Will it stick?

[jpw12]

I fell victim to a speed trap on the Annacis Island exit on Hwy 91 in Richmond.

A rundown of what happened:

1. Took exit off Hwy 91 towards the Annacis Island exit.

2. The speed limit changes from 80-60 on this road towards the exit.

3. Cop with speed trap stops me allegedly going 97 off the highway proceeding straight down the road towards New Westminster. I was behind a semi and there was another car behind me. We were well spaced between one another and I had at least 2 cars space between me and the semi in front.

4. I stop, cooperate, provide documents, and the officer tells me he clocked me doing 97. I ask him how far back the speed limit sign for 60 was. He said about 460 metres (it wasn't, from the photo you can see it was about 150-200 metres). I then proceed to ask him how far back he lasered me, he then proceeded to tell me to dispute the ticket if I had any problems with this..

I was just asking a question about my alleged crime, he didnt even answer me something the laser reading couldve told him.

Probably because he lasered me, or perhaps another car doing 97 before the speed limit changed from 80-60, to which I was decelerating from coming off the highway. I followed the flow of traffic thereafter.

5. I took notes of the incident, and am planning a dispute for this ticket. It is a "Speed Against highway Sign, 146(3)" for $138.

He told me he already gave me the cheapest ticket available for this, seeing my clean driving record, but a semi was driving at the same speed as I was in front of me, and he stops me..

6. I was NOT going 97, probably 90 coming off the highway, but max 70 when I hit the 60 zone. I can be pretty sure because I was watching my speedometer count on my Civic quite often. Attached is a photo better describing the road.



My case:

The allegation was based on me doing 97 in a 60 zone, but if I request the evidence and notes from the officer, and find that the laser showed my clocked speed prior to the 60 zone (>460 metres), and proving that the limit signs were actually quite closer to the trap than he clocked me for (he clocked me 500 metres out, but the sign is actually 200 metres away), do I have a case to build here?

How should I proceed with requesting the notes and evidence the officer has after filing for the dispute? Phone, email, mail, or in person at the station?

Are MVA case built on establishing reasonable doubt on the crime in question?

P.s., I am not trying to prove to RS whether I am right or wrong, or if i should just pay the ticket or not. I am simply asking if this has a fair chance and is a solid process to proceed with the dispute. Any productive advice is appreciated!!

Thanks Revscene!

[inv4zn]

You seem slightly more educated than the rest of the people asking "CAN I DISPUTE!?!?" questions, so I want to ask:

The speed limit changes from 80 to 60...and you said

I was NOT going 97, probably 90 coming off the highway, but max 70 when I hit the 60 zone. I can be pretty sure because I was watching my speedometer count on my Civic quite often.

So you were doing 10+ in either zone, and it shouldn't matter...
If you dispute, you have to prove that you weren't speeding...and from what you've told us, I don't see how you're going to do that?

[jpw12]

Originally Posted by inv4zn

You seem slightly more educated than the rest of the people asking "CAN I DISPUTE!?!?" questions, so I want to ask:

The speed limit changes from 80 to 60...and you said


So you were doing 10+ in either zone, and it shouldn't matter...
If you dispute, you have to prove that you weren't speeding...and from what you've told us, I don't see how you're going to do that?

Thanks for your response!

While I know I was above the speed limit, I am trying to prove that the officer in question perform his laser trap duty incorrectly and provide false information to the alleged offender when he should be clear on his trap setup, closest speed limit sign, distance away, etc. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING HIS JOB CORRECTLY.

By doing so, I can create doubt on the alleged crime I am accused of.. and I am discussing the notes and incident that was recorded, which was me doing 97 in a 60 zone and not the 80 zone where I was actually doing the speed in. If I can prove otherwise, then he can't prove that I am guilty beyond doubt, then I would be acquitted, no?

Im not a lawyer, but I wonder if that is a plausible angle to approach this?

Again, I am not asking in regards to if I was speeding or not, but if isolating the charges laid, that being false, then I should have a shot, no?

[GabAlmighty]

It makes sense in my head

[inv4zn]

I'm not a lawyer either, but your entire argument is off-base because speeding is not a criminal offence. It's a violation of the MVA - you're not being charged with anything.

And because of this, the only thing the judge will ask you when you go to court, is how do you plead.

The only way you can approach this with your information is that according to you, the officer didn't provide you with the distance he lasered you at (which he's not required to do), and because of this, you believe everything else he did (including giving you a ticket) is false.

