Distracted driving ticket court case - did i win or lose?

[gwill]

ust to clarify it wasnt ponoka and it was the prosecutor who threatened people all day who tried to use me as an example for the first trial of the day.

On a side note I did ask the director of law enforcement to hold off on my appeal as I'd like to get myself more evidence for my complaint via my foip but they denied this request.

[gwill]

Foip request was completed but the people in charge of the foip have tried to use some legislation to deny providing the court transcripts.

RCMP investigation is completed. After reviewing the evidence the RCMP do not support my allegation that the rcmp officer lied on the stand. In their ruling the final paragraph says "Both the traffic crown and Traffic commissioner found him credible in his testimony and did not believe he attempted to mislead the court, but discrepencies between his recollection and the video evidence created reasonable doubt. The constable is not expected to have a photographic memory of peripheral details 6 months after an incident but is expected to testify to what he remembers and use his notes to refresh his memory. The courts recognize that memory can be fallible as time passes, and weigh witness testimony aginst the overall evidence. I am satisfied the constable had no intention to mislead the court or lie in his testimony.

The traffic crown they spoke to took issue with my dash cam video evidence being seperated into smaller segments and deemed it unreliable(even though the officer placed himself in the videos). They went on to say the constables testimony was not supported by the video evidence but because the video was provided in 3 different files he was not satisfied that the video accurately represented the occurance but recognized it was enough to raise reasonable doubt hence my aquittal.

They make a point to claim that overall my evidence came across as evasive.

My only thoughts on this mess is that the officer specified on the stand that his version of events and his testimony did not happen. Somehow i am evasive in my testimony because i said i do not remember a to one or two questions but the officers fabricated their entire traffic stop but are considered reliable, credible and at no point were the officers determined to mislead, lie or fabricate anything. Their testimony gets 100 excuses why its completely different then the dash cam video evidence.

[littledan]

Wow this is ridiculous. I think a judge would find it telling that the foip request is denied.

[JRSC00LUDE]

But they're professionals. Duh

[rx7boi]

You fought the good fight.

Time to pack it in.

[dirtsniffer]

Time for the media.

[gwill]

not sure if this caused more issues but the rcmp went to the traffic crown prosecutor for assistance on the file. The same department that I raised a stink with that completely shut me down refusing to even talk with me.

[rage2]

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

Time for the media.

I wonder if a lawyer trying to make a name for themselves would have any interest doing this pro bono. Make sure gwill did everything properly, follow up on it, and then go to media.

[revelations]

Essentially gwill found a small town with questionable procedures regarding something thats of minimal importance in the eyes of the gatekeepers of the system (government) - traffic court and a members' bad recall (likely fabricated, but impossible to prove) .


They are not used to having a light shined upon them by civilians and are trying to close all doors to keep it dark.

[gwill]

Necro'ing my old thread.

My complaint with local rcmp got shut down very quickly saying the rcmp member didn't do anything wrong. Essentially they said it wasn't reasonable to expect their officers to remember things perfectly while on the stand.

I escalated the complaint to Ottawa rcmp and have finally had things finalized. It's been over 2 years. Ottawa commission looking into my complaint was not satisfied with the RCMP's ruling/finding of my original complaint.

A quick copy and paste of some info from their rulings:

[2] The Commission is not satisfied with the RCMP’s report into the matter.
[3] The RCMP has agreed to take the following action in response to the
Commission’s report:
 Constable ****** will receive operational guidance on the importance of making accurate notes.

[19] In further testimony, Constable **** conceded that the video did not show
Mr. *****’s truck stopped at a red light at the second intersection. He suggested that his
attention was directed towards Mr. ****s actions at the time. Constable ***** also
conceded that the video did not show Mr. ***** truck making a jerky motion as it
turned left at the second intersection, and that, at most, Constable **** could only
have observed Mr.***** for approximately ten seconds. He reiterated that he observed
Mr. **** using his cell phone as he drove.
[20] The Traffic Commissioner acquitted Mr.**** She found that the disparity
between the peace officer’s and Constable *****s testimony, as well as the video
evidence, raised a reasonable doubt as to what actually happened. She said that she
did not believe the officers misled her in any way or colluded in their evidence.
However, the Traffic Commissioner referred to the absence of a jerking motion in the
video, and that it clearly shows continuous motion by Mr. ***** truck towards and
through a green flashing light at the second intersection, rather than being stopped at a
red light. She stated, “I mean this with the greatest respect to both officers, but if they
got that part of it wrong, it sort of calls into question what else they may have gotten
wrong . . . .”3

Analysis of findings:

[22] The RCMP investigated the allegation and determined that Constable *****
provided testimony based on his notes and recollection of events. The RCMP stated
that Constable **** was not expected to have a photographic memory, and was
candid in his testimony about the differences between his memories and the videos.
The RCMP concluded that Constable **** had no intention to mislead the court or lie.
It did not support Mr. **** allegation.

