rules for tickets a cop cant prove?

[alpha]

I I was driving with some friends tonight and when we stopped to chat for a bit before going home a cop pulled in and said he got a call about a couple certain cars that were "racing". he named the make and color of 3 cars that were with us. and said that he only got 2 of the licence numbers from one of them, and none form the rest.

we were on the highway and were going possibly 20 over the limit. but definitely no faster as its harder to stay all together. plus its dark and theres too much traffic to go any faster than that.

so anyway when the cop came up to us and mentioned the 3 cars that were reported, my car wasnt one of them, plus its a silver civic with nothing much that sets it apart from any other. but somehow I got a ticket for stunting, and one of the cars he mentioned got nothing. I understand that I was most likely speeding, albeit not much, cuz we were going the speed of the traffic that was in front of us. but how can a cop prove this in court and what are my options for fighting it.

[dooman24]

could you name the 3 cars racing and where about there were?

[alpha]

none of us were racing.

[theken]

seems like a joke to me i would go to court and say wheres the proof that it was me and say u werent even on the highway say u were just there

[alpha]

well, we looked pretty suspect, cuz we all had modified cars, and we had about 12 cars with us, and so its obvious it was us that they called about, but no matter how it "looked" theres still no real proof.

[SI-vic]

no evidence no case
they'll lose in court if the judge isnt a dick and if there isnt anything more to the story

[kenny]

This ticket will not even make it to court unless you do nothing. Go down to Rocky Mountain Plaza and go discuss the ticket. You do have to wait a few days after the ticket is written before you can do this though.

For you, if you were not specifically reported it will most likely be dropped after you explain it (don't be rude!)

For your buddies that were reported, the officer does not have to
prove anything to issue a citation. However, this does not mean your buddies cannot fight it. If it were me in their position, I would go down and attempt at the very least to get it reduced to a registered owner ticket as it "wasn't me!" ;)

If a RO ticket is not satisfactory, go file a request for particulars and see what notes have been included for the tickets issued and then decide how to fight based on that.

[alpha]

so I can just go whenever, it doesnt have to be on the date specified on the ticket?

how does that work?

[kenny]

Go to Rocky Mountain Plaza, go in the lineup (the super long one), they will have like 5 line ups for cashiers and 1 lineup to talk to crown (gee i wonder why). When you get to the window, tell them you wish to speak to the crown regarding a ticket. They'll take your ticket and put it in the queue.

You will be told to take a seat and wait and depending on time/date it could be anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours while you wait to be called into the room.

When its your turn just go in there and tell the story as it unfolded. Remember, this is NOT the person that wrote the ticket so don't get all confrontational. ;) If he/she agrees with you they will stamp on your ticket "crown withdraws" and the ticket is history. If they don't completely agree you can settle it at this point. A settlement is usually in the form of cash (do we see the pattern yet?) which you can pay back outside. Don't worry it will only take about 30 seconds since there are plenty of line ups for the cashiers.

PS: No wearing hats/caps when talking to Crown :thumbsup:

[hockeybronx]

Yeah with half of these cases most people are just to lazy or busy to go through all the steps Kenny mentioned to fight the ticket.

If you appear dilligent to them and have put in the time to actually go down there and protest the ticket, chances are you'll be successful.

[bspot]

Make sure you phone first to see if your ticket made it down. Going too soon and waiting in that line for hours could suck ;)

[alpha]

Thanks alot for the help guys. I have to wait a few days before I go anyways because i have to renew my registration, and I want it out of the way in case I do get convicted by chance.

[m10-power]

Without the witnesses, ie people that reported to police, there is no case. They have to testify, which most intelligent people will realize isnt in their best interest due to their identities being reveiled. Even if they do come on the stand they are not exactly expert witnesses and it would most likely be an easy fight. For sure it would get plead down to what they are really after $$$

Moral, don't rip around with a bunch of poser race cars, which probably sound faster they they are, and then park together near the scene...

[black_shadow_18]

Ok. i was one of the cars involved in this.

I came up into calgary via Macleaod trail, and met with our group in a parking lot. maybe 20 minutes later, a police car pulls into the parking lot, and approaches us.

