|
|
|
Two speeding tickets in one stop?
- Thread starter GreyGhost
- Start date
I have zero faith in the vast majority of traffic paralegals in Ontario. I've seen way too many get a ticket knocked down 10 km/h and bill their client. Anyone with a pulse could have done the same thing. I try not to spend much time in court, but during my time there, I have never seen a paralegal do anything useful. Redline/Forge seemed to be better but have now scattered and I haven't heard much about their recent success.
As for a lawyer, I can't see that being cost-effective in this case. She is looking at $400 in tickets and ~$600 in insurance. I expect that one ticket will stick which would be $220 (ticket) + $300 (insurance) +$????(lawyer). If the lawyer does this for less than four figures, I could probably do it myself. If they need four figures or more, it just doesn't make financial sense.
If both tickets stick, I just need to harass the wife to slow down for the next few years as a third ticket would get ugly. I strongly suspect first attendance or trial will get this plead to one ticket at 31 over (or 29 if I'm lucky).
Technically she didn't get two tickets for the same crime. If they gave two tickets for 111 in an 80, that may matter (although that shouldn't disappear both charges, just one). Also, she hasn't been tried for any crime yet, just accused.
Very possible. Maybe also because of the fact that they fall under two different ticket categories it further differentiates them.
Exceeding speed limit by 30 to 49 km/h — Section 128 (b) — 30 km/h or more and less than 50 km/h — 4 demerit points
Exceeding speed limit by 16 to 29 km/h — Section 128 (c) — more than 15 km/h and less than 30 km/h — 3 demerit points
Either way this cop likely knew exactly what he was doing, and yes it would be good to hear from someone with experience.
boyoboy
Well-known member
Yup, this cop knows he's getting some court overtime for this double dipping. Nice cushy overtime.
Ok sorry for getting to the party late Greyghost, I will try to be as helpful as possible, while addressing all the misinformation being spewed forth..lol
Firstly, there is NO reason radar can't be used in speed limit transition areas. A JP "may" view it as a bit of a d bag move if the accused goes from a 80 zone to a 60 zone and the officer dings them for 75 in a 60 the SECOND they enter the new zone. BUT, that doesn't mean the ticket is valid, MOST JP's wouldn't know or care.
Double Jeopardy is MUCH more of a US thing, than it is in Canada, Same as there is entrapment in the USA, but not in Canada, (Supreme Court of Canada has ruled an officer can't "make" you commit a crime, you were never prepared to commit if the circumstances presented themselves), therefore, you can't be entrapped in Canada. Having said that Double Jeopardy refers to being found NOT guilty of an offence, then the crown, (not liking that verdict), again charges you for the same offence again. Also, in this case, the driver was charged with two SEPARATE offences, (albeit within a few seconds of each other).
As for timing on the actual tickets. The officer looks at his watch, (say it is now 10:20, so the ticket gets written up as 10:17, deducting time for the actual stop. Although, they list the same time, it could be they "occurred" at say 10:17:10 and 10:17:57...lol
Now what would be the MOST likely scenario is the crown at first appearance, will go with the first higher ticket, (unlikely to offer ANY form of a reduction, in exchange for "dropping" the second infraction). Once you agree then you will go into court, (I prefer to go in to observe the proceedings and ensure the deal is stuck to)...lol
GreyGhost you are SPOT on, with not going with a paralegal, as they crown will offer them the exact same thing, (which they will take), and call it a "win" so your on the hook for their fee. I suspect one with somewhat suspect ethics may even ding you a double fee as they "defended" you on two charges....lol
Fee for a lawyer, will as you suspect exceed the potential fine and insurance ramifications.
I am sure your an honorable man and will immediately advise your insurer so they can jack your fees ASAP...LMAO Because, I would never suspect someone would avoid higher premiums by not advising their insurer.....
As for the officer's actions, they were within the scope of his/her duties. It could be that he/she just lucked out, and got your wife, as the speed zones changed, it could also be this officer knows this area to be an issue, and waits for his/her next victim. Although technically permitted and legal, I personally, (especially if this officer does it on a regular basis, it would be a true Dbag move
Best of luck, at first appearance.
Firstly, there is NO reason radar can't be used in speed limit transition areas. A JP "may" view it as a bit of a d bag move if the accused goes from a 80 zone to a 60 zone and the officer dings them for 75 in a 60 the SECOND they enter the new zone. BUT, that doesn't mean the ticket is valid, MOST JP's wouldn't know or care.
Double Jeopardy is MUCH more of a US thing, than it is in Canada, Same as there is entrapment in the USA, but not in Canada, (Supreme Court of Canada has ruled an officer can't "make" you commit a crime, you were never prepared to commit if the circumstances presented themselves), therefore, you can't be entrapped in Canada. Having said that Double Jeopardy refers to being found NOT guilty of an offence, then the crown, (not liking that verdict), again charges you for the same offence again. Also, in this case, the driver was charged with two SEPARATE offences, (albeit within a few seconds of each other).
As for timing on the actual tickets. The officer looks at his watch, (say it is now 10:20, so the ticket gets written up as 10:17, deducting time for the actual stop. Although, they list the same time, it could be they "occurred" at say 10:17:10 and 10:17:57...lol
Now what would be the MOST likely scenario is the crown at first appearance, will go with the first higher ticket, (unlikely to offer ANY form of a reduction, in exchange for "dropping" the second infraction). Once you agree then you will go into court, (I prefer to go in to observe the proceedings and ensure the deal is stuck to)...lol
GreyGhost you are SPOT on, with not going with a paralegal, as they crown will offer them the exact same thing, (which they will take), and call it a "win" so your on the hook for their fee. I suspect one with somewhat suspect ethics may even ding you a double fee as they "defended" you on two charges....lol
Fee for a lawyer, will as you suspect exceed the potential fine and insurance ramifications.
I am sure your an honorable man and will immediately advise your insurer so they can jack your fees ASAP...LMAO Because, I would never suspect someone would avoid higher premiums by not advising their insurer.....
As for the officer's actions, they were within the scope of his/her duties. It could be that he/she just lucked out, and got your wife, as the speed zones changed, it could also be this officer knows this area to be an issue, and waits for his/her next victim. Although technically permitted and legal, I personally, (especially if this officer does it on a regular basis, it would be a true Dbag move
Best of luck, at first appearance.
This was a car but that is immaterial to the discussion.
Yes, I am familiar, with that case. The judge made a ruling, which goes along with, what I posted. The SCoC has ruled there is no entrapment, as an officer can't compel a person, to commit an offence they would have normal conditions, committed if the circumstances to commit the offence were present.
In the case you referred to, the judge ruled that the couple NEVER would have committed, (or considered committing it), had it not been for the actions of the officers involved, (they basically encouraged the couple to consider pulling off a bombing and even offered, when the couple said they didn't have the ability, the officers told them not to worry they "knew a guy"). He also ruled that he didn't believe the couple had the ability, (basically said they weren't smart enough to have pulled it off), nor did they have the means, (the had neither the money, nor ability to make the explosives), even IF they wanted to commit the offence. The judge ruled that he believed the accused merely got "caught up" in the supposed planning, and if you will fantasy, of committing the bombing.
To bring it back to a motorcycle forum, If an undercover officer pulls up next to a person on a bike, they make eye contact and each nod. The light turns green and the rider takes off a high rate of speed, (as if they were in a race). The officer pulls the rider over and tags the rider with S172. The rider had the ability, ( a bike), to commit the offence. The nod, from the officer, could easily be described as a "nod of recognition or admiration."
Now if as the light turned green the officer took off at a high rate of speed, that would be a whole different can of worms.
But we are WAY off track and none of this assist, the OP with his situation, (or more accurately his wife's situation).
In the case you referred to, the judge ruled that the couple NEVER would have committed, (or considered committing it), had it not been for the actions of the officers involved, (they basically encouraged the couple to consider pulling off a bombing and even offered, when the couple said they didn't have the ability, the officers told them not to worry they "knew a guy"). He also ruled that he didn't believe the couple had the ability, (basically said they weren't smart enough to have pulled it off), nor did they have the means, (the had neither the money, nor ability to make the explosives), even IF they wanted to commit the offence. The judge ruled that he believed the accused merely got "caught up" in the supposed planning, and if you will fantasy, of committing the bombing.
To bring it back to a motorcycle forum, If an undercover officer pulls up next to a person on a bike, they make eye contact and each nod. The light turns green and the rider takes off a high rate of speed, (as if they were in a race). The officer pulls the rider over and tags the rider with S172. The rider had the ability, ( a bike), to commit the offence. The nod, from the officer, could easily be described as a "nod of recognition or admiration."
Now if as the light turned green the officer took off at a high rate of speed, that would be a whole different can of worms.
But we are WAY off track and none of this assist, the OP with his situation, (or more accurately his wife's situation).
Grey Ghost - you said you need to convince her to slow down. Nope.
