Traffic Ticket for passenger seat belt violation
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Next >
Posted on: 22-05-12 22:08:45
In Ontario every person inside the moving car must wear a seat belt else liable to ticket.
In the fine amount , $5 CADs is included for the court proceedings, so the invitation is already given to you by court and advance fee is taken, you may avail the facility given perforce and go to court else bear at least 2 demerits for next 2 years and fall into the hands of insurance robbers which they are already rubbing vigorously.
With a ticket cometh one time fine payment, lot of hassle, heart burns, taunts and haunts by wifey & MIL, court experience plus the recurring fine of increased insurance.
Bola ththaa belt laganey ko !!
Quote:
Originally posted by Fido
If you say , you did stop at the sign and he says you did not .... chances are - in absence of any evidence or photos or witnesses , you are free ...to be convicted you need to be proven guility without a doubt ...an Officer's testimony is no more important than a defendants ......... that s the reason why the Prosecutor drops the charges most of the times .....
I don't know if you have any experience of this but I have personally seen many cases in the court where the officer's statement (Officer has to say that he saw this or that and it is enough. Officers do not carry any video capturing device or something else) satisfied the judge to make the decision in favor of the Prosecutor. If Prosecutor drops the charge due to some reason then that may be his choice.
If officer has to provide evidence other than his statement then all cases (Except red light camera or speeding recorded on radar) will go in favor of defendants.
Quote:
Originally posted by web2000
I don't know if you have any experience of this but I have personally seen many cases in the court where the officer's statement (Officer has to say that he saw this or that and it is enough. Officers do not carry any video capturing device or something else) satisfied the judge to make the decision in favor of the Prosecutor. If Prosecutor drops the charge due to some reason then that may be his choice.
If officer has to provide evidence other than his statement then all cases (Except red light camera or speeding recorded on radar) will go in favor of defendants.
Correct. Police officer does not have to provide video evidence for stop sign violation, his statement is enough. See here for full info...
http://www.ticketcombat.com/stopsign/stopsign.php
SS
You'll find some useful ticket fighting tips at the above link. Good luck!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you there?
That is half the knowledge ... There are wrinkles to it ......Read further ... http://www.ticketcombat.com/stopsign/thescene.php and you will know how Officer's Testimony can be overtuned ..... People have done it ....
What I have quoted above is based on my experience ... You can challenge an Officer's testimony in court if you have reasonable grounds .... like .. what I mentioned earlier whether the vehicle was moving or stopped (in case of the seat belt ) OR whether the Officer was in a favorable position to make a sound judgment (in case of a stop sign )
2 mos. back a Physics Professor beat a traffic ticket proving the Officer's observation incorrect ...
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2012/04/physicist-uses-math-to-beat-traffic.html
Like I said , if the Officer's words were final , there would be no need of trial ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fido.
Quote:
Originally posted by web2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Fido
If you say , you did stop at the sign and he says you did not .... chances are - in absence of any evidence or photos or witnesses , you are free ...to be convicted you need to be proven guility without a doubt ...an Officer's testimony is no more important than a defendants ......... that s the reason why the Prosecutor drops the charges most of the times .....
I don't know if you have any experience of this but I have personally seen many cases in the court where the officer's statement (Officer has to say that he saw this or that and it is enough. Officers do not carry any video capturing device or something else) satisfied the judge to make the decision in favor of the Prosecutor. If Prosecutor drops the charge due to some reason then that may be his choice.
If officer has to provide evidence other than his statement then all cases (Except red light camera or speeding recorded on radar) will go in favor of defendants.
The only reason many people get convicted is : they panic in the court in front of all those people. However, if you stay calm and just claim that you do not see any proof supporting the charge by prosecution except the officer's statement, which cannot be admitted as evidence since he is as much a party to this charge as defendant.
The JP (Justice of Peace) has to either rule in your favour and if he/she does not, then his ruling can be easily appealed.
Most people get nervous looking at the prosecutor's gang and plead guilty with reduced fine. This scares others who are waiting for their turn.
SS : There is no harm in fighting, there are many avenues you can beat it.
Good luck.
Hiren
Quote:
Originally posted by Fido
That is half the knowledge ... There are wrinkles to it ......Read further ... http://www.ticketcombat.com/stopsign/thescene.php and you will know how Officer's Testimony can be overtuned ..... People have done it ....
What I have quoted above is based on my experience ... You can challenge an Officer's testimony in court if you have reasonable grounds .... like .. what I mentioned earlier whether the vehicle was moving or stopped (in case of the seat belt ) OR whether the Officer was in a favorable position to make a sound judgment (in case of a stop sign )
2 mos. back a Physics Professor beat a traffic ticket proving the Officer's observation incorrect ...
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2012/04/physicist-uses-math-to-beat-traffic.html
Like I said , if the Officer's words were final , there would be no need of trial ...
There is a need of trial because if police officer does not show up you win the case. As I said police officers have enough experience to make a good story in the court. Do you think they are not aware of the sites like http://www.ticketcombat.com/
Not everybody is Physicist
Dude ,
And not everybody is a fighter !!
A Trial is granted not because the Police Officer may or may not show up --- but because per the Justice System , a charge is just a charge and can be refuted & over turned or sustained upon a further careful analysis ....... A Trial is granted because Law enforcement Officers are not the final sayers ...... They have just stated what they have observed which may not be entirely correct or complete and you state what you observe in the court ........
Based on the abover website , I have beaten tickets twice and people here have done it as well ..... If you belong to a category Hiren has referred above then you do not fight ... Pay up ... And that s what happens to 80% tickets .
But for the balance 20% who decide to fight , for one reason or the other - they get benefits which include getting the tickets thrown out , prosecutor offering discount , Crown withdrawing charges & charges being over tuned by JoP ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fido.
