Fighting First Traffic Ticket - Slight Error in Location

[amigos_00]

Hi All,

This my first thread on this forum! I'm hoping for advice on fighting my first Traffic Violation Ticket.

Basically the alleged violation occurred in North Vancouver, BC when it had just turned dark. The officer was situated on a hill above a dim intersection and claims that I made a rolling stop.

The ticket I was issued has two errors:
1) A location error--"Montroyal Blvd at Prospect" vs Rockland Rd W at Prospect Rd. He basically described the the West side of the intersection, not the East side (see diagram here: http://tiny.cc/Nevyc). He also left ambiguity between Prospect Rd and the nearby Prospect Ave.
2) He described my vehicle as brown when it is described in my registration as "champaign." (I understand this is minor, but it illustrates that he lacks attention to detail)

I would like to claim the following:
"The change in lighting conditions called for a high degree of concentration to see a vehicle stop. Furthermore, the police car's placement on a steep hill, skewed the officer's perception of the dim intersection. The officer's inaccuracy in recording obvious details is indicative of a lack of concentration and competency at the time when this ticket was created. As a law-abiding citizen I request that I am not held responsible for his carelessness."

Will this argument work?
If I do loose, can insufficient funds help reduce the ticket? This ticket could not have come at a more inopportune moment!

Thank you very much in advance for your advice!

[BlueGoblin]

I don't see either 'error' as being an actual error.

The vehicle colour box is not to parrot the registration but rather constitutes an aid to memory for the officer. In other words, it looked brown to him/her.

The difference in manor of describing the intersection will not change anything at trial either.

You can try these defences, but ultimately unless they can show why you did not commit the offence that you are alleged to have committed, you will be convicted. Trying to tapdance around that issue will make you look desperate to try to avoid taking responsibility for your actions.

'Insufficient funds' might buy you time to pay, but that's about it. I don't know about BC, but in Alberta you might ask to be sentenced to time in jail in default of payment so that you can work off the fine through Fine Option.

Incidentally, is this the first ticket you have received or is it the first one you are fighting? Claiming you are a 'law abiding citizen' in traffic court while having a record of convictions usually doesn't play too well.

[speedog]

Your arguments look iffy at best, claiming the officer had a lack of competency certainly won't do you any favours in the judge's eyes and trying to claim insufficient funds as another reason - jeez, if f you're successful on this, then almost everyone will be in court challenging every ticket on this basis.

The location thing - semantics, a case can be made for your claim versus the officer's. Also, your pic shows the officer being about 20 meters or so from the intersection - for most of us, we'd easily be able to discern whether or not a vehicle had come to a compete stop at nightfall (or even at night) from 60 meters away.

Rolling stop tickets are easy money makers for the most part, but whether ya like it or not the law is the law. This is a really minor ticket and you need to balance the time and lost monies (wages) you are going to spend fighting it versus what the actual ticket is worth.

[Hamann]

Well I'm not sure how it works in BC but in Alberta they can spell your name wrong and you still have to pay, so your 2 points are pretty much guaranteed to not work.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by speedog
Your arguments look iffy at best, claiming the officer had a lack of competency certainly won't do you any favours in the judge's eyes Sage advice - don't question the officer's competency. You would need a lot of evidence unrelated to this incident to bring his competency into issue, and you'll only come off as a jerk by doing so. It is fair to suggest that the officer could have made a mistake - everybody makes mistakes sometimes, that doesn't make them incompetent.

Usually in these situations the officer looks at the wheels of your vehicle to determine if they stop moving. From your diagram the officer was in a good position to see your wheels.

If it's the fine you're worried about, you might be better off to just ask the prosecutor beforehand about whether he can reduce the fine. If you plead guilty, at least here in Calgary, the prosecutors will usually work with you on the fine - they appreciate that it can be a hardship for people. However, if you go to trial and are found guilty the prosecutor will ask for the full amount, and the court isn't as likely to reduce the fine as the prosecutor would.