Here is what the cop said as best as i can remember:
He said some one called in and reported cars racing on 22X and on 162ave. He said there was a black car with an "EH" in the license plate, a blue car, and a "orange Rice Rocket". He then points at my car (the black one) and said there is a black car, and there is an orange car. What are the chances that these are the same cars? They then take all of our paper work, from all of the drivers of every car, and go into there car and start writing up tickets. I recieve a ticket for stunting. as does the driver of the blue car. But oddly enough, the driver of the orange car doesnt get one, but one of the other drivers with a TOTALLY different color car. Everyone else got piddly little tickets like exhaust and whatnot, EXCEPT the orange car, he got nothing!

SO what i want to know is, how can they give me a ticket, when they didnt see me do anything? I wasnt even on 22X for one. How can they issue me a ticket for what someone else said, when they dont even get a full plate number. I mean there are THOUSANDS of plate numbers, even ones with an EH in them. I was driving in this group, but i dont believe i did anything wrong. Do you mean to tell me, that if i dont like the way someone is driving, i can just call the police, and have them issued a ticket? ALso, they could not see who was driving my car. ALL of my wondows are tinted PITCH black, except the windshield. There is a good chance i wasnt even driving my car when this whole thing was reported. So how goodof a case can they have if they didnt SEE me??

thanks for the advice. Also, if anyone knows a good traffic court lawyer, i could use them. I NEED to make sure this never goes through. I just started a new job, and CANNOT risk losing my license. I NEED it. thank you

[Lo)2enz0]

when ever I go it only takes 40 min at most and I am out of there.

just tell the crown exactly what happened and that the cop issued you a ticket because you were with some people that were described to the police.

or you can tall him that you were just meeting up with a couple of friends after picking up a 12 red bulls for world of warcraft 24 hour marithon, and hope he knows that you would never do "anything" to disobey the law. crap I dress up like a nerd and pull my hair over when I go now. I went in a hoody once and he was like, i can reduce it, he also got mad at me for wearing my hat in his room.

reminds me, i need and extension on that stupid speeding ticket...

[TurboZombie]

Don't mention that ALL of your windows are tinted since it's illegal to have front side windows tinted.:thumbsup:

[Bushy]

i would defiately take that ticket tho. at least then they know that people can not see into my windows to see who was driving right?

[alpha]

so then you would get a tint ticket, as well as the stunting ticket, but it would be brought down to a registered owner charge, still not that great.

[dymz999]

Aww my little friends, only if you knew how traffic court and the police worked. I can tell you right now they have a witness who swore on an afadavit that he saw this take place. If they pointed out a license place that was with you (the 12 cars) then you are pretty much guilty by association. If your lucky you'll plead it down at trial. the prosecutor will most likely not make any deals on tickets of this severity. Always remember the police officers do not need to see anything at all. If they have a concerned citizen call you in and swear to the facts your screwd. I've called people in on numerous occasions which were complete jack asses. Most people usually just pay the tickets.

Best of luck with it. Then again what do i know, i only used to work there and know the entire thing inside and out. Oh jee wizz.

Now however. Since the officer did not actually factually see you driving the vehicle. He has to give you a charge of being the owner of the vehicle which did the certain deed. Aka on your ticket you should see a charge for 160 and then another charge. If he does not have both charges guess what its your lucky day. Just go in and plead not guilty if he has done that. When you go to trial just ask the witness who reported the incident which person was driving which car? If they can't point it out then there is no proof. For the most part a person can report a description of a car with a partial license plate and guess what, that will give you the owner of the vehicle which did this crap charge. There is no demerits on these as they can not prove who was factually driving the vehicle.

I would double check but ya. Trust me what the police did was completely legal and in their discretion. they just did their job as they were told by their seargeant so dont take it out on them. Most times u see these charges down there and it is from some yahoos going 160 in a 50 that get caught and swear they were going 60 to 70 tops.

Lastly dont hire a lawyer or a dumb ass points rep. All they do is the same crap you'd do yourself. For a ticket like this they charge likely $200 plus or more.

[Fluidic]

Originally posted by dymz999
Aww my little friends, only if you knew how traffic court and the police worked.

Then again what do i know, i only used to work there and know the entire thing inside and out. Oh jee wizz.

Most times u see these charges down there and it is from some yahoos going 160 in a 50 that get caught and swear they were going 60 to 70 tops.

Lastly dont hire a lawyer or a dumb ass points rep. All they do is the same crap you'd do yourself. For a ticket like this they charge likely $200 plus or more.

Take a deep breathe and hold it!

