Being caught afterwards | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Being caught afterwards

Kiwi40 said:
So I "friend" got ticketed for speeding when he was pulled over doing the speed limit. Police say they radar him earlier on another street close by and that his bike color, jacket and helmet identified him since they didn't catch him earlier and they don't have a plate.

They impounded his bike and suspended his license.

What should he do?
Click to expand...

Is your bike colour, helmet and jacket unique?

If these are widely available, need to gather some data on sales of items and create reasonable doubt. A good lawyer would be able to do this.

If you haven’t already, write everything down that was said or done. Even weather conditions could be important at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Looks like a lawyer it is then after disclosure available

@GreyGhost
Plus buddy told me if they lose someone in line of sight then roadside stop later won't count as evidence especially since they don't have the plate, just vehicle/gear description of someone speed past

Beginning to look more like a misconduct case...
 
Robbo said:
Is your bike colour, helmet and jacket unique?

If these are widely available, need to gather some data on sales of items and create reasonable doubt. A good lawyer would be able to do this.

If you haven’t already, write everything down that was said or done. Even weather conditions could be important at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes all unique but with no customizations, gear and helmet available online
 
I was listening to the scanner the other day and had an idea. Often, they will broadcast similar to "BOLO, grey sport bike, rider in white jacket, high speed northbound on xxx, no plate obtained". If the area OP is concerned about is available on broadcastify it's worth paying the $20 to get access to the archives. Crown will probably throw a fit but JP will be very grumpy with the cops if you introduce evidence that directly contradicts what the officers have written in their notes. Crown will probably ***** about chain of custody etc (even though they have access to an original, secured copy of that broadcast that you could not have tampered with).
 
GreyGhost said:
I was listening to the scanner the other day and had an idea. Often, they will broadcast similar to "BOLO, grey sport bike, rider in white jacket, high speed northbound on xxx, no plate obtained". If the area OP is concerned about is available on broadcastify it's worth paying the $20 to get access to the archives. Crown will probably throw a fit but JP will be very grumpy with the cops if you introduce evidence that directly contradicts what the officers have written in their notes. Crown will probably ***** about chain of custody etc (even though they have access to an original, secured copy of that broadcast that you could not have tampered with).
Click to expand...
This is very interesting, thank you! Friend's bike was not grey. What is the procedure to request the police scanner audio transcript? Thanks!
 
Kiwi40 said:
This is very interesting, thank you! Friend's bike was not grey. What is the procedure to request the police scanner audio transcript? Thanks!
Click to expand...
I don't know how to do it officially. Unofficially, you can go to broadcastify.com (or use the app) to see if the region of interest is available. If it's available, buy a subscription (something like $20 for 6 months of access). The subscription grants access to the archived feed (the last year or so). Listen to the feed around the time of interest to see what you hear. If the audio contradicts the notes, after the trial was over, I would file a formal complaint (and probably cc the media) as I have very little faith that the officer will experience repercussions for fraud (assuming the notes don't match the audio. As I said before very often the notes include a license plate "I got the car on radar at 260 km/h, as it passed me, I saw the plate was xxxxxx". Yeah right you did you pos.).
 
Kiwi40 said:
Yes, s$%* or bust, reduction not an option, only dismissal. Friend told me if they lose you in line of sight during a chase they can't pick you up later without a plate and since my friend wasn't there in the beginning they have no case.
Click to expand...

This is why you need a lawyer that knows case law and The Canada Evidence Act... it won't be cheap.
AFIK Canada Evidence Act says that on a absolute liability charge the service can be in dispute IF the charging officer loses sight of the accused.
Basically you're saying that the charging officer cannot swear to the identity of the offender, maybe it was someone else that looked "exactly" like the offender.
... and maybe you need a DIFFERENT lawyer to discuss having charges against the cop laid. Charging a cop can be a REAL minefield when you have charges pending, but CAN work in your favour.
Lloyd Budzinski, David Faed or Fred Fedorsen have seen me through similar legal situations. (GET YOU WALLET OUT)
 