The other minor "errors" on the ticket are curable by the officer's testimony should the matter proceed to trial.

[scat19]

No.

[masoncgy]

Fail.

[amigos_00]

Alright. Thanks folks--I appreciate your help.

[amigos_00]

Originally posted by BlueGoblin

Incidentally, is this the first ticket you have received or is it the first one you are fighting? Claiming you are a 'law abiding citizen' in traffic court while having a record of convictions usually doesn't play too well.

This was the first time I've ever been accused of any violation at all. First time I've been pulled over

[amigos_00]

Originally posted by dexlargo
Sage advice - don't question the officer's competency. You would need a lot of evidence unrelated to this incident to bring his competency into issue, and you'll only come off as a jerk by doing so. It is fair to suggest that the officer could have made a mistake - everybody makes mistakes sometimes, that doesn't make them incompetent.

Good point. I'm going to make a visit to the intersection tonight to photograph the area and see if there are any obstructions.

Does anyone have a recommendation on getting the officer's notes?

[97'Scort]

In BC, it's almost not worth fighting. You can't get the demerits off unless the ticket is dismissed completely, since ICBC applies the demerits.

[BlackArcher101]

:rofl:

[rockanrepublic]

plead guilty and reduce demerits?:dunno:

[thetransporter]

Originally posted by amigos_00


This was the first time I've ever been accused of any violation at all. First time I've been pulled over


are you a person of color?

[amigos_00]

Originally posted by thetransporter



are you a person of color?

lol Yes I am!

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by amigos_00


Good point. I'm going to make a visit to the intersection tonight to photograph the area and see if there are any obstructions.

Does anyone have a recommendation on getting the officer's notes?
Just ask for disclosure as you're entitled to it to make your case.

For what it's worth, my father was issued a failing to stop ticket for a rolling stop although it was about 20 years ago. The officer was directly behind my father's vehicle and he fought it on the basis that the officer couldn't have judged whether the vehicle was completely stopped as he was directly behind it. He won.

Having said that, his ticket was issued a long time ago and I don't know if that argument would wash today.

[Stephen81]

Originally posted by amigos_00
He described my vehicle as brown when it is described in my registration as "champaign." (I understand this is minor, but it illustrates that he lacks attention to detail)



I dumbfounded as to how this cop can carry out his duties on a regular basis with that much oversight.

[amigos_00]

Alright so you've got me reasonably convinced that semantics aren't going to dismiss this ticket.

I went to the intersection tonight (one day after I was pulled over) at the same time I was pulled over. I took photos from the police car's vantage point. The image I took depicts lighting conditions and obstructions to the cop's view. I also recorded that they were located approx 35m away.

Photo: http://tiny.cc/QzsJA
Higher ISO (does not show lighting conditions): http://tiny.cc/72pSJ

The image shows that it is possible that I stopped before the line and out of view from the police car.

Do you think that this will help my case? I think it's more solid then my previous ideas. Should I not even bring up the errors on the ticket and use the photo alone?

[BlackArcher101]

Except are you 100% sure that's where the cop was sitting and do you have the proof? For this to work, the cop will have to admit that was his viewpoint. It's taking a chance, but a chance is worth it.

[FraserB]

So your proof is that the cop can see the stop line and would have been able to see you pretty well. You should just tell the judge that you stopped 5 feet before the line and the cop couldnt see you stopping.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by stephen_haxton


I dumbfounded as to how this cop can carry out his duties on a regular basis with that much oversight.

'The suspect is driving a.....car of some sort.'

[amigos_00]

Originally posted by BlackArcher101
Except are you 100% sure that's where the cop was sitting and do you have the proof? For this to work, the cop will have to admit that was his viewpoint. It's taking a chance, but a chance is worth it.

I don't know how I would get solid proof of his exact location, but this is where I believe he would be. A neighbor said that this spot was where they often park.


Originally posted by FraserB
So your proof is that the cop can see the stop line and would have been able to see you pretty well. You should just tell the judge that you stopped 5 feet before the line and the cop couldnt see you stopping.