.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
..........

Now relax. :)

[Lo)2enz0]

Originally posted by Fluidic


Take a deep breathe and hold it!

.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
..........

Now relax. :)

he has emirged from the 240sx/s13 forum watch out guys

but nice call

[Khyron]

What pisses me off is I can call in a speeder or someone passing on a double yellow, but if I call in a drunk driver, they generally can't do shit. I know the intoxication charge would have to be caught and tested but I can say he was weaving all over the road, driving like a maniac, almost killing pedestrians, etc, but my lack of "training" means I'm not qualified to swear to a wreckless or dangerous driving. :whipped:

Khyron

[dymz999]

Before when I used to work for the police you'd see dozens of calls each night from people reporting "drunk drivers" on the roads. For some reason regular people are allowed to attest in court to a person speeding but not to an idiot who can't drive straight. For some reason i think that needs to be changed.

Problem with the drunks is 80% of them are speeding bad. I recall one incident when this guy got pulled over and actually asked the cop what he was doing wrong. The cop asked him why he was going so fast, something wrong with doing 120 on macleod tr right near stampede park! Crazy bastard was way over the limit...

But for the record, if you call people in there is a likelyhood of 1/20 that the person gets a ticket. they need to come to your house or come see you to take your written afadavit as proof in court otherwise the ticket doesn't hold water. Im going to be making a website shortly to help all of us wonderful performance enthusiasts with some useful information. Aka everything you'll need to fight your own ticket the right way.

[caddywanker]

You CAN NOT be found guilty on ANY ticket where there is no 'authority' as a winess, or without any proof that you indeed commit an offence of any sort. Lucky us in Canada go by something called Case Law. There are precidents that judges MUST follow when hearing a case and reviewing a charge. Though our traffic court in Calgary tends to pretend they can do whatever they want and sometimes don't follow this if there isn't a lawyer invloved.... If the officer cannot attest 100% guilt (which they can't if they didn't see you driving on the occasion in question, then a judge must follow the precident already in place from a previous trial. The precident states how they must judge the case; if 35 years ago, somebody had the same thing happen to them, and the officer could not prove he witnessed the offence, then the person on trial couldn't have been found guilty. THis precident set forth applies to ALL cases of the same nature from that date on- the judge has absolutely no choice to but to rule the same way the judge did 35 years ago- That is the law. So to be found not guilty, go to the court library and find any offence in similar nature to this, find the ruling (which should be not guilty) and see the stated reference and the precident that they used in that case. That being alot of work, or you could hire any traffic lawyer to do the same thing. People here think that a trial is a trial, when it is not. Go to any courthouse and listen to a real trial, and you will hear them referencing these precidents. A judge has no choice but to follow these precidents (they are binding), but if they aren't brought to their attention, they won't use them. *A judge must follow the ruling of a previous judge on a case in similar nature* ***you can also use precidents from any other country in the british commonwealth*** The US does not work like this.

IE) if you slip on ice outside a store even though it was shoveled, the store is responsible for you injuries because a precident is in place from a previous case where someone slipped on ice outside a store even though it was shoveled. The judege has no choice but to rule the same way- that is the law they must follow

[dymz999]

No offence but book smart means nothing in the real world. And no that is not the way it works. the police do not have to attest to seeing you do anything and that is the way it works in any offence. All that has to happen is some person a "witness" sees you doing this or that and calls in the police on you. that person then fills out an afadavit attesting to what they had seen and they swear to it. Once that is done that is the proof the police need to serve you.

However in cases of drunk drivers a cop must directly see the offence as the person or witness in this case can not attest to a person being drunk as they are not an expert witness and their testimony would do diddly in court. When a witness sees you stab somebody, steal something or things along that line though where it is physical they can.

All a regular person can do is attest to how you were driving which dont do much in a drunk case. the only thing that matters in drunk driving cases is how much the guy blows into the breathalyzer.

So fyi if they have a witness who swore to the events your screwd. Most of the commisioner's at traffic court however are quite good so long as your not a crazy driver.

[Z_Fan]

LOL

So, bottom line is that is bullshit.

Fight these tickets...

