Last I remember I live in a "Innocent till Proven Guilty" society, but...

FallenTraveler

New member
Jun 11, 2010
661
0
0
Kortney said:
Because they thought she had a mobile phone up to her ear. A similar thing happened to my sister when she was in the USA. She had an ear ache and was driving home covering her ear in intense pain. A copper pulled her over a few metres from where she was staying and went to issue her a ticket for talking on a phone whilst driving. Thankfully he realised his error and believed my sister (probably due to her being in tears from the pain) and let her go but I have no troubles believing that many people have been incorrectly fined.
OOOOOOHHHHH okay, that actually makes sense and frustrates me after re-reading it, thanks for that :)

OP: Really dont like cops, especially the ones around here who hold grudges :/ they followed me for a long while for almost no reason, other than J-walking I had done nothing wrong... bastards.
 

Kalahee

New member
Jan 12, 2011
45
0
0
NOTICE: Just before peoples think I'm trying to revolutionize the juridic system, I have posted this to make a fun comparaison was ridiculous, don't worry I don't take everything I said to be exact. I am aware we can't apply all laws/rights perfectly and I don't have any grudge against cops. I am sorry if some felt hurt by some of the comments.

As for tickets written "In order to contest a ticket, you must appear on first appearance court date and plead not guilty and a trail will follow"... do you beleive everything they write? Of course, it's not a real verdict... but would you deny that it has all the look of it?

I won't generalize, it was probably one jerk that really hate his job or had a bad day and felt like being a jackass. I've met some nice policemen, my father-in-law was one, one of my uncle is (I'm not saying they can't be jerks :p).

As for fee, i didn't say any fee occured when ticket is thrown away by the court, but even a small compensation is probably not worth a lost work day... or even a lost day off.
 

The Wykydtron

"Emotions are very important!"
Sep 23, 2010
5,458
0
0
Squarez said:
How can she prove that she wasn't talking on a cell phone?
Hire Phoenix Wright as your defence attorney. He could pin it on the elderly person having a heart attack down the road XD... Damn it now i need to play that game again
 

Napierdalac

New member
Oct 3, 2010
156
0
0
scumofsociety said:
Squarez said:
Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.
But the appeal won't necesarily succeed will it? She can't prove she wasn't and in a case like this they may well just take the policemans word for it. I do get what OP is saying. It might work but it's quite possible it won't either. Maybe if she has a good lawyer and protests that policeman never actually found a phone and didn't even bother searching for it...even so, if she had a phone in the car and the cop finds it then she's guilty of having a phone in her car while scratching her ear but do you think the court will take her word for it?
I have actually been in exactly the same situation as your friend - except i own i phone.

I to, was scratching my ear while driving and got pulled over. I just gave him my phone and asked him to call the telephone company - he said that if i was just wasting his time, i would get another fine. After a bit of talking with semi big words the officer finally agreed to call the telephone company and was then proven wrong. I drove off with no ticket and the officer was left with a red face.

But ofc, this was in Denmark, where the system actually works..
 

HellsingerAngel

New member
Jul 6, 2008
602
0
0
Kalahee said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_Canada - Read.

Quebec is a province of Canada and even more social and civil right activist than Canada itself. Yet, it follows the canadian juridistic system. As I can see you're canadian, I'll presume you just hate Quebec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence - Enjoy.

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence.


Wikipedia said:
Section 11(d) provides that:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

This right has generated some case law, as courts have struck down reverse onus clauses as violating the presumption of innocence. This first occurred in R. v. Oakes (1986) in respect to the Narcotics Control Act. This was also the case in which the Court developed the primary test for measuring rights limitations under section 1 of the Charter. The Court found having a reverse onus clause was not rational in fighting narcotics traffic since one could not assume a person found with narcotics means to traffic it. In R. v. Stone, the question of automatism was considered, with the Court deciding that while shifting the burden of proof to the defendant was a violation of section 11, it could be justified under section 1 because criminal law presumes willing actions.