I'm saying that I was close to the curb and therefor he couldn't see me.

[phil98z24]

Wait until you have his notes, and then start to put together a defence.

At this point you are making assumptions based on hearsay from people about where they "usually" park - that doesn't mean he WAS there. Even if he was parked there, you don't know if he was even in his vehicle or potentially out of it in a spot where he could easily see you.

In addition, your photos and diagrams and do-dads won't do much good in helping your case if he didn't have any of those obstructions hindering his view, and you will have to prove that the lighting conditions somehow changed things. If that is going to be part of your defence, the onus isn't on the prosecution to prove that they didn't - you have to prove they did, especially when saying they "skewed" his perception because that completely changes things.

These are things that I have seen in court and been scrutinized for myself, so all I can do is offer my perspective and just tell you to wait until you have his side of the story and then try to pick that apart - being proactive is good, but right now it's not going to do you a whole lot of immediate good.

[theken]

champaign doesnt fit in a color box the brown barely fits in

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by phil98z24
...and you will have to prove that the lighting conditions somehow changed things. If that is going to be part of your defence, the onus isn't on the prosecution to prove that they didn't - you have to prove they did, especially when saying they "skewed" his perception because that completely changes things. I know what you're saying, but technically, he doesn't have to prove anything - that's the crown's job. The crown needs to prove that the officer actually did see the vehicle fail to stop. A part of that is proving that the lighting was adequate.

All Amigos_00 needs to do is raise a reasonable doubt, which is a much lower threshold than 'proof'. If he raises a reasonable doubt in the court's mind that the officer might be mistaken due to the lighting conditions or obstructions, that's enough.

Much easier said than done though, as usually the officer will say, "There was sufficient light at the time and I had no problem seeing the vehicle." If the officer says that, then it will take a fair amount of contradictory evidence for the court to have a reasonable doubt that the officer could see.

[amigos_00]

These are great responses! Lot's being learned here.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by dexlargo
I know what you're saying, but technically, he doesn't have to prove anything - that's the crown's job. The crown needs to prove that the officer actually did see the vehicle fail to stop. A part of that is proving that the lighting was adequate.

All Amigos_00 needs to do is raise a reasonable doubt, which is a much lower threshold than 'proof'. If he raises a reasonable doubt in the court's mind that the officer might be mistaken due to the lighting conditions or obstructions, that's enough.

Much easier said than done though, as usually the officer will say, "There was sufficient light at the time and I had no problem seeing the vehicle." If the officer says that, then it will take a fair amount of contradictory evidence for the court to have a reasonable doubt that the officer could see.

...which is more or less what I'm trying to say. Just if he is going to raise this issue for his defence he needs to have something which will instill that doubt. Thank you for clarifying that point though; what I said was a bit misleading. :)

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by thetransporter

are you a person of color?

I'd be pretty freaked out to see a person NOT of colour.

[JustGo]

Originally posted by kertejud2


'The suspect is driving a.....car of some sort.'
'And he's hatless.... I repeat... hatless...'

[dirtsniffer]

why don't you pay the ticket. and instead of spending hours trying to screw the system, you could work for a few hours :guns:

[amigos_00]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
why don't you pay the ticket. and instead of spending hours trying to screw the system, you could work for a few hours :guns:

A) I didn't perform a rolling stop.

B) I don't really want 3 points on my record that I don't deserve (1 more point and my insurance rate increases)

C) I'm a starving artist seriously lacking coin.

[Danny Meehan]

he described the champagne color as flat, instead of the commonly known sparkly ... go pay the ticket

[Danny Meehan]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


I'd be pretty freaked out to see a person NOT of colour.

michael jackson :D

[Cardinal]

Sorry buddy, I don't think they'll go for it, you might be able to get reduce it, either way, wish you luck. On a side note I'd like to add...... Thanks for not making this thread look like a whine and cry fest. Actually seems like an intelligent conversation....even if my spelling is not.

