Disputing traffic infraction tickets
 

Before the RS e-thugs start slamming down on me with "just pay your ticket", this is not a post about trying to evade tickets.

My understanding is that (told by a friend), that if the officer who gave you a ticket shows up in court during your dispute, you are automatically guilty and have to pay the ticket? Is this true?

If so, if they accused you of violating a traffic infraction, don't they have the burden to provide evidence to prove that you are guilty?

For example, officer saw you using a handheld device but has no proof or speeding ticket with no radar to show you were going over the limit.

Can people who have been to a dispute case please share some knowledge? For the record, I have never disputed a ticket before.

You won't be automatically guilty if the officer shows up, but it'll be your word against theirs so unless you have some sort of proof that you didn't violate any laws good luck.

YOU will be deemed to have abandoned your dispute (ie are now pleading guilty) if YOU do NOT show up in court. If they show and you show then a trial is planned and that is what you wanted when you disputed the ticket. Evidence will be given by the Police and unless you raise a reasonable doubt or disprove it, you will be convicted. If the Police do not show and you do, you can ask the JP to dismiss the ticket. Unless there is a reason for the Police
not being there, you will have it quashed.

So you're saying if both side have no evidence, it is your responsibility to bring forward evidence to prove you're not guilty?

"Just pay your fuckin' ticket." - RS E-Thug


Yep, your responsibility to bring forward evidence. Most of the time, the officer will want to talk to you before to confirm his/her notes. Alternatively, you can ask to speak to the ticketing officer and explain your situation. I've done both, where I was pulled aside, I honestly explained my situation and the officer considered it and decided that he would charge me as the registered owner meaning no points and that he would leave any reduction to the justice's discretion.

I've had a situation where I've asked to speak the officer, he took a look at his notes and said that I was guilty as guilty can be and while he wasn't gonna give me some slack, he wouldn't object to a reduction.

I've had a situation where the officer said that he'd cut me some slack and dismiss the ticket altogether.

Key to it all is that you be respectful and honest to the officer. They do take detailed notes and are trained to spot violations. Small discrepancies are irrelevant so don't bother trying to get all technical and smart. Traffic court isn't Suits. Treat the officer with respect, explain your situation honestly, acknowledge your mistake and accept the consequences if so be it and you'll be fine.

well.. YES and NO.

you really have a few options:

1. renegotiate the fine with the officer to an amount you can afford.
2. present your case to the judge and accept the judicial decision.
3. pay the ticket in FULL and GTFO.

This was the actually questions, not "what options do I have?"

But thanks for contributing.

Read my post above. To answer this specific question...if the Crown presents no evidence then you have nothing to disprove and you do not need to enter any evidence against a charge that was never brought against you. Can't make it any simpler.

Just talk to the officer like you do others here on RS and see how far that gets you.

pay the damn ticket u E-THUG ...quit being a cheapass. you know you're guilty so man up.

Read it after I responded to MarkyMark, my bad.

Wouldn't happen if I know I was guilty. If I know I wasn't, I'd be all up in the officers face like this

https://photos.imageevent.com/sharps...ac%20P-545.jpg

I already said this wasn't a post about trying to evade... ok you know what... fuck you.

Sometimes the judge can lower the amount of the ticket. Ive disputed one ticket where i stopped at the do not enter sign saw the officer, reversed and went around and he saw me and he chased me on foot. He then told me he was giving me a ticket for making him run. I showed up to court and we talked before trial and reminded him what he said to me and he told me to plead not guilty and the officer said lack of evidence on his defence lol.

Ultimately there is a presumption of innocence, if an officer shows up it's not de facto guilty for the person disputing (Which I think is what OP asked). I've only ever been ticketed once and it was for speeding in a 60 km/h zone. My car was loud but because I was in 2nd gear at the time I knew I couldn't have been going over 60. Officer gave me a ticket for speeding and I asked him multiple times how fast I was going and he couldn't give me a straight answer just that I was speeding. (He was just stopped at a traffic light and saw me accelerating quickly from a stand still)

I disputed and went to court empty handed, cop had no evidence and the ticket was dropped. Had the ticket been for something else like driving without consideration I may not have been so confident. I think some of the responses here have been misleading, if the officer has zero evidence other than his/her word it's not worth shit.

The attitude that "if it's my word against an officers in court, the judge will obviously side with the PO" is probably what a cop would like you to believe but just isn't true. I'm not saying go out and pick on cops but at least try to have some understanding of basic legal principles

i was on my bike from at Main and Terminal going upstream towards MCD there.

It was a hot summer day, my bike was loud, and I was the first car at the intersection. I made it across the intersection first upon green light and was planning on stopping by MCD's to cool down. Cop pulled me over from behind saying I was "speeding".

There was no way I was speeding, just the fact that I accelerated quickly and my bike was loud which drew attention.

Same story as above, cop could not tell me how quick I was going. Literally made it across the intersection about to go into MCD and he says I was speeding through the intersection.

Disputed the ticket. The day prior, I re-scheduled my appointment. The day prior to my appointment I rescheduled it again. Then I showed up to my appointment and my officer wasn't there. Got off the hook.

Fuck em!

I'm surprised that the dispute system permitted you to reschedule the day before court-twice? What sort of life-altering excuse worked twice?