[caddywanker]

You are wrong. An officer CAN'T give you a ticket if they themselves did not witness any offence. A sworn afadavit by a civillian winess to a traffic offence is good for absolutely nothing in any traffic matter not resulting in an incident or accident. Read into the law more closely my friend, as you are 100% wrong. The reason the law does not work the way you state is because that would enable any Joe Blow who doesn't like someone or gets cut off in traffic could in turn have the person they 'don't like' be charged with a traffic offence. The general public does not have the ability to make any sort of civillian arrest regarding traffic violations, their right extends only to the point of giving a testimony in court, which is also not like regular court; subpoena's are not used for 1st level traffic violations not resulting in an accident or incident. There for witnesses to offences like this are not required by law to appear in court regarding any of these traffic matters.

[caddywanker]

Hah! let me reword that... An officer can give you a ticket for pretty well ANYTHING they wish. Will they all be regarded by the courts as fit to be heard in trial- NO! There is a filtering process. First the police force are instructed to not give out questioable tickets as it wastes court time and money. Second, they frequently think they are above the law and do anyways, so the court has a filtering process in which often times, questionalbe tickets are quashed. Third step is the court appearance where the judge will hear the FACTS. Officers are trained to be able to 'eye' the speed of a car>> most of the time, these charges don't hold up in the court of law, because the judge may simply question the officers 'superman-like' abilities.

So the bottom line is, yeah you can be charged with WTF a cop wants, but that doesn't mean the ticket has any grounds, and a civillian witness is not considered 'reasonable grounds' to prosecute nor are they seen as a 'reliable witness' in the traffic court of law>>>> again, in 1st level offences not resulting in accidents or incidents

[BlueGoblin]

Originally posted by caddywanker
Hah! let me reword that... An officer can give you a ticket for pretty well ANYTHING they wish. Will they all be regarded by the courts as fit to be heard in trial- NO! There is a filtering process. First the police force are instructed to not give out questioable tickets as it wastes court time and money. Second, they frequently think they are above the law and do anyways, so the court has a filtering process in which often times, questionalbe tickets are quashed. Third step is the court appearance where the judge will hear the FACTS. Officers are trained to be able to 'eye' the speed of a car>> most of the time, these charges don't hold up in the court of law, because the judge may simply question the officers 'superman-like' abilities.

So the bottom line is, yeah you can be charged with WTF a cop wants, but that doesn't mean the ticket has any grounds, and a civillian witness is not considered 'reasonable grounds' to prosecute nor are they seen as a 'reliable witness' in the traffic court of law>>>> again, in 1st level offences not resulting in accidents or incidents

Wow, you must have worked in a different traffic court than I did then...

Where did you attend law school?

[BlueGoblin]

That was a little harsh, Caddywanker - sorry. There are a lot of others offering some ideas about court proceedings etc. that are wildly wrong. At least you offered one clear bit of advice regarding civilian powers of arrest in traffic matters (ie. there are none). Incidentally, I am not a lawyer myself, but I did as a paralegal prosecute in traffic court a number of years ago.

If I can correct a few misconceptions here:

1)Civilian witnesses can be called by subpoena to traffic court for any matter. They usually don't issue witness warrants for them if they don't show up as sometimes happens in provincial and QB.

2)The testimony of any civilian can result in a conviction. The Traffic Court commissioner listens to both sides at trial and determines the weight of each person's testimony and their relative credibility.

3)Precedent set by one level of court has no binding effect on court cases heard at that same level. Rulings at QB are binding on Provincial and Traffic court., Alberta Court of Appeal on Provincial and QB, and the Supreme Court of Canada trumps them all.

4) Court decisions from other jurisdictions within Canada have some bearing in the same way - a Manitoba Court of Appeal case may not be binding on an Alberta Traffic Court decision, but it may be used persuasively in argument. Citing decisions from around the Commonwealth is rare, and usually pointless. Alberta Traffic Court commissioners do not give a crap about what the Grenada High Court says about noisy mufflers.

5)Traffic Court is bound by the same rules of evidence as the Provincial Court. The only real difference is that Traffic Court only has jurisdiction over Summary Offfences and at that, only violations of Statutes covered by POPA - the Provincial Offences Procedures Act. This roughly means all Provincial Statutes (TSA, GLA, etc) as well as municipal and M.D. bylaws.

I hope that helps.

[Khyron]

The part that confuses me, is if there's two guys in a fight, and they each say the other started it, it's a wash evidence-wise, right?