The reference to a fair hearing allows one a right to "full answer and defence", a right also based in section 7 of the Charter ("fundamental justice"). This has led to a controversial string of decisions surrounding the rape shield law, starting with R. v. Seaboyer (1991) and ending with R. v. Mills (1999).
Basically the law covers the mis-use of presumptuous charges, I.E. you cannot charge someone with trafficing simply for posessing illegal goods. This is not in reference to being presumed completely innocent of your crimes until proven guilty if you are charged with an offense! As for being "innocent" when your verdict is given by an officer of the law:

Wikipedia said:
In Canada, traffic laws are made at the provincial level. Some serious violations are considered criminal (such as Drinking and Driving) and are located under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Each province maintains a database of motorists, including their convicted traffic violations. Upon being ticketed, a motorist has a chance to plead guilty, not guilty or guilty with an explanation. The motorist or their representative must attend the court for the town or city in which the violation took place to do so. Though the back of the ticket states the motorist has up to 15 days to enter their pleas, the courts do not generally convict the accused for up to 45 days depending on the court.

If the motorist pleads not guilty, a trial date is set and both the motorist, or a lawyer/Paralegal representing the motorist, and the ticketing officer, are required to attend. If the officer fails to attend, the court judge will often find in favour of the motorist and dismiss the charge, although sometimes the trial date is moved to give the officer another chance to attend. In some provinces, officers are now paid time and a half to attend traffic proceedings. The court will also make provisions for the officer or the prosecutor to achieve a deal with the motorist, often in the form of a plea bargain. If no agreement is reached, both motorist and officer, or their respective representatives, formally attempt to prove their case before the judge or Justice of Peace, who then decides the matter.

If the motorist pleads guilty, the outcome is equivalent to conviction after trial. Upon conviction, the motorist is generally fined a monetary amount and, for moving violations, is additionally given demerit points, under each province's point system. Jail time is sometimes sought in more serious cases such as Racing or Stunt Driving.

If a motorist is convicted, he must accept the penalties or try to appeal the ruling. An appeal will typically only be granted in cases where there were errors in the law or proceedings.

If a trial date takes more than a reasonable amount of time, and the accused had nothing to delay it, a Charter of Rights violation can be filed and pleaded. The reasonable length of time changes from court to court. In most cases, this is typically 1 year. A Charter of Rights Violation must be filed with the Attorney General of Canada, Ontario and with the courts themselves and then argued on the court date.
Clear evidence that one is not proven guilty upon recieving a ticket, as it directly states that upon being issued the ticket you may plead one of three arguments, one of them being not guilty. Regardless if you are guilty or not, you still need to attend your court date to be issued your sentence (unless otherwise circumvented and agreed upon, I presume.) This means that your entire argument is hogwash.

As for your friend being acused of something she never did? Why did she not ask the officer to search her car for said phone? The offcier does need to be able to provide evidence that his/her accusation is solid and neglecting to do so works in your friend's favour. If it truly was a mistake and your friend did have a cell phone in the car, you can pull up the last logged call on the phone and prove your innocence right then and there. If the officer ignores both of these claims to dispute the ticket (which they are obligated to check) then it only builds a case against their ticket, which will ultimately end in the officer being punished instead.

Good sir, I ask that you do a little research before making such bold claims and start being wary of the laws that govern you, as ignorance is not a defense.

ace_of_something said:
G'day officer. Glad to see someone with a badge putting their opinion on this. Interesting to know that their views are as level-headed as they should be.
 

Zykon TheLich

Extra Heretical!
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
3,494
827
118
Country
UK
Napierdalac said:
I have actually been in exactly the same situation as your friend - except i own i phone.

I to, was scratching my ear while driving and got pulled over. I just gave him my phone and asked him to call the telephone company - he said that if i was just wasting his time, i would get another fine. After a bit of talking with semi big words the officer finally agreed to call the telephone company and was then proven wrong. I drove off with no ticket and the officer was left with a red face.

But ofc, this was in Denmark, where the system actually works..
Well, you quoted me even though I'm not the OP, she's not my friend, but I'll add this anyway: Where I'm from in the UK the police would almost certainly have searched the car for a phone on protestation of innocence to prove they were right, not because I think the UK police are better than Canadian, but because they are at least twice as anal because they have to be, which is why I think squarez thought it would be overturned as a matter of course, if it came to a UK court, if you did choose to fight it then it's quite likely they'd chuck it out if the police hadn't found the phone in question and then had a look at the last call time and duration. They might not, depends on the judge really but from my experience they seem to hate the police more than everyone else does :p I'm just guessing the OP knows a bit more about Canadian courts than us non Canadians.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
It's Judge Dredd, not Dