Failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

[Seth1968]

Long story short:

- Charles Adler is a radio host via 770 AM that IMO, should be PM. I'll elaborate if needed.

- He's got a totally clean driving record, but was recently pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

- When requested by Adler, cop had no video evidence.

- Adler hires a lawyer and is going through the motions.

With that said, how can someone be charged with this so called offence without uh...proof?

BTW- Don't even start with the charged vs convicted lame ass argument.

[eblend]

Your word vs his I think....and pretty easy conviction...no one ever comes to a complete stop for 3 seconds at a stop sign, known fact

[Mitsu3000gt]

An officer's word is often as good as proof to a judge. If you can't more convincingly say otherwise, chances are the Judge will go with the officer's word. If he has notes, even better.

On another note, probably 80-90% of the stop signs in this city should be yields, and are generally treated as such anyway.

[Seth1968]

So someones vested opinion is proof enough to fuck up anthers life?

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Long story short:

- Charles Adler is a radio host via 770 AM that IMO, should be PM. I'll elaborate if needed.

- He's got a totally clean driving record, but was recently pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

- When requested by Adler, cop had no video evidence.

- Adler hires a lawyer and is going through the motions.

With that said, how can someone be charged with this so called offence without uh...proof?

BTW- Don't even start with the charged vs convicted lame ass argument.

Did he not get video as part of disclosure when he decided to fight the ticket or did he try to demand a video at the side of the road? Because I'm pretty sure that a cop can't just go into the dashcam memory, rummage around and show people things.

The officer believed that an offense occurred, video proof or not, and ticketed him on that basis. You need proof for a conviction, not a charge. And if a simple traffic ticket is going to be the tipping point that "fucks up your life", there might be other issues there.

[16hypen3sp]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your word vs his I think....and pretty easy conviction...no one ever comes to a complete stop for 3 seconds at a stop sign, known fact

I agree, but I can never find this so called '3 second rule' in the Use of Highway Reg. You can proceed when safe to do so. If that's after 1 second of stopping, then so be it.

[Seth1968]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did he not get video as part of disclosure when he decided to fight the ticket or did he try to demand a video at the side of the road? Because I'm pretty sure that a cop can't just go into the dashcam memory, rummage around and show people things.

The officer believed that an offense occurred, video proof or not, and ticketed him on that basis. You need proof for a conviction, not a charge. And if a simple traffic ticket is going to be the tipping point that "fucks up your life", there might be other issues there.

What disclosure? WTF?

Now how about you're so called minor traffic ticket is the means to fuck up the so called "lower people", who work their asses off at minimum pay, yet have to pay 1 week of work for a minor (debatable) traffic offense, and said punishment is generally permanent.

So ya, any legit traffic offenses should be based on income.

[Feruk]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So ya, any legit traffic offenses should be based on income.

So unemployed people can do what they want?

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What disclosure? WTF?

You said that video evidence was asked for. Was it asked for on the side of the road, as part of disclosure prior to court or did it come out at court that the only evidence was the observation of a police officer?

[eblend]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

and said punishment is generally permanent.

Not sure what you mean by this...in 3 years time it's wiped from your record.

[sexualbanana]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Long story short:

- Charles Adler is a radio host via 770 AM that IMO, should be PM. I'll elaborate if needed.

- He's got a totally clean driving record, but was recently pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

- When requested by Adler, cop had no video evidence.

- Adler hires a lawyer and is going through the motions.

With that said, how can someone be charged with this so called offence without uh...proof?

BTW- Don't even start with the charged vs convicted lame ass argument.

Phil has explained it before, but traffic offences, for whatever reason, aren't subject to the presumption of innocence as it would be in a criminal case. I don't know the legal justification for it, but basically as it relates to traffic offences, it's up to the offender to prove that they didn't break the law.

Given that this occurs thousands of times a day in Canada, there has probably been more than a few challenges in regards to its constitutionality with no results to show for it.

[lilmira]

Pick your battle, there are way better things to fight for.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So someones vested opinion is proof enough to fuck up anthers life?

Such has been the case for all of history, so nothing really unexpected in this case. The most frustrating thing about an unwarranted ticket is the cost of your time to go fight it, but since there is no real consequence for the officer if he is lying (not really provable anyways unless you have a video), you're probably better off just paying it if your time is worth anything and move on.

My personal, and highly unrealistic opinion is that a ticket should not be written in the first place without video or similarly irrefutable evidence unless the officer is prepared to have said ticket deducted from their own pay if they are caught writing BS tickets to fill quotas. Wouldn't that be nice.

[schurchill39]

In my neighborhood there is a four way stop that NOBODY ever stops for. It drives me crazy especially because last year before the stop signs were put in a young boy got ran over and was in a coma. He's still recovering. Everyone in my community is aware of it and still 80% of people roll right through it.

If he didn't come to a complete stop then he deserves the ticket. The police officers word is proof in this case. Life isn't always about "pics or it didn't happen". I've gotten a stop sign ticket before that I thought for sure I came to a complete stop over but if the officer says I didn't then I didn't. Like someone else said, if a stop sign ticket is the tipping point to ruin your life you have a lot bigger issues.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

With that said, how can someone be charged with this so called offence without uh...proof?

Uh because a cop saw him commit the traffic offense? Same goes for LIDAR trap operators. They "see" a reading on the gun and ticket accordingly. There is no "proof" of anything.

[J-hop]

If we're honest though, do you really see that many examples of legitimately BS tickets given out? If by BS people mean the cop was being strict with the law that is just a personal opinion.

From my personal experience cops are pretty lenient when pulling people over. Unless you're one of those PJWs that opens their window a crack and/or stonewall's the cop you generally get treated with respect. Twice I've been given warnings. "Sir why were you going so fast?", "I was being dumb" = warning.

I bet the common response to that would be "yo bro you shouldn't ever admit fault, that's dumb bro, ask to see their radar bro".

[speedog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So unemployed people can do what they want?

Good question, I am curious as to what Seth1968's response will be.

As far as video evidence being required for every ticketed offence - then those same people will be screaming when their taxes go up to support said additional expenses. There just is no way to satiate the concerns of some.

[RY213]

Id rather see things like this enforced instead of cash cow speeding tickets. My pet peeve is when people dont stop behind the stop line and instead coast up over the pedestrian crossing to see if traffic is clear. There have been may times I have almost been hit as both a pedestrian and cyclist because of this.

[Gestalt]

You got it.

Its revenue. No proof, no evidence is required. Just someone chargong your action was statistical risky, and being financially rewarded for there accusations.

New news to you?

[Seth1968]

If they're unemployed, then they probably can't afford to drive. If so however, they would have to pay within a year or do community service...whatever.

Adler asked the cop at the side of the road if he had video evidence of the rolling stop, and the cop said no.