So if some old geezer says I passed him on a double yellow, and I say "No the yellow was broken" what the hell should happen? Or say it's more subjective, like "you were speeding". I mean, a cop written ticket gets tossed if the officer can't tell you how fast you were going in the first place right?

A few weeks ago I was arguing with a member friend in BC and he pretty much said what BlueGoblin said (both cops), but I still don't see the fairness in it.

Khyron

[BlueGoblin]

^Just because its two conflicting stories doesn't necessarily mean its a wash. The trial process is there to expose both side of the story to scrutiny through testimony and cross-examination, and if one person comes off as lying or untrustworthy, or if their story does not hold up to scrutiny, then it may not go so well for them. That's what is at the hear of the system, the ability to still try to figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth.

That being said; sometimes, both sides will present as truthful and forthright. Then it will be a wash as the benefit of the doubt will go to the accused.

[dymz999]

LOL civilian can't get you a ticket. Dude STFU you obviously dont know crap about the real world. Go work in traffic court for just a couple days, you'll amaze yourself.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by dymz999
LOL civilian can't get you a ticket. Dude STFU you obviously dont know crap about the real world. Go work in traffic court for just a couple days, you'll amaze yourself.

Edited because either dymz999 is responding to the wrong post or he's high. Or are you seriously referring to BlueGoblin?

Khyron

[BlueGoblin]

^ :dunno: Yeah, I am not sure what was meant by that either...

I should have added for clarity's sake regarding to what a civilian may and may not attest to in court. A civilian's evidence on an estimated speed is useless unless the civilian has an approved spped estimation course, and an uncertified speedometer is also of little use. Hence, speeding violations are rarely if ever prosecuted with only a civilian witness. A civilian witness may attest to things like lane changes without signalling, the colour of traffic lights, whether or not somebody stopped at a traffic control device or signal, the actions that may lead to a stunting charge, etc.

A civilian's abilities to estimate distances, etc. may be called into question on cross examination by the defence or even on direct by the crown just to get the question out there.

Oh, and while one civilian cannot just give another a ticket, they can initiate a complaint that may result in one. They may also initiate something called a Private Information and charge another person directly, but this is another story entirely.

[caddywanker]

My oh my... BlueGoblin, you seem to be educated under what the police often think to be the law. Remember one thing; Traffic Court in Calgary doesn't typically follow all the rules and laws to the T, for one simple reason.... they don't have to. They aren't as highly regulated or watched in comparison to the COQB. And you are most wildly wrong, hearing you preach is like hearing virtually any 'above the law' officer preach. I don't feel like restating everything I already posted in defence to your absurd claims. I am a 1st year law student, I don't care to argue with a paralegal without proper education. I have taken many different law courses in the past prior to my acceptance to law school. I can say also that I am not a lawyer yet, and I don't entirely know the law inside and out. I do know my statements to be correct.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by caddywanker
My oh my... BlueGoblin, you seem to be educated under what the police often think to be the law. Remember one thing; Traffic Court in Calgary doesn't typically follow all the rules and laws to the T, for one simple reason.... they don't have to. They aren't as highly regulated or watched in comparison to the COQB. And you are most wildly wrong, hearing you preach is like hearing virtually any 'above the law' officer preach. I don't feel like restating everything I already posted in defence to your absurd claims. I am a 1st year law student, I don't care to argue with a paralegal without proper education. I have taken many different law courses in the past prior to my acceptance to law school. I can say also that I am not a lawyer yet, and I don't entirely know the law inside and out. I do know my statements to be correct.

BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - first year?!? Oh that's gold indeed. I'll believe someone that's actually worked there over some arrogant student.

And as there have been posts in the past about 3rd party tickets being issued, you think they'd exist if it was wasn't legal?


Traffic Court in Calgary doesn't typically follow all the rules and laws

Wow. Just...wow.

Khyron

[dericer]

Originally posted by caddywanker
My oh my... BlueGoblin, you seem to be educated under what the police often think to be the law. Remember one thing; Traffic Court in Calgary doesn't typically follow all the rules and laws to the T, for one simple reason.... they don't have to. They aren't as highly regulated or watched in comparison to the COQB. And you are most wildly wrong, hearing you preach is like hearing virtually any 'above the law' officer preach. I don't feel like restating everything I already posted in defence to your absurd claims. I am a 1st year law student, I don't care to argue with a paralegal without proper education. I have taken many different law courses in the past prior to my acceptance to law school. I can say also that I am not a lawyer yet, and I don't entirely know the law inside and out. I do know my statements to be correct.

Great, another asshole trying to be an attorney. Just what the legal system needs.

There should be a poll whether it's going to be at the end of your first or beginning of your second year that you'll flunk out and be getting me my order at McDicks.

BlueGoblins statement is correct from what I have heard, and seen.

The only news article I can relate that to though is for those in Okotoks. The RCMP are ticketing those running stop signs based on witness testimony.

The RCMP defence was that they can't be everywhere at once so they rely on other drivers.

If they were getting thrown out of court, do you really think they'd still be doing it for the past 5 years?

I volunteered with CPS for 4 years in a program called Calgary Community Radio Watch Association (CCRWA)

We did surveylance for the Police, and the Police made arrests / wrote tickets based on our sightings.

While we moslty caught theifs, and pimps/prostitutes. We also reported speeders, people running stop signs, and others driving like asses. (Mind you we only reported these inciddents if another person's live were at risk....we aren't complete jerks:D )

But seriously, get your head out of your ass, and learn something.

[TEAMFaint]

So whats the update on this situation? Cause both of these cases are completely and utterly 100% BS. If there is a robbery and there is a red hatchback involved as the getaway. they cant just drive to some random parking lot at night and arrest someone else for driving a red hatchback that "looks similar."

All in all, if you plead your case and have a witness (ie. others who got issued tickets with you) there will be no way they can prove that it was you "stunting" on the highway.

Judges/Cops may all seem like dicks, but once you step into the court room, its 100% professional. If you have a good presentation and fight a good case, most likely the judge will rule in your favour. A lot of people say its the cops word vs your and your witness word and 10/10 times the cop will win...WRONG. If the cop has nothing to prove other than a black car with "EG" or "EH" written on the licence plate, ask them if they can provide records of all the black cars in the city that have those letters.

Hands down, none of you guys should have to pay for any of these tickets.


I read a thread about someone who drove a stock WRX STI and he got pulled over for having the rear spoiler on his car and got a ticket issued. A stock spoiler, on a factory car...illegal? I think not.

FIGHT THE TICKET!!!:drama:

[BlueGoblin]

Hmm. I didn't think I was sounding too preachy there. I was just trying to explain how things work as I have seen them.

I do not wish to get into some sort of childish flame war, but I will say this: If you wish to know how a car works, would you rather ask a mechanic or a first year mechanical engineering student?

Incidentally, after graduation from law school, articling students-at-law with the provincial government are then permitted to train under a paralegal in traffic court for a few months.

But enough of that; I believe in showing one's work. the credibility of an opinion is greatly diminished without something tangible to support it. So here goes; I apologise for being long and boring here, but this is actually a shortened version of the bits of the puzzle that bring me to my opinion that a third party complaint may lawfully result in a traffic court conviction.

First - what is Traffic Court? Traffic Court is a division of the Provincial Court of Alberta. The other divisions are the Criminal, Civil, Family and Youth. Traffic Court hears matters of a Summary, non-criminal nature resulting from contraventions of provincial offences as well as municipal offences that are covered by the Provincial Offences Procedures Act.

The Provincial Offences Procedures Act says this about proceedings under provincial acts (including, but not limited to the Traffic Safety Act):



Application of Criminal Code
3. Except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Act and subject to the regulations, all provisions of the Criminal Code (Canada), including the provisions in Part XV respecting search warrants, that are applicable in any manner to summary convictions and related proceedings apply in respect of every matter to which this Act applies.

Again, my layman's interpretation - which certainly seemed to be also the interpretation of the courts in which I appeared - was that the matters before the Provincial Court - Traffic Division were to be tried in the same manner and by the same rules of evidence as any other Summary Offence matter before a court.

Hence, procedures were conducted under the rules of the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, and the Provincial Court Act of Alberta. Although Traffic Court is not a criminal court, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that regulatory offences and the subsequent prosecutions are "quasi-criminal" in nature. If you want to read more on this, its from the 1978 (if memory serves me) SCC decision of R vs. The City of Sault Ste Marie. This case clarified the difference between Mens Rea, Strict Liability and Absolute Liability in court. Cracking read if you ever have the time...

So what do I mean by this?

- Crown witnesses in Traffic Court are like any other court; a person regardless of their status as a peace officer may give evidence and have it weighed against - or for- the person accused. There are no special rules for Traffic Court.