[amigos_00]

Originally posted by Cardinal
On a side note I'd like to add...... Thanks for not making this thread look like a whine and cry fest. Actually seems like an intelligent conversation....even if my spelling is not.

I'm glad it's not coming across that way. I'm not trying to be unreasonable--I just want to know the best way to work this out!

[Kennyredline]

Originally posted by Danny Meehan


michael jackson :D

New Crayola colour..."Maggot White":poosie:

[nrt_vw]

get a real job instead of being a starving artisrt then if you have no money. If your vehicle looks brown to me, im going to call it brown, not fucking champaign

[amigos_00]

Originally posted by nrt_vw
get a real job instead of being a starving artisrt then if you have no money. If your vehicle looks brown to me, im going to call it brown, not fucking champaign

I'll get on that!

[97'Scort]

I'll re-iterate this for the Albertans: the only way to get demerits dismissed in BC is to have the ticket thrown out entirely. Even getting the fine reduced to a penny, and paying that penny, will still result in you getting 3 demerits.

So, OP, unless you absolutely think that you can get this entire thing dismissed, which I somehow doubt, then you're better off to pay the ticket within 30 days, as you will save $25 by doing so.

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by dexlargo
I know what you're saying, but technically, he doesn't have to prove anything - that's the crown's job. The crown needs to prove that the officer actually did see the vehicle fail to stop.

All Amigos_00 needs to do is raise a reasonable doubt...

I believe this to be false. Traffic court is the other way around and you are actually guilty unless you can prove your innocence.

[BlueGoblin]

Originally posted by Isaiah

I believe this to be false. Traffic court is the other way around and you are actually guilty unless you can prove your innocence.


This is not true, except in very very specific circumstances; the onus is upon the Crown to prove their case against an accused person. The only exception that come to mind that is reverse onus concerns insurance; the burden is upon the accused to prove that they are insured, however the Crown still has to prove jurisdiction, identity and at it occurred on a highway.

What may seem different from Criminal Court is that regulatory matters are held to a slightly different standard of liability. There are three basic types of liabilities:

- Mens Rea; the standard for criminal matters is literally, the guilty mind. The accused had to be seen to know the difference between right and wrong, and wilfully committed the offence.

- Strict Liability; The standard for most regulatory matters, although the degree of 'strictness' can often be close to Absolute Liability. Basically, the Crown has to show that the accused committed the offence, but doesn't have to demonstrate the wilful nature of it or even necessarily that the accused knew that it was wrong. There are some defences to this even when someone has done the thing that they are accused of. This might include, for example, a person who drove a friend's car without valid insurance, but was given a valid-looking but fraudulent insurance card.

- Absolute Liability; The standard under which the only matter at trial is whether the accused committed the act or not. Many regulatory matters are very close to this but allow a small bit of room for 'due diligence' defences.

If anyone is really interested, the deciding case laying out these standards of liability is R. v. Sault Ste Marie (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1978/1978canlii11/1978canlii11.html)

[dexlargo]

^^ I don't think that Isaiah's arguing about the way it's supposed to work, but instead is suggesting that in practice traffic court doesn't actually work that way.

I don't agree with him. In my experience, the JPs in traffic court take their jobs very seriously and follow the law scrupulously. I believe that they are mindful that justice needs to be seen to be done, even in traffic court, to maintain public confidence in our justice system.

[BlueGoblin]

dexlargo - I understand that he probably meant it as you described. I just figured a depiction of the standards that traffic court are held to might help some, a couple out there, perhaps, understand a bit better.

I agree that the Traffic Court Commisioners do take it seriously. In fact, I suspect that the new group of all full-time JPs are probably far more professional than they were years ago when there was a blend of full-time and part time defence lawyers/JPs.

[GenerationX]

Originally posted by BlueGoblin



If anyone is really interested, the deciding case laying out these standards of liability is R. v. Sault Ste Marie (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1978/1978canlii11/1978canlii11.html)

lol @ people who try to act smart on these forums by regurgitating their BSEN 395 (business law) assignments. Let me guess, you were in group K this is the only "law" related material that you remember from the course?