[jpw12]

Originally Posted by inv4zn

I'm not a lawyer either, but your entire argument is off-base because speeding is not a criminal offence. It's a violation of the MVA - you're not being charged with anything.

And because of this, the only thing the judge will ask you when you go to court, is how do you plead.

The only way you can approach this with your information is that according to you, the officer didn't provide you with the distance he lasered you at (which he's not required to do), and because of this, you believe everything else he did (including giving you a ticket) is false.

I didn't know that! I thought MVA was a subsection of the Criminal Code. thanks for clarifying that.

So by establishing that he did not know where he lasered me, (before or after the sign) it could be possible that he did not know which car he was locked onto? If he says the speed sign was 460 metres away, and he says he clocks me after the sign in the 60 zone, when really he clocked me 500 metres back, and the sign can be proved to be 200 metres from point of where he stopped me. is that enough doubt that he didn't actually lock onto my car, given his mis-perception of the environment he setup at?

Of course, this is all pending the acquisition of his evidence.

[inv4zn]

If you use that argument, while logical, it still doesn't mean anything regarding your ticket.

You have to prove you weren't speeding, because that's what the ticket is for. There is no "doubt."

As I've said, the judge (or whatever the correct term is for traffic courts) will ask you - how do you plead. You say Not Guilty. Then you have to explain why. If you say the officer may have lasered another car, then it becomes a case of your word vs. the officers, assuming he shows up.

And then the judge may ask you then how fast were you going. In which case you can either lie, or admit to speeding.

You have been watching wayy too many lawyer shows.

[jpw12]

Originally Posted by inv4zn

If you use that argument, while logical, it still doesn't mean anything regarding your ticket.

You have to prove you weren't speeding, because that's what the ticket is for. There is no "doubt."

As I've said, the judge (or whatever the correct term is for traffic courts) will ask you - how do you plead. You say Not Guilty. Then you have to explain why. If you say the officer may have lasered another car, then it becomes a case of your word vs. the officers, assuming he shows up.

And then the judge may ask you then how fast were you going. In which case you can either lie, or admit to speeding.

You have been watching wayy too many lawyer shows.

thanks for your help dude!

I'll probably just dispute it to ask for a reduced fine. But i'll wait for the court date. How long after I file for dispute should I expect the date?

[XplicitLuder]

most ppl say it takes about a year

[zulutango]

You were given a ticket for going more than 1kmh and less than 20 kmh over the limit...and you told us you were. Laser can easily get you at 450 metres out....which is what he might have told you the distance was when he gor your speed. You were doing 97 in an 80 and were still at least 10 over in the lower zone. Case closed. If you are going to request disclosure then you must know what to request and what you can expect to get in response. If you demand something that will not be released...like all the tickets issued that day by the Member...that ain't happening. If you don't ask for the correct things, you will not get them. This is a legal request and you only get what you ask...not what you should have asked. Info provided on anti-Police US or out of province websites is often wrong and does not apply here in BC. I could recognize the questions after a while when a disputant started asking me stuff that came from them.

BTW, following a tractor trailer at 2 car lengths at 90 kmh is suicidal. At that distance you cannot even react in time, let alone begin to brake if he slows suddenly. Something else to know...Police are not required to enter into a lengthy discussion at roadside when issuing a ticket. The printed copy tells you what you were charged with and I always told the driver why they had been stopped during the initial contact, then reminded them that court and payment info was on the back of their copy. I never got into roadside courthouse. Too much chance that a misunderstanding, confusiuon or deliberate misquote taken out of context, could be brought up later to cloud the issue in an effort to get the ticket tossed.

[sho_bc]

You can ask for, but will not get a reduced fine. $138 is the provincially mandated minimum for speeding. The only way it gets lower than that is to successfully argue that you weren't going 1km/hr over the posted speed limit or to pay within 30 days of receiving the ticket.

[punkwax]

Admits to speeding, regardless of where you were on that street. Still going to dispute ticket.

Thanks for clogging up the system, OP.

"fell victim"

[wing_woo]

The only way you'll win this is if the officer doesn't show up. The only other thing you can do is prove that the officer lasered someone else, but then you'd also have to lie and say you did the speed limit.

Also, he gave you the lowest fine and this is also probably due to the fact that he clocked you at 97 and could not accurately tell if you were in the 80 or 60 zone but knew for a fact you would be speeding regardless of where he tagged you.

