REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

Hakkaboy · 02-03-2011, 07:31 PM

1) Is it possible to request some sort of public record of the peace officer? I don't want personal info, but just want to know if the PO has ever been reprimanded or disciplined before.

2) If I phone the officer via voicemail and request his evidence (including video), is he required to provide it to me as part of the discovery or disclosure process? THe reason I ask is because when he indicated he has everything on video, I asked if I could see the video,he replied with: "I am a police officer. I don't have to show you anything. You can see it in court".

3) Regarding the violation ticket itself, if the officer puts in the wrong road for the alleged offense, does this nullify and void the ticket?

4) Is the statute of limitation 12 months for minor traffic violations?

I am not going to go into detail about my alleged offence, but what to state the following.

Yes, I absolutely agree that there are a lot of people trying to get out of tickets even though they committed an offense, and ignorance is not a defense, but in this case it is much akin to someone getting a speeding ticket for going 55 km/h in a 50 km/h. Yes, technically it is a violation, but still... a warning would've been nice. And no, I didn't get a ticket because I was being or driving like a douche.

Thanks in advance.

ninjatune · 02-03-2011, 09:18 PM

Even if you explain that to the judge, his/her hands are tied and you'll be guilty.

Officers have on record a certain form which lists if they've ever been disciplined under the police act/criminal code/provincial acts etc, however I don't think this applies to themselves receiving traffick tickets. For a traffic ticket dispute, I highy doubt this will be disclosed to you or a defence lawyer should you use one.

What is the alleged offence?

CRS · 02-04-2011, 12:59 AM

1. Don't think that's public information and I doubt you'll get it seeing as it doesn't really pertain the case.

2. Disclosure process should include the video, however, you should do everything in writing so that you leave a trail.

3. How wrong is wrong? Like one street over or the entire city? If it is closer to the former than the latter, I'm siding with no. Regardless, if has you on video, it's pretty hard to have this one thrown out. Although you could use it in your defence along the lines of "if the officer didn't have the competence to know where the offence took place, how can we be certain about the speed". This is unless the video records speed as well in which case you'll be hooped.

4. No, however, anything longer than 2 years could probably go thrown out because it was not done in a timely manner.

*edit

I misread your point 4. sho_bc is right, I'm referring to a charter argument.

sho_bc · 02-04-2011, 03:49 AM

2. yes, if video forms part of the evidence, he is required to provide that in his disclosure.

3. we don't always pull someone over immediately. its highly possible that you weren't pulled over right after committing the offence and were already on a different road when pulled over.

4. It is. However, the charge has already been laid, so it will get to court when it gets to court. If you feel the delay to getting to court is unreasonable, you can apply for a Charter argument (prior to court date).

Hakkaboy · 02-04-2011, 05:30 PM

thanks for all the responses so far, really appreciate it.

i won't go into detail about the alleged offence, it really is so petty. it was an honest mistake, but it wasn't something that put myself or anyone in danger. A warning would've sufficed.

(1)the reason i ask regarding police officers record is not their own traffic tickets, but to see the work history of this officer. If they were ever suspended, for example, perhaps I can bring it up in court in an attempt to discredit their testinomy? Yes I know I am reaching, but I would like to know what I am up against. The reason I am asking this is because the officer revealed to me a weird comment regarding their length of service. I just want to see if there is any way through the freedom of information act to see their actual work history within the RCMP. Not really important, but again, he they have been proved to require discipline in the past, it would be great if i knew that.

(3/4)And the reason that I ask regarding statute of limitation isn't because of the possible delay in court. It is because the officer wrote down the wrong street for the alleged offense. If he has video evidence of me doing this "act" on No. 4 road for example, but wrote down No. 5 road, could I not plead not guilty to the alleged offense on No. 5 road? So in theory, he could not re-issue me a ticket (based on a video) with the correct street name past 12 months, correct?