She needs to do this on her own.
My husband had a lead foot and some bone head tickets and got dropped by his insurance. Then could only get facility. Separate insurance plans are the answer if they are not going to slow down on their own. I couldn't/wouldn't be in charge of his gas pedal. He realized immediately how much he was going to be paying for a pick up truck vs all the other insurance. I picked it all up except his truck and bundled. Exclusion form etc. I had 6 policies for different things under an umbrella and still payed less than a Dodge.
Funny how money changes people.
2 in a stop is not unbelievable, got quite a few officer friends who will do this, especially if they didn't think you were paying attention to limits. Dick move yes but perfectly legal. They know one will be most likely dropped in court but couldn't care less which one. Point was made, person sped through two different speed limits (with a cop watching you).
She needs to do this on her own.
My husband had a lead foot and some bone head tickets and got dropped by his insurance. Then could only get facility. Separate insurance plans are the answer if they are not going to slow down on their own. I couldn't/wouldn't be in charge of his gas pedal. He realized immediately how much he was going to be paying for a pick up truck vs all the other insurance. I picked it all up except his truck and bundled. Exclusion form etc. I had 6 policies for different things under an umbrella and still payed less than a Dodge.
Funny how money changes people.
2 in a stop is not unbelievable, got quite a few officer friends who will do this, especially if they didn't think you were paying attention to limits. Dick move yes but perfectly legal. They know one will be most likely dropped in court but couldn't care less which one. Point was made, person sped through two different speed limits (with a cop watching you).
I have mixed emotions on the double hit. On the pro side, if a cop followed the average Toronto driver for an hour they could run a tab of a dozen or dozens of offences. Speeding, running a red or amber, improper stop, rolling stop, unsafe lefts and rights, lane discipline, signaling etc.
A good system with a mix of enforcement and education would have the cop pulling the driver over, showing the the list, and letting them off with one. A lesson with minor consequences.
The policing for profit thing bothers me. The police motto used to be "To serve and protect". Now it's "To serve and collect".
A good system with a mix of enforcement and education would have the cop pulling the driver over, showing the the list, and letting them off with one. A lesson with minor consequences.
The policing for profit thing bothers me. The police motto used to be "To serve and protect". Now it's "To serve and collect".
It's just a bunch of words to make you feel warm and fuzzy about them. Hence the change from Police Force to Police Service.
Ride/ drive like there is a cop on your ass. Easy concept and follow the rules of the road.
We all do this. Sometimes. Elderly people in car, newborns and usually when there is an actual cop on our ass!
I mostly obey signs, rules and limits. When I don't - I know I'm breaking the rules.
Police shouldn't be an examiner, that would take too much time and that is really not their job. When you are caught breaking a law then you ought to be issued a ticket(s) to be either paid or contested. Perhaps ordered to go back and be examined again, aka losing a licence.
I have faith most police want to help. To serve and protect. That's their job (yes in every job there are losers, I got loads to say about Forcillo) but as every job there are ****** parts of it too like traffic enforcement. No one idolized the referees where we were young, we loved the players.
I'd hate to have the traffic detail if I was a cop.
We all do this. Sometimes. Elderly people in car, newborns and usually when there is an actual cop on our ass!
I mostly obey signs, rules and limits. When I don't - I know I'm breaking the rules.
Police shouldn't be an examiner, that would take too much time and that is really not their job. When you are caught breaking a law then you ought to be issued a ticket(s) to be either paid or contested. Perhaps ordered to go back and be examined again, aka losing a licence.
I have faith most police want to help. To serve and protect. That's their job (yes in every job there are losers, I got loads to say about Forcillo) but as every job there are ****** parts of it too like traffic enforcement. No one idolized the referees where we were young, we loved the players.
I'd hate to have the traffic detail if I was a cop.
Every single one of us knows of at least one, probably dozens of spots, where a cop or multiple cops, could sit all day long and write ticket after ticket.
We also know of at least one person, probably more, who shouldn't be on the road, but is.
If the police are really just collecting voluntary taxes, then why aren't they in these spots, every single day, and/or ticketing these people until they can't drive anymore?
We also know of at least one person, probably more, who shouldn't be on the road, but is.
If the police are really just collecting voluntary taxes, then why aren't they in these spots, every single day, and/or ticketing these people until they can't drive anymore?
Well, It was much easier to "Serve and Protect", Back when I started my career, (before many on this forum were even a wet spot...lol). Back then, you pulled someone over, you gave them a "talking to", and MOST people took that to heart, and respected the rules, the uniform, and the authority. People like meme did in the thread took responsibility for THEIR actions.
Today there is a general lack of respect, (not JUST towards police, but towards most every thing and everybody else). Today, it is never MY fault, my mother didn't love me enough, my teachers were mean, etc etc etc.
Also, the politicians are somewhat to blame in the perceived shift from serve and protect to serve and collect, in that in the past things like court houses, didn't require the level of security, we see today, way back IF, there was "security" at the courthouse it was an elderly commissionaire, sitting at a security/information desk. Eventually, the court security, and some other administrative duties got transferred to the police, and subsequently, came from their budget.
To appease, chiefs of police, the government, made the change that ticket revenues would be shifted from the AG, to the police. Therefore, the more tickets written the higher the revenue stream Also many other "accounting" practices got changed, IE the police vehicles used to be considered "city property" as such the costs associated with said vehicles were bore out by the city. Then the police got their own budgets, and more and more costs got downloaded. The Chief, just like any other city department, can't run a deficit, so they need to generate more funds to balance the budgets.
Most officers disdain traffic enforcement. It used to be viewed as a "disciplinary technique" You screw up, heres your radar gun go out and catch speeders all day, every shift. Now it is dedicated department, within the service. But MOST officers will do as little time as they can, but, it is seen by the brass as a necessary step for career advancement.
As for the name change from Police FORCE to police service, was one brought about by snowflakes that "felt" the term force made them "feel" bad, and afraid of the police. It truly was only used in verbal conversations. The signs on buildings had ALWAYS said Toronto Police Department, which was the Official, moniker. It was more media, and such that referred to it as a police force. If you were TRULY afraid because it was called a police force, you should still be afraid, as it is for the most part still the SAME people doing the work...lol.
Same thing happens today in other organizations. The ATV club, I used to be involved with had Trail Wardens, which patrolled the trails ensuring people had bought their passes, (same as snowmobiles). Then along came the special snowflakes and the name had to be changed to Trail Patrol, as the word Warden was viewed as too harsh and too "militaristic"....lol
Today there is a general lack of respect, (not JUST towards police, but towards most every thing and everybody else). Today, it is never MY fault, my mother didn't love me enough, my teachers were mean, etc etc etc.
Also, the politicians are somewhat to blame in the perceived shift from serve and protect to serve and collect, in that in the past things like court houses, didn't require the level of security, we see today, way back IF, there was "security" at the courthouse it was an elderly commissionaire, sitting at a security/information desk. Eventually, the court security, and some other administrative duties got transferred to the police, and subsequently, came from their budget.
To appease, chiefs of police, the government, made the change that ticket revenues would be shifted from the AG, to the police. Therefore, the more tickets written the higher the revenue stream Also many other "accounting" practices got changed, IE the police vehicles used to be considered "city property" as such the costs associated with said vehicles were bore out by the city. Then the police got their own budgets, and more and more costs got downloaded. The Chief, just like any other city department, can't run a deficit, so they need to generate more funds to balance the budgets.
Most officers disdain traffic enforcement. It used to be viewed as a "disciplinary technique" You screw up, heres your radar gun go out and catch speeders all day, every shift. Now it is dedicated department, within the service. But MOST officers will do as little time as they can, but, it is seen by the brass as a necessary step for career advancement.
As for the name change from Police FORCE to police service, was one brought about by snowflakes that "felt" the term force made them "feel" bad, and afraid of the police. It truly was only used in verbal conversations. The signs on buildings had ALWAYS said Toronto Police Department, which was the Official, moniker. It was more media, and such that referred to it as a police force. If you were TRULY afraid because it was called a police force, you should still be afraid, as it is for the most part still the SAME people doing the work...lol.
Same thing happens today in other organizations. The ATV club, I used to be involved with had Trail Wardens, which patrolled the trails ensuring people had bought their passes, (same as snowmobiles). Then along came the special snowflakes and the name had to be changed to Trail Patrol, as the word Warden was viewed as too harsh and too "militaristic"....lol
It's gotten so bad that an officer actually asked me if I'd served in the military, during a stop, simply because I spoke with respect.
matt220
Well-known member
Just a heads up, two tickets per stop is going to become the norm (even if one is minor BS). They are doing this to get easy convictions without having to go to court, when you go for early resolution they will drop one and might reduce the more serious one. You can't resolve each ticket individually with the prosecutor, it's a package deal so if they drop one but you want to fight the other you gotta fight both in court.
|
|
|
|
|