If you are to argue that he tagged you at 97 in the 80 zone, you still have the correct fine amount. If he then turns around and can prove that he tagged you at 97 in the 60 zone, then the JP can up your fine to the 20-40+ range. Do you want to take the risk?

[meme405]

Just to clarify something, lying in traffic court is a serious offence, it can lead to a perjury charge exactly as if you lied in a criminal court case. (this has happened before)

So lying in any capacity to beat a $130 ticket is a risky maneuver.

The only comparison I can make is: it's like taking out a bet on Floyd Mayweather to win over Pacquiao, but your payout is only $1 more than your bet of 100 bucks. Regardless of the odds of Mayweather beating Pacquiao risking $100 to win $101, is a bet nobody in their right mind would take.

AKA The Risk is not going to be worth the reward.

Perjuring yourself over a traffic ticket is incredibly stupid.

[sho_bc]

Originally Posted by jpw12

I fell victim to a speed trap on the Annacis Island exit on Hwy 91 in Richmond.

A rundown of what happened:

1. Took exit off Hwy 91 towards the Annacis Island exit.

2. The speed limit changes from 80-60 on this road towards the exit.

3. Cop with speed trap stops me allegedly going 97 off the highway proceeding straight down the road towards New Westminster. I was behind a semi and there was another car behind me. We were well spaced between one another and I had at least 2 cars space between me and the semi in front.

4. I stop, cooperate, provide documents, and the officer tells me he clocked me doing 97. I ask him how far back the speed limit sign for 60 was. He said about 460 metres (it wasn't, from the photo you can see it was about 150-200 metres). I then proceed to ask him how far back he lasered me, he then proceeded to tell me to dispute the ticket if I had any problems with this..

I was just asking a question about my alleged crime, he didnt even answer me something the laser reading couldve told him.

Probably because he lasered me, or perhaps another car doing 97 before the speed limit changed from 80-60, to which I was decelerating from coming off the highway. I followed the flow of traffic thereafter.

5. I took notes of the incident, and am planning a dispute for this ticket. It is a "Speed Against highway Sign, 146(3)" for $138.

He told me he already gave me the cheapest ticket available for this, seeing my clean driving record, but a semi was driving at the same speed as I was in front of me, and he stops me..

6. I was NOT going 97, probably 90 coming off the highway, but max 70 when I hit the 60 zone. I can be pretty sure because I was watching my speedometer count on my Civic quite often. Attached is a photo better describing the road.



My case:

The allegation was based on me doing 97 in a 60 zone, but if I request the evidence and notes from the officer, and find that the laser showed my clocked speed prior to the 60 zone (>460 metres), and proving that the limit signs were actually quite closer to the trap than he clocked me for (he clocked me 500 metres out, but the sign is actually 200 metres away), do I have a case to build here?

How should I proceed with requesting the notes and evidence the officer has after filing for the dispute? Phone, email, mail, or in person at the station?

Are MVA case built on establishing reasonable doubt on the crime in question?

P.s., I am not trying to prove to RS whether I am right or wrong, or if i should just pay the ticket or not. I am simply asking if this has a fair chance and is a solid process to proceed with the dispute. Any productive advice is appreciated!!

Thanks Revscene!

Originally Posted by jpw12

Thanks for your response!

While I know I was above the speed limit, I am trying to prove that the officer in question perform his laser trap duty incorrectly and provide false information to the alleged offender when he should be clear on his trap setup, closest speed limit sign, distance away, etc. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING HIS JOB CORRECTLY.

By doing so, I can create doubt on the alleged crime I am accused of.. and I am discussing the notes and incident that was recorded, which was me doing 97 in a 60 zone and not the 80 zone where I was actually doing the speed in. If I can prove otherwise, then he can't prove that I am guilty beyond doubt, then I would be acquitted, no?

Im not a lawyer, but I wonder if that is a plausible angle to approach this?

Again, I am not asking in regards to if I was speeding or not, but if isolating the charges laid, that being false, then I should have a shot, no?

Quoted for prosperity.

[jpw12]

Originally Posted by meme405

Just to clarify something, lying in traffic court is a serious offence, it can lead to a perjury charge exactly as if you lied in a criminal court case. (this has happened before)

So lying in any capacity to beat a $130 ticket is a risky maneuver.