FYI liability has NOTHING to do with this topic. I'm glad you're putting your education to good use!

[scat19]

Originally posted by GenerationX


lol @ people who try to act smart on these forums by regurgitating their BSEN 395 (business law) assignments. Let me guess, you were in group K this is the only "law" related material that you remember from the course?

FYI liability has NOTHING to do with this topic. I'm glad you're putting your education to good use!

Stupid noob. Do you know who BlueGoblin is?

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by GenerationX


lol @ people who try to act smart on these forums by regurgitating their BSEN 395 (business law) assignments. Let me guess, you were in group K this is the only "law" related material that you remember from the course?

FYI liability has NOTHING to do with this topic. I'm glad you're putting your education to good use! Not the same kind of liability. His post definitely applies. If you had read further down in BlueGoblin's post, you'd see that it deals with what makes a person liable to punishment for an offence - different types of offences have different requirements for punishment to be warranted.

Here's my explanation:

To be liable for criminal offences (or any other offence where it requires that you 'knowingly' did something) requires that you have done the prohibited act, and knew the action was wrong (or were reckless, willfully blind or ought to have known it was wrong). Regulatory (i.e. traffic) just require proof that you did the prohibited action - no mental element required, but allow you to present a defence that you did everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid committing the offence, but failed. And absolute liability where once the fact that you did the prohibited action is proved you are guilty, no excuses allowed.

Absolute liability offences are rare - I can't think of any off of the top of my head. Maybe seatbelt laws? I can't remember.

Anyway, enough law talk.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by GenerationX


lol @ people who try to act smart on these forums by regurgitating their BSEN 395 (business law) assignments. Let me guess, you were in group K this is the only "law" related material that you remember from the course?

FYI liability has NOTHING to do with this topic. I'm glad you're putting your education to good use!

Liability has everything to do with this when you are talking about reverse onus offences, or any other offence for that matter. The principles of absolute/strict liability are fundamental in any form of law, whether it be corporate or criminal, or anywhere in between.

Thanks for coming out though - now you can let the people who actually know what they are talking about continue this conversation.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by dexlargo
Not the same kind of liability. His post definitely applies. If you had read further down in BlueGoblin's post, you'd see that it deals with what makes a person liable to punishment for an offence - different types of offences have different requirements for punishment to be warranted.

Here's my explanation:

To be liable for criminal offences (or any other offence where it requires that you 'knowingly' did something) requires that you have done the prohibited act, and knew the action was wrong (or were reckless, willfully blind or ought to have known it was wrong). Regulatory (i.e. traffic) just require proof that you did the prohibited action - no mental element required, but allow you to present a defence that you did everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid committing the offence, but failed. And absolute liability where once the fact that you did the prohibited action is proved you are guilty, no excuses allowed.

Absolute liability offences are rare - I can't think of any off of the top of my head. Maybe seatbelt laws? I can't remember.

Anyway, enough law talk.

Failure to provide DL/Registration/Insurance are common absolute liability offences. ;)

[GenerationX]

Originally posted by scat19


Stupid noob. Do you know who BlueGoblin is?

Nope, is it someone special?


Originally posted by phil98z24


Liability has everything to do with this when you are talking about reverse onus offences, or any other offence for that matter. The principles of absolute/strict liability are fundamental in any form of law, whether it be corporate or criminal, or anywhere in between.

Thanks for coming out though - now you can let the people who actually know what they are talking about continue this conversation.

Yes that's all true, I guess what I meant to say is that liability doesn't have anything to do with someone getting a ticket for a rolling stop...

[BlueGoblin]

I am indeed nobody special.

I did have a turn in traffic court some years ago for a short time and trained as a prosecutor for summary offences. I have not taken that business law course you mentioned, and was merely responding to a post by another member of the forum regarding burdens of proof required in traffic court. I was not responding to the OP in my post.