[23] The Commission agrees with the RCMP in that there is no evidence that
Constable **** intended to mislead the court. However, the RCMP failed to consider
whether Constable *****s reliance on incorrect notes led to the apparent disparity
between his testimony and the video evidence at trial.

34] As the RCMP’s report observed, Constable **** was indeed candid at trial
about the differences between his testimony and the third video. There is no evidence to
suggest that he intended to provide inaccurate testimony. The trial transcript indicates
that his testimony was based on his recollection refreshed by his notes, which were inaccurate

[35] The Commission has often found that the standard of conduct of police officers
does not demand perfection, and that is not what was expected of Constable ******.
However, it was within Constable *****’s ability to testify based on accurate notes.

[36] The Commission finds that Constable *****’s notes were not reasonably
accurate. The Commission recommends that Constable ***** receive operational
guidance on the importance of making accurate notes

RCMP Commissioner’s Response
[37] The Commissioner agreed with the Commission’s finding and recommendation.

Conclusion
[38] In her response, the RCMP Commissioner acknowledged that the time taken to
respond to the Commission’s interim report was not “ideal.” She stated that the RCMP
was “committed to responding to all interim reports, eliminating the backlog, and
meeting the service standards agreed to in our Memorandum of Understanding . . . .”

[39] The Commission observes with concern that it took the RCMP Commissioner
almost ten months to respond to this matter. The Commission finds that this amounted
to an unreasonable delay.

[40] Timeliness is important in achieving the shared goal of excellence in policing
through accountability. Lengthy delays serve to obscure transparency, dilute the effect
of findings, and reduce or eliminate the value of recommendations. Public confidence
and trust in the RCMP are eroded when civilian oversight is perceived to be delayed.

[41] The Commission has finished reviewing this complaint and has concluded that it
is not satisfied with the RCMP’s report. Having considered the RCMP Commissioner’s
response, the Commission reiterates its finding and recommendation, and its review is
now complete.

[ExtraSlow]

So, how satisfied are you now?

[max_boost]

Excellent update.

But man that took a lot of time and resources. Good on you to go through and see it to the eNd!

[gwill]

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

So, how satisfied are you now?

Haha great question. I was hoping for more then the outcome they gave. I'd have been happy with a reprimand of some sort or a suspension/firing. Seems this training they recommended is a slap on the wrist.

What is someone supposed to take away from a trial where police officers willingly make up a version of events that didn't happen?

It says anyone fighting a traffic ticket should make up a version of events that best suits them even if it's not true.

[ExtraSlow]

Cops don't get fired for this. No chance.

[ThePenIsMightier]

The RCMP is an extremely troubled organization and I believe we are <10 years away from their day of reckoning.
There will be studies about them from an Organizational Behaviour perspective once more things come to light. I feel bad for some of the members who work there.

[killramos]

So you wasted a bunch of your time. Nothing happened to the cop.

I’d say you lost, to answer the question.

[suntan]

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

The RCMP is an extremely troubled organization and I believe we are <10 years away from their day of reckoning.
There will be studies about them from an Organizational Behaviour perspective once more things come to light. I feel bad for some of the members who work there.

I heard this 30 years ago. And 20 years ago. And 10 years ago.

They're sanctioned keystone cops.

[littledan]

That's a brutal outcome. Basically rcmp f'd up but you can go f yourself? And remedial training for the cop?

[Misterman]

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

So you wasted a bunch of your time. Nothing happened to the cop.

I’d say you lost, to answer the question.

I mean it's nice to not have the blemish on your record. But the crazy thing is that in the time it took to finally beat this racket, the points would have been cleared from his abstract already. On one hand it's nice to see that if you pursue something enough you can actually get somewhere. But it's disturbing to see how rigged the system is in the first place. This shit should have been squashed from day one in court.(or optimally there wouldn't be crooked cops handing out tickets that amount to racketeering on their part.) When this is what it takes to clear your name, it's no wonder people just pay the tax and move on with life.

[JRSC00LUDE]

These crooked fucks have a system that is against you from the top down, I appreciate that you went to this much effort but unfortunately it would take every single person going to this much effort for every single fine before any real change happens. Fuck traffic enforcement.