I know that a lot of officers do a good job to discipline bad drivers, but I sincerely feel that this one for no good reason just wanted to give me one based on a technicallity. Contrary to my username, I have been driving since 95, am a roadstar+ driver and this is my first traffic ticket since 2002. I am certainly no punk nor do I drive like one. The only reason why I am considering disputing this is to get the court to overturn the ticket based on a technicality. The irony would be great, considering the office kept encouraging me to dispute the ticket and go to court just so that he could showcase his solid evidence against me.

xpl0sive · 02-04-2011, 06:18 PM

i think you should definitely dispute the ticket. if you were actually doing 55 in a 50, i highly doubt the officer will show up for court... it was probably the end of the monthly quota time for him, so he was handing out tickets for anything he could

johny · 02-04-2011, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakkaboy

3) Regarding the violation ticket itself, if the officer puts in the wrong road for the alleged offense, does this nullify and void the ticket?

the ticket says "at or near" or something to that effect. a few blocks isn't going to cancel it.

CRS · 02-04-2011, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpl0sive

i think you should definitely dispute the ticket. if you were actually doing 55 in a 50, i highly doubt the officer will show up for court... it was probably the end of the monthly quota time for him, so he was handing out tickets for anything he could

Yeah, the officer must've really wanted the toaster this month.

ninjatune · 02-04-2011, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakkaboy

(1)the reason i ask regarding police officers record is not their own traffic tickets, but to see the work history of this officer. If they were ever suspended, for example, perhaps I can bring it up in court in an attempt to discredit their testinomy?

That would be like the officer bringing in your previous passengers to testify against you, lol.

Really, whats the offence?

gars · 02-04-2011, 10:20 PM

man, these posts are so cryptic. An honest mistake - in my mind - could be driving the wrong way on a one way street.... or something like that.

zulutango · 02-05-2011, 06:06 AM

"The only reason why I am considering disputing this is to get the court to overturn the ticket based on a technicality. "

Laws are a series of technicalities. You admitted you broke the law and "technically" you are guilty. You are looking for a way to get off on another "technicality' which appears to be a difference between where you believe you broke the law and where you were stopped. Point # 3 in Sho BC's post.

"The irony would be great, considering the office kept encouraging me to dispute the ticket and go to court just so that he could showcase his solid evidence against me. "

The irony could also be great if you disputed the ticket for a charge you know is valid but you want excused..spent time in court and were convicted by his "showcased solid evidence"...real irony. You have the right to dispute the ticket and if you want to, you certainly can. Just know the "technicalities" behind what you are considering. I was not there, I know nothing of the case except what you told us here. The JP will hear all the evidence and make an impartial decision based on video of what actually happened...and that includes seeing you break the law. Is that what you want...remember you told us you broke the law ?

sho_bc · 02-05-2011, 08:10 AM

The best way to discredit someone's testimony is to show gaping holes in it. Not by saying "well, he was suspended from work for 2 weeks for a completely unrelated matter".

For example, someone testifying that they are an excellent driver and then me entering a 3-page long driving record as an exhibit. That would bring that person's credibility into question.

Rich Sandor · 02-05-2011, 09:54 AM

what was offense? what MVA section is written on the ticket for the offense?

Hakkaboy · 02-05-2011, 10:08 AM

sho_bc · 02-05-2011, 10:10 AM

Rich, he's already said a few times he's not willing to share what he got the ticket for, even though he admitted that he likely deserved it. He admits guilt, but wants to get off on a technicality somehow.

sho_bc · 02-05-2011, 10:24 AM

I give it out. I know others give it out.

Based on your previous comments about location, I'm guessing you didn't signal on Westminster Hwy, but the officer wrote No 2 Rd? Would it be possible that as you turned onto No 2 Rd that you turned into the #1 lane, but moved over to the #2 lane without signaling as many do?

Hakkaboy · 02-05-2011, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johny

the ticket says "at or near" or something to that effect. a few blocks isn't going to cancel it.

on the ticket, the "at or near" part is only referring to the place/city/town.

The Date and Time preceeds with an "On or about" which would excuse approximations for time, but the "Highway" part however seems to be more specific with the word "On"preceeding it.

I assume the city part is for highway patrol just in case they catch someone and put down the wrong town down, am I correct?

Hakkaboy · 02-05-2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sho_bc

I give it out. I know others give it out.

Based on your previous comments about location, I'm guessing you didn't signal on Westminster Hwy, but the officer wrote No 2 Rd? Would it be possible that as you turned onto No 2 Rd that you turned into the #1 lane, but moved over to the #2 lane without signaling as many do?

you are correct in your assumptions regarding the ticket, but no, I did not change lanes on No 2 road without signalling as that is not the way i drive. The video evidence will speak to that.

[edit] Sho, btw do you have a tendancy to give out this ticket when you are in a good mood, or in a bad mood? and would driving 55 in a 50 zone be considered speeding?

ninjatune · 02-05-2011, 11:58 AM

Are you serious? What is your definition of a "50 zone"? What is your definition of "55"?

Laws are black and white, so yes it is speeding. 50.0001 km/h is speeding. Obviously most people don't receive tickets for going 5km/h over the limit, but it would be just as valid as 15 km/h over the limit.

It's just one ticket... remember that the purpose of signalling a lane change is to let other drivers know what your intentions are, so a proper signal would start before your vehicle starts to move over in it's lane.

Hakkaboy · 02-05-2011, 12:16 PM

yes i know what the purpose of the law is for and i absolutely agree with it. i guess subconciously i had the wrong interpretation of what is considered a lane change is, given the nature of this particular intersection. i wrongfully mistaken the actual island divider as a fork in the road as opposed to an actual lane change. i am not disputing that now that i have analysed the MVA and can now see the dotted lines on the road supporting the officer's interpretation.

even though i may have subconciously interpreted it that way, i did not intentionally choose not to signal. i was actually quite shocked when the officer told me i did not signal. that is why i wanted the officer to show me the video (since he kept referring to it 3 times in our conversation)so that i would myself know that i had 100% committed this act. He advised me I could only see it in court, so I guess that is when I will see it.

i just want to know if the officer putting in the wrong road for the alleged infraction will hold up in court. no more no less. thanks.

regarding speeding 5km/h over 15km/h, yes both are valid. however, it is usually up to officer's discretion. I guess this officer either feels really strongly or just wanted to give someone a ticket that day. i'm not in a position to speculate...

sho_bc · 02-05-2011, 03:17 PM

The ticket will likely stand up in court.

If the officer had video in the car, it means it was a member of the Road Safety Unit (Traffic section), which means that their mandate is generally the issuance of tickets. So I'd imagine that yes, the officer did feel like giving out tickets that day.

You'll be able to see the video sooner, if you request disclosure.

sebberry · 02-06-2011, 11:25 PM

It's interesting how lane changes ALWAYS requires signalling, but turning only requires signalling if traffic may be affected by the turning vehicle.

And I never understood why people signal AFTER they begin to move into the next lane.

gars · 02-06-2011, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakkaboy

sometimes I may delay either when I am starting to cross the line, or sometimes 0.5 secs into the lane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakkaboy

I am all for ticketing inconsiderate people who change lanes all the time without signalling, and it is a personal pet peeve of mine.

I agree with Sebberry, I don't understand the point of signaling after you move into the next lane. The point of signalling is to tell people your intent. I guess it's to tell people that you really are changing lanes, and not just ignoring the road lines.

wing_woo · 02-07-2011, 09:12 AM

I find signalling is very useful. More often than not, when I signal, the car beside me usually slows down to let me in. I really hate it when people signal as they are changing...it's like, gee, thanks for the warning.

Hakkaboy · 02-07-2011, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gars

I agree with Sebberry, I don't understand the point of signaling after you move into the next lane. The point of signalling is to tell people your intent. I guess it's to tell people that you really are changing lanes, and not just ignoring the road lines.

i was speaking about this particular intersection and this intersection only. i am not saying i don't signal at any other lane changes, OR signal AFTER lane changes.

this is not the usual left turn lane where you definitely have to cross lanes, this one is quite gradual and in fact, you can even get into this lane without turning the wheel at all by keeping a straight line.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=49...02401&t=k&z=19

anyways, i know this is not a valid excuse for not signalling, but it is why i may have forgotten or delayed it until the actual lane change.

Also since this is a left turn lane, signalling should be left on until after turn has completed.