REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

blueRX7 · 02-03-2009, 08:31 AM

...

SumAznGuy · 02-03-2009, 08:41 AM

Try contacting the officer over the phone and work something out with him.

Not exactly sure how this adjournment court date works, but if the an officer showed up to the originally scheduled court date and said they were there to represent the original officer to ask for an adjournment, more than likely the JP will allow it.

zulutango · 02-03-2009, 10:24 AM

So welcome to the Cop's world where disputants do the same thing, many times before an actual appearance, so they will finally find a date that the Cop can't attend and they walk free. Court dates are set by Court Services and we are TOLD when we have to be there...supposedly on a day we are working. Dates get set quite often when there is a conflict, ranging from a Criminal trial when Traffic Court is set...to somebody being on a course, to a transfer or temporary unplanned duties. The rules say that each side gets 1 adjournment request each...and that this would have to be requested at that time. If we find the conflict well in advance we tell the disputant that this will be happening...unlike the disputants who show up in court that day, or have somebody appear on their behalf, and we have all our witnesses there ready to go. If the Member himself can't show up on Court day another Member will make the request for adjournment. This is not a big plot to personally antagonize you, it's the way things are. Welcome to the "Legal System" . Hope this clears some things up for you.

blueRX7 · 02-03-2009, 10:36 AM

...

SumAznGuy · 02-03-2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueRX7

I was unaware that each side gets 1 adjournment application each, and was under the impression that the court dates were set based on the officer's schedule. Thanks for clarifying.

Technically, the dates are not set to the officer's schedule since the dates are usually set 3 - 5 months in advance. But, they will TRY to schedule a bunch of tickets together so the officer will go to court once to take on how ever many tickets there may be.
I had this discussion with someone who works for the courts. When you schedule something that far in advance, you never know when something will come up. The officer might be in criminal court, working a case, WCB, day off, or on holidays. It is not fair to ask an officer to miss his holidays/day off to appear in court.

That being said, more than likely the court will grant that first request. I would talk to the officer over the phone, tell him your situation about how you have to schedule the day off. If you feel his excuse is reasonable, then make the change to avoid having to take another day off. You never know, maybe by being nice and working with the officer, he might just cancel the ticket.

zulutango · 02-03-2009, 11:12 AM

I have never heard a Crown's 1st adjournment request being refused and I've been in Traffic Court for more than 28 years. I have seen disputants being given 2 and even on one occasion....a 3rd adjournment. The Judge ( a traffic court JP would never have bought the line being spewed) granted it. If I had an adjournment granted to the disputant I always had it made "pre emptory on the accused" which means it went ahead on the next court date with NO extention. Being told that by the JP left an impression and I never had anyone try their luck on those. I have seen the JP say no. The Crown is here & ready to proceed, you have had (fill in the blank of how many months) time to prepare, have had an additional extention and knew months in advance that you HAD to go ahead today. No extention.

Rich Sandor · 02-03-2009, 10:10 PM

I think washington state's system is better. (or at least Skagit county)

The cop is not required to be there, he can teleconference OR provide a written affidavit.

Cuts down on people disputing & hoping the cop won't show up, and makes the court system go much faster.

Honestly, to dispute a measly traffic violation, we should not have to pull away a valuable officer from other more important duties.

teamsta · 02-14-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Sandor

I think washington state's system is better. (or at least Skagit county)

The cop is not required to be there, he can teleconference OR provide a written affidavit.

Cuts down on people disputing & hoping the cop won't show up, and makes the court system go much faster.

Honestly, to dispute a measly traffic violation, we should not have to pull away a valuable officer from other more important duties.

Just thought I would chime in and say, GOOD POINT! Our traffic court system here is a bit of a joke.

skidmark · 02-14-2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Sandor

Honestly, to dispute a measly traffic violation, we should not have to pull away a valuable officer from other more important duties.

Such as writing more tickets perhaps? You stand more chance of suffering financial loss, injury or death through the operation of your motor vehicle than you do all other criminal actions combined.

Too many drivers think that failing to follow traffic rules is a measly violation...

Rich Sandor · 02-14-2009, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skidmark

Such as writing more tickets perhaps? You stand more chance of suffering financial loss, injury or death through the operation of your motor vehicle than you do all other criminal actions combined.

Too many drivers think that failing to follow traffic rules is a measly violation...

I don't mean to belittle the importance of being a safe driver, but often there are more productive things for officers to be doing than standing around at court while the judge calls the names of people who have not shown up.

Also, If you get a ticket for breaking a rule that doesn't particularly create any danger, then I would classify it as measley: There is a HUGE difference between blowing through a stop sign at 60kph without slowing down, or doing a california roll thru while checking for traffic - yet both acts net the same traffic offense and the same ticket fine. Does that make sense to you?

skidmark · 02-15-2009, 09:03 AM

That depends on the way the officer handles it. 60 km/h through a stop sign could be a stop sign ticket, a drive without reasonable consideration for others ticket or even a mandatory court appearance for the stop sign offence instead of a ticket for it. The trouble with the latter is, even faced with a significant driving record, most traffic court justices won't impress anything other than the usual fine on the ticket saying that they will leave the sanction of a prohibition to the Superintendent.

I think our traffic ticket system could use a bit of an overhaul, but I don't see the political will for it. Instead we have ICBC impressing another bad driver premium. $ are only a deterrent when someone doesn't have them, and even then, who cares if you owe $10 or $1,000? If you can't pay, you can't pay.

Maybe we need a few more prohibitions to show those who can't follow the rules that they won't be allowed to play with the rest of us unless they play nice.

Soundy · 02-16-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skidmark

Maybe we need a few more prohibitions to show those who can't follow the rules that they won't be allowed to play with the rest of us unless they play nice.

You mean like this guy??