^ In canada the penalty for speeding is a rough one. They chop a man's testicles off, batter them and deep fry them infront of you while you watch. They then pour salt and tequila on the wound and set your leg hair on fire, all the while poking you with high voltage cattle prods. We have a humane and sophisticated legal system.
lol 99km/h in a 70km/h. Expressway? Here in Montreal, they don't bother at anything under 120km/h +50km/h excess = car impound - license for a few weeks + lots of income + donuts.
^ lol yea, or so i've heard from my uncles you can't have another cop take some cop's place, that's hearsay, and is dismissible in a court of law.
haha,first ticket...but there's always a first for everything.Now you have to be careful to avoid another one...Between,how come there's 3 officers??
First off a little personal history, when I was in the military, I used to be a military policeman, which of course meant traffic stops and running radar routinely. Radar is considered a scientific device and is generally not subject to human error (exceptions for usage which I'll get into). So most judges take the recorded speed as gospel. In other words, the cop didn't say you're going that fast, his scientific measuring device (that is considered technologically infallible by the court) did. The only way that you can beat a radar device is to show that it was calibrated improperly, and that means hiring a lawyer who gets the manufacturer's recommended manual for that model device, reading every procedure, and getting the state to produce the maintenance logs for the device, and then drilling the cop on the stand about the proper calibration technique and how it was used. Another is to ask the cop under what weather or road conditions might the device be fooled (multiple vehicles, radio wave generating devices that can interfere {power lines, electronic equipment, cellphones}, large road signs), to show that the cop is actually familiar with its proper usage and limitations to accuracy. What I've heard nowadays is that you can also use GPS tracking as a superior device but only if one has been already preinstalled in your vehicle and can show the exact time and date, along with speed and direction of travel, to contest the charge as recorded by the radar gun. So both devices need to be in operation at that exact moment in question for which you were charged for. As for why there's three officers? There's generally one radar vehicle that is stationary with one officer, and another that is a chase vehicle with two. You can (with one vehicle for cost savings) run mobile radar , though most police departments seem to prefer stationary. Further, if you don't show up in court, then that's a tacit admission of guilt and they will fine you and take points away from you. Another thing is, this may just be the cop's way of giving you a warning. Since he already told you to in no uncertain terms that you NEED to come to court, he may be hinting at the fact that he really didn't want to give you a ticket in the first place. So he may have purposely forgotten some procedural aspect of the thing (didn't sign the summons, didn't date it, misspelled the name of the road, wrote the wrong license tag number, or listed the wrong criminal code, et cetera) that would be easily spotted by the traffic court judge. Cops are often under quotas to produced revenue. No department would ever publicly say that (instead opting to talk about public safety). Some departments may actually go after minor speed infractions aggressively and line officers may not agree with that decision making process. Hence, they will forget to write shit or write shit wrong so that the ticket becomes procedurally nulled (but only if a defendant shows up). So go to traffic court. A $140 fine and three points is nothing to scoff at. But look at it this way, it was a lesson learned and I bet you'll drive more carefully in the future. In that case, then the social behavioral modification intent of the punishment model worked as intended. And any rate, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by going. Good luck, and please drive carefully.
if the cop hinted you to take it to court (and if you think u can trust him) then you should take it to court, he probably won't show up and you'll win.
thanks a lot. i'll recheck the info on the ticket, make sure that everything is right. but assuming it was right, since i don't have the means to higher a lawyer, nor do i have the wish to do so, i have no choice but to represent myself in the proceedings. my car does not have a GPS built in, and i fully admit i was over the speed limit. the only thing i can attempt to do is to demonstrate the calibration of the radar/laser, the range of the equipment sight vs the officer's own sight, and since there were 3 officers involved, all three MUST testify in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that i was the culprit. if one of them does not show up, the other officers CANNOT vouch for the missing officer, as that would be considered hearsay, and the lack of testimony from that one officer forbids getting the full picture, hence is cause for unreasonable doubt. prosecution will pull some bullshit like, you don't need all three to be present, one can vouch for the others. but that's heresy!
Maybe in MA that's how the courts are but here in Canada, no chance of getting away from paying the fines or not having demerit points despite being a first time offender. You can plead guilty and the judge might be lenient enough to lower the fees but the chances of not losing points is slim. Not to mention that Ontario has a tougher law than Quebec in regards to driving. Age is also a factor. The fact of the matter is that if the cops were lenient in the first place, they wouldn't have written a ticket to begin with. There's special firms that deal with traffic offense which from hearsay are quite reasonable although i have never tried it myself. @ Dan, it doesn't matter whether the officers show up or not because they are not accusing you of something from simple observation like switching lane on double solid lines. You might try arguing if there's no mention anywhere on the ticket that the speed was checked and registered by radar. Nonetheless, good luck and hopefully itll work out as you wished.
I agree with Ecko, try x-coppers or w/e its called. You don't pay unless they win. Anyways, its worth fighting if its your first time.
in the states, at least massachusetts... i got my first speeding ticket revoked without saying a word... and the officers present were not necessarily the ones that pulled me over. -shrug
in the States... there are 2 ways to prove... ok 3 ways, but u gotta have the balls and be a complete dork to try it... ur innocence... the first Ralph pretty much summed it up... prove that the cop was an idiot... the second is depending on the law u broke, u can prove u were driving safely within reason... there's a law known as the "basic speed law"... it doesn't matter what the speed limit says as long as it doesn't say "max speed"... most of the time, u can go 5, 10 or even 15 miles over the speed limit given the conditions were right( i.e. clear and sunny day, dry pavement, 2-3lanes, straight and flat road, etc...)... roads are also engineered with speed limits set far below reasonable speed limits, check with ur city council for documents about the engineering of that road... as long as u are under the 85 percentile ur safe... also check if that document is signed by a licensed engineer, sometimes its not... also check if it's recent, i.e. within 5years... else the case can be tossed out... the third way if ur a complete turd bucket with balls of steel is asking for the schematics/programming code of the radar itself as evidence that the radar itself is error free... apparently someone actually won that way because the court couldn't produce this piece of "evidence"... so case tossed out... these of course are laws for the state of Cali... furthermore i'm no lawyer... but because i like to vroom vroom, i gotta find ways to keep my ass outta the hot seat =/
Another cop can and in most cases, will take another cop's place, but his/her testimony will be ruled inadmissable if you do call hearsay. Good call, though the case will not be dismissed on the basis of that. Plus, there are three of them, so you'll probably have to pull at least hearsay on two of the officers for it to be somewhat effective. I'm sure replacement officers can find some way around the hearsay rule, which is why I won't depend on it. I'm not saying the cops are lenient toward first-time offenders, but the court system. If the court sees that it's your first time speeding and that you have a clean record, I assume that they will label you as a law-abiding citizen who made a simple mistake and thus, drop the case and let it be a warning. Again, I can only say this for the state of MA (since several of my friends/family told me this), but it does make logical sense, doesn't it? @Akki: Yep.. I emphasized that in my last post, though Dan is located in Canada, so we'll never know how they'll treat first-time speeders. P.S. most of you guys are from Canada, don't you guys know people who have gotten speeding tickets? Ask them how the court system handled it and plan accordingly.
i think if the cop doesn't show up to be a witness no points will be dropped you just pay a min fine. i got ticket once i wanted to court it but i missed the court day -lol ended up paying the fine and detuct of 3 points. :/
i say just suck it up and take the hit, you were speeding and you got caught. just be more careful next time, buy a laser jammer (if theyre legal in canada) or a gps device with warnings