GreyGhost said:
I don't know how to do it officially. Unofficially, you can go to broadcastify.com (or use the app) to see if the region of interest is available. If it's available, buy a subscription (something like $20 for 6 months of access). The subscription grants access to the archived feed (the last year or so). Listen to the feed around the time of interest to see what you hear. If the audio contradicts the notes, after the trial was over, I would file a formal complaint (and probably cc the media) as I have very little faith that the officer will experience repercussions for fraud (assuming the notes don't match the audio. As I said before very often the notes include a license plate "I got the car on radar at 260 km/h, as it passed me, I saw the plate was xxxxxx". Yeah right you did you pos.).
Click to expand...
Thanks, this will be tried out.
 
bitzz said:
This is why you need a lawyer that knows case law and The Canada Evidence Act... it won't be cheap.
AFIK Canada Evidence Act says that on a absolute liability charge the service can be in dispute IF the charging officer loses sight of the accused.
Basically you're saying that the charging officer cannot swear to the identity of the offender, maybe it was someone else that looked "exactly" like the offender.
... and maybe you need a DIFFERENT lawyer to discuss having charges against the cop laid. Charging a cop can be a REAL minefield when you have charges pending, but CAN work in your favour.
Lloyd Budzinski, David Faed or Fred Fedorsen have seen me through similar legal situations. (GET YOU WALLET OUT)
Click to expand...
Good point and sounds like it will get very expensive. These laws are crazy, aren't we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Now we have to pay thru the rectum to prove we were not even at the location to be innocent. Wish the Google location was left enabled on phone, would have been a lot cheaper than a $$ lawyer!!!
 
Kiwi40 said:
Good point and sounds like it will get very expensive. These laws are crazy, aren't we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Now we have to pay thru the rectum to prove we were not even at the location to be innocent. Wish the Google location was left enabled on phone, would have been a lot cheaper than a $$ lawyer!!!
Click to expand...
You still need the lawyer you just give them more to work with. They decided your "friend" is guilty and made your friend incur significant costs. They will not back down from that position no matter what the evidence shows. Find a suspect and make all evidence fit the suspect. The simplest approach to policing with an excellent conviction rate. grrr.
 
GreyGhost said:
You still need the lawyer you just give them more to work with. They decided your "friend" is guilty and made your friend incur significant costs. They will not back down from that position no matter what the evidence shows. Find a suspect and make all evidence fit the suspect. The simplest approach to policing with an excellent conviction rate. grrr.
Click to expand...
That's true on every account and the cops can go to the hilt and not back down but if this goes to trial then to secure a conviction they will need evidence and so far they have none. I'm not a lawyer but long term I see this being dismissed. The injustice is my friend will not be successful with re-cooping the costs involved although it looks like he will beat the charges. He has since enabled GPS in google so he has evidance of his locations in the future - save $1000's
 
By the way, when you and your lawyer request disclosure and get a copy of any video it will be much lower quality than what the cops actually have if that could possibly help their case. Keep requesting additional disclosure, they always withhold stuff including trying to provide only low quality video when it's actually high definition.
 
matt220 said:
By the way, when you and your lawyer request disclosure and get a copy of any video it will be much lower quality than what the cops actually have if that could possibly help their case. Keep requesting additional disclosure, they always withhold stuff including trying to provide only low quality video when it's actually high definition.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, good point, you would think they would use the hi-res version if they believe the person charged is guilty. I will pass your feedback to my buddy, thanks!
 
Kiwi40 said:
Hmmm, good point, you would think they would use the hi-res version if they believe the person charged is guilty. I will pass your feedback to my buddy, thanks!
Click to expand...
They want people to have as little to build their case off of as possible, so they can and will use intentionally lowered video quality to do it. For example the high res video shows something that proves it isn't your buddy, but if they bump the quality down it's blurry enough to look like it could be.

Same goes with accidents caught on traffic cameras, if they're determined to pin it on someone they will try their hardest despite evidence showing and witnesses saying otherwise. I have seen low bitrate 240p video provided in disclosure that you could basically count the pixels in, but the cops actually had the same video in crystal clear 1080p HD.

Anyway it seems this case should be a slam dunk for any competent traffic lawyer, but be sure to update us because this situation sounds absolutely ridiculous and could set a dangerous precedent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom