignition interlock device.
3. A car audio control that displays only text or static images.
4. A hand-held device that displays only text or static images and is connected directly into and operates using the audio system controls of the motor vehicle.
Thank you, all. This matter is going to be dealt with via a zoom call although I do have the option to go to the courtroom. However, I understand that the cop will be appearing via zoom. I will be getting disclosure and I think it will include body cam footage as he said that it was rolling when he nabbed me. I might schedule an early resolution and see if I can plead to a lesser charge. My driving record is spotless and I want to keep it that way!
On another note, it is truly mind boggling the infotainment systems in todays cars. The Cadillac comes to mind with its the across the dashboard screen.
I don't know if I have ever seen a vehicle with "tinted" windows that is legal. You need 70% vlt. Most tinted windows are less than 30% vlt.
Avoid ticket A, catch ticket B.
EDIT:
Now, privacy film on your phone might work? The stuff that sends all light straight forward so from an angle, only black can be seen. If you are holding a device but they can't see if the screen is on, is that sufficient for a conviction?
I agree while driving. The stopped at the light thing has a tiny grain of reality used for excessive fundraising. The fines issued per fender bender avoided is probably an epic ratio.
No. I'm good with nailing the "stopped at the light" guys. We've all waited for these entitled folks to finish looking at their phone before noticing the light has turned. I give them one mississippi and I'm on the horn.
If it's ok to sneak a peek at the light then surely here on this open road with few cars couldn't hurt.
No. I'm good with nailing the "stopped at the light" guys. We've all waited for these entitled folks to finish looking at their phone before noticing the light has turned. I give them one mississippi and I'm on the horn.
If it's ok to sneak a peek at the light then surely here on this open road with few cars couldn't hurt.
Request disclosure. Then make sure it says that your were observed actually holding the device as opposed to touching the screen while it was solidly mounted to your dash. But if it does, then your best hope is that the office doesn't show at trial. Yes, I know officers are held more accountable these days, but they can still be double-booked for a different/more serious offense. That's how I got off on my last one.
The cop didn’t show stuff doesn’t work anymore. I fought a speeding ticket a while back, the cop did a zoom report well before the trial, he wasn’t there - the video was clearly scripted to answer any relevant defence question.
In your case, you might try the early resolution (if that option is still open for you).
But the bottom line is you broke the law, and are accused of a serious crime. May not seem all that dangerous to you, but the folks that grab their phones at a stop light are proven to be the same that grab it when driving and hearing a ‘ding’. That’s why they enforce at intersections.
Distracted drivers are responsible for as many accidents and deaths as impaired drivers - it deserves even tougher penalties IMHO.
IIRC, something changed in the law that allows cops not to be present. Too many people were getting off on "technicalities" (ie they wanted more convictions and weren't concerned about civil liberties). I haven't been to traffic court in years though so I may be wrong.
Not witnesses. I thought some level of government (probably province as it was related to traffic court) allowed cops to file something instead of appearing. I could be wrong. I was very annoyed at the time when I saw it.
EDIT:
Federal Bill C-75. Police can file an affidavit and that's good enough. Infuriating.
657.01 (1)In any proceedings, the court may allow routine police evidence, if otherwise admissible through testimony, to be received in evidence by affidavit or solemn declaration of a police officer and may, on its own motion or at the request of any party, require the attendance of that police officer for the purposes of examination or cross-examination, as the case may be.
The definition of “routine police evidence” in Section 657.01(7) is overly broad. It states:“routine police evidence” means evidence of a police officer related to(a) gathering evidence and making observations;(b) analysing, preserving or otherwise handling evidence;(c) identifying or arresting an accused or otherwise interacting with anaccused; or(d) other routine activities similar to those set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) that the police officer undertook in the course of their duties.
Legislative Background: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as enacted (Bill C-75 in the 42nd Parliament)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
