Topic: Steering You Right: The whole proof and nothing but the proof

[Autos_Editor]

When a police officer writes you a ticket for speeding, and you dispute it, you are entitled to see a full copy of the proof so that you can properly prepare to defend yourself at trial, says lawyer Jordan Charness.
Read More...

[Ron]

I believe that the school zone starts where the sign is placed on the side of the road.

Was it a school day?  Was he in the school zone according to the map? 

I'm guessing that since you did not include this information in your article that the answer was 'yes' to both.  I'm also guessing that you don't have kids in elementary school.

You say your client "was sure that he was not in a school zone when he was picked up by the police officer’s laser machine."  Is it not obvious to you that the police officer was positioned in that spot so his radar would catch drivers within the school zone?  Do you really think the police position themselves so that their radar would catch drivers outside the school zone, only to have to go to court for most of the tickets?

If this young driver typically obeyed the law while driving, why would he be worried about getting the next 2 points that would put him to the 4 point threshold?

Nice job.... I think the general public will enjoy the fact that you protected a young speeder, while ignoring the safety of the young kids in school.  You should be very proud of yourself.  You might get a few more clients because of this article, which is probably your goal, but you may also lose respect from people who know you.  Is that a concern for you? 

What is this article doing on CanadianDriver.com?

He is worried because of the insurance.  As far as if the cop was in the right or wrong with the actual ticket is up to the judge, not just that but how is it obvious to you that the cop was in the correct spot.  There's no way anyone out there can tell me they've never seen a police officer break a law themselves.  Where I'm from, they hardly ever signal, come to a complete stop at a stop sign, etc.  HOW DARE YOU question the legal system.  The 19 year old had the right to defend himself and chose to do so.  I'm guessing you do have kids in elementary school and they can do no wrong.  If you're worried about speeders in school zones, teach your kids how to be safe.  Is there no such thing as personal accountability anymore or do you just not know what that means?

[JC]

I totally agree with the previous poster.
Most people who fight their tickets are people who can't accept THEY ARE WRONG!

[ovr50]

I disagree with the two guests comments above. All Charness is saying is that it must be clear that in fact the client was speeding within the school zone. In the example given, it was not clear enough to convict the client.

Charness also says he has no problem with ppl getting ticketed in school zones if they are truly in violation. I don't see what the guests problem is with this example??

I live in a family community and daily go through 2, sometimes 3, school zones on my way to work. I try very hard to always be at or below the set speeds for school zones. However, if I am ticketed (never have been, this is just theoretical) and it appears to me that I was not inside the school zone, should I not have the right to fight the ticket? I think I do have that right.

Whether or not you have children in elementary school has little bearing on what's right or wrong in this case. My child is long gone from school, however, that doesn't influence my thinking on what is correct in this case.

Most people who fight their tickets are people who can't accept THEY ARE WRONG!

That assumes that the police are ALWAYS right. I don't think that is a fair assumption. Police are only human, and can make errors, hopefully not very often.

I have never fought a ticket in my life, but I reserve the right to do so if I feel strongly that the police have made an error. Seems fair to me.

[HeliDriver]

Nothing wrong with the article, IMO. If the cop is unable or unwilling to present the evidence (the diagram) in court, then the kid deserves to get off.

And as someone who regularly goes to court to fight tickets, here's the kind of article I'd like to see more of on Canadian Driver: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/pre-2007/files/cars/tickets/ .

And no, I don't fight tickets because I can't accept that I am wrong, I fight them because it saves me money. IMO, willingly forking over the face value of a ticket is about as silly as volunteering to purchase a car for MSRP.

[99 Silver]

I got a ticket once from the OPP for speeding on the 401.  I didn't normally speed on the 401 over 120k when the photo radar was deployed but I was distracted by a phone call.  In any event I got a ticket for 123kmph in the mail with a nice photo of my car on it. 

When I read the ticket I was surprised to see that you couldn't mail it back with a request for a trial as you could with normal ticket, but you would have to make an appointment with the crown in the area you were ticketed.  I was of the opinion that photo radar was a cash grab and this confirmed my opinion and I decided to fight it on principle.  Keep in mind that it was only my second ticket in 25 years.

I fought it myself, but discussed the case with a lawyer friend who advised me to request a lot of information from the OPP.  Things like the training records of the officer, calibration of the equipment, the officer's notes, the records relating to the transferring of the film to the lab and processing etc.

I sent this in by registered mail and the crown refused.  I sent another registered letter stating that their refusal was violating my charter rights and they refused again.  I went to court and the crown immediately removed the charge without comment rather than letting me speak.

Justice prevailed! 

Shortly after, photo radar was history.

[robsaw]

Good thing the courts operate on evidence rather than assumptions like the first couple of comments seem to believe are proper --- AND --- a massive does of self-righteousness.   The column is about the law and how it protects everyone's right to a fair trial.  I am afraid some comments might connect with the people that believe unlimited police wiretapping, internet spying, and other sorts of data collection and privacy intrusions are OK because only the guilty have something to hide; which is true, until the day comes when you and I need these protections against a corrupt gov't or its agents.

[Ron]

"Good thing the courts operate on evidence rather than assumptions like the first couple of comments seem to believe are proper"

This case clearly shows that the courts do not operate on evidence.  The evidence was just not brought to the courtroom.

"The column is about the law and how it protects everyone's right to a fair trial."

My point exactly.... it's about law, not cars.

[The Mighty Duck]

This case clearly shows that the courts do not operate on evidence.  The evidence was just not brought to the courtroom.

Huh?  Evidence that isn't brought to court is irrelevant. Do defence attorneys go the judge and say "Look, Judge, I have proof my client is innocent, but I left it in my sock drawer"?

Of course not.

Only evidence that's presented in court matters...