Like I said though, I was a mere paralegal. Weight my opinion on the matter as you see fit. :dunno:

[BlueGoblin]

Originally posted by caddywanker
.... Remember one thing; Traffic Court in Calgary doesn't typically follow all the rules and laws to the T, for one simple reason.... they don't have to. They aren't as highly regulated or watched in comparison to the COQB. ...

Incidentally, I was at odds as to whether or not to bring this up, but I do think its important.

You are a law student, and not yet either a student-at-law nor a lawyer. The practice of law is regulated, of course, by the Law Society of Alberta. As you are not yet a lawyer, you are not yet bound by the Law Society's code of professional conduct. Nevertheless, I think that it would be prudent to conduct oneself with some measure of legal professionalism especially prior to one's admission to the bar.

By stating that the Commissioners of the Traffic Court intentionally fail to obey the rules to which they are bound for the sole reason of being away from some watchful eye, you accuse them of neglect of their duties and bring the administration of Justice into disrepute.

This passage from the Law Society of Alberta's code of professional conduct is fairly self explanatory"



R.2 A lawyer should seek to improve the justice system. C.2 Efforts to improve the justice system, including constructive criticism of its operation and institutions, are consistent with a lawyer's responsibilities to the administration of justice. Legal training and the opportunity to observe the justice system in operation uniquely qualify lawyers to evaluate and seek improvements to that system. The justice system includes not only the courts and the judiciary, but all public institutions involved with the administration of justice such as the legal profession, the police department, and various governmental departments and agencies, including legislative bodies. Implicit in Rule #2 is the duty to report misconduct by persons connected with the justice system. See also Rule #4 of Chapter 3, Relationship of the Lawyer to The Profession, respecting the duty to report the misconduct of colleagues in the legal profession. A lawyer's efforts to improve the justice system must be constructive and bona fide in nature. Whether seeking a legislative or administrative change, speaking out against an injustice or perceived weakness in the system or expressing other criticism, a lawyer must act with intelligence, professionalism and due deliberation. Moreover, the party or parties to whom criticism is expressed must be appropriate under the circumstances. In some instances, this will be the Law Society; in others, the Judicial Council, the police department, the police commission or the media. In deciding whether to publicize criticism through the media, a lawyer must consider all possible consequences, such as loss of control over how the lawyer’s comments are ultimately reported and inability of the subject of the criticism to respond in any meaningful way. Although proceedings and decisions of the courts are properly subject to scrutiny and criticism by all citizens, a lawyer who chooses to criticize such matters or the judiciary itself must take into account the following considerations: • an opinion expressed by a lawyer may be given particular weight or credibility due to the lawyer's professional knowledge and connection with the legal system; • if a lawyer voicing an opinion has been involved in the proceedings at issue, the lawyer's comments may be, or may appear to be, partisan rather than objective; and
Code of Professional Conduct Chapter 1
Relationship of the Lawyer to Society and the Justice System
1-3 Version #: 2005_V1
April 8, 2005
• judges are often prohibited by law or custom from speaking in their own defence. In this regard, a lawyer may in some circumstances have an obligation not only to refrain from expressing criticism, but to defend the court if it is the subject of unjust criticism. Finally, a lawyer seeking reform to the justice system must disclose whether it is sought in the public interest, on the lawyer's own behalf or on behalf of a client, although the name of a client may not be divulged in the absence of express or implied authorization. (see Rule # 2 of Chapter 7, Confidentiality) R.3 A lawyer must not act in a manner that might weaken public respect for the law or justice system or interfere with its fair administration. C.3 Society expects that the legal profession will play a leading role in protecting the integrity of the justice system and ensuring that it functions properly. A lawyer's behaviour is incompatible with this role if it encourages public disdain or disregard for the administration of justice. Examples are deliberate flouting of the law or other flagrant disrespect for an aspect of the justice system; irresponsible or unjustified allegations of corruption or partiality; criticism that is ill-considered or malicious; disrupting judicial or administrative proceedings; and suggesting to a client or other person that evasion of the law is acceptable.

The rest of the code may be found here: http://www.lawsocietyalberta.com/files/code.pdf

The public's image of the practice of law is already badly tainted by misconduct and unethical behaviour by some lawyers. It doesn't need to be further sullied by Law's neophytes.