The only comparison I can make is: it's like taking out a bet on Floyd Mayweather to win over Pacquiao, but your payout is only $1 more than your bet of 100 bucks. Regardless of the odds of Mayweather beating Pacquiao risking $100 to win $101, is a bet nobody in their right mind would take.

AKA The Risk is not going to be worth the reward.

Perjuring yourself over a traffic ticket is incredibly stupid.

Hi,

I have no intention of lying, just seeing if I had a case, but after consulting with the helpful members here I think I am considering paying the fine early to get a reduced fine or disputing it, and justify a reduced fine in front of a judge because of my current financial status.

Once again, thanks everyone for your helpful perspectives on this!

[sho_bc]

Originally Posted by jpw12

Hi,

I have no intention of lying, just seeing if I had a case, but after consulting with the helpful members here I think I am considering paying the fine early to get a reduced fine or disputing it, and justify a reduced fine in front of a judge because of my current financial status.

Once again, thanks everyone for your helpful perspectives on this!

As i already wrote above, it is impossible for the JJP to reduce the fine amount. It is already as low as it can go without you paying early for the $25 discount, the officer not showing up or you proving to the JJP that you were going exactly 80km/hr or less in the 80km/hr zone or exactly 60km/hr or less in the 60km/hr zone.

Again, $138 is the lowest it can go if you chose to dispute.

[sebberry]

Zulu, thoughts?

YouTube

[zulutango]

I have never heard of the 'slip" error, nor, in almost 10 years of using it almost daily, was ever able to get a defective reading like that. ANY movement would show an error message, the 'beep" sound when getting the reading sounded completely different from when a correct reading was taken. We use a tripod to steady it enough to get the target speed displayed. The actual reading was only used to reinforce our initial estimation of speed as part of the tracking history. We would never just pull the trigger and believe what reading was displayed. Readings were taken by shooting the front or rear of the target, never the side. They went to a lot of trouble to produce an artificial situation never used in actual Police work. It took 11 attempts, using 2 different instruments, being used in a manner never designed nor taught to Police users, to get 1 error to finally show up. Not sure how long ago that show was done and what model was used...seems an old programme.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

I have never heard of the 'slip" error

Scary...

We use a tripod to steady it enough to get the target speed displayed.

I've seen more hand-held traps set up than those using tripods. In fact I've seen more spotting scopes on tripods than lidar guns, presumably because any sort of distance introduces too much shake.

The actual reading was only used to reinforce our initial estimation of speed as part of the tracking history.

By definition, an estimation isn't accurate.

We would never just pull the trigger and believe what reading was displayed.

Because they're not accurate?

[SoNaRWaVe]

Originally Posted by sebberry

By definition, an estimation isn't accurate.

but police are trained to estimate speeds correctly and can still ticket you if they estimate that you were speeding.

i'm not sure what you mean by scary...regards to slip. scary as in shocked that zulu never heard of it or trained about it?

[Flatsix]

I would take it to court, a lot of the time the cop will not show. If he does show talk to him, be friendly and polite. Most will give you the option to pay the fine but not receive any points. If you get another ticket within 6 months I think it is? You will have to pay icbc $300 on top of the ticket ...... Ask me how I know! My only two to tickets in my life, one in March the other in August last year >.< I never leave home without my 9500 I now.

[sho_bc]

Originally Posted by SoNaRWaVe

but police are trained to estimate speeds correctly and can still ticket you if they estimate that you were speeding.

i'm not sure what you mean by scary...regards to slip. scary as in shocked that zulu never heard of it or trained about it?

Once again, seb is purposefully ignoring the message of a complete post and commenting on/highlighting on only that which suits his agenda of discrediting police work (mainly in the area of traffic offence enforcement).

[jpw12]

Originally Posted by Flatsix

I would take it to court, a lot of the time the cop will not show. If he does show talk to him, be friendly and polite. Most will give you the option to pay the fine but not receive any points. If you get another ticket within 6 months I think it is? You will have to pay icbc $300 on top of the ticket ...... Ask me how I know! My only two to tickets in my life, one in March the other in August last year >.< I never leave home without my 9500 I now.

I don't really mind the points, my driving record is pretty clean (no tickets in last 5 years). Is it possible to negotiate a reduced fine with the police officer if he shows up, if i agree to plea guilty? But of course, take the gamble that he doesn't show up either.

[sho_bc]

Originally Posted by jpw12

Is it possible to negotiate a reduced fine with the police officer if he shows up, if i agree to plea guilty?

How thick are you? For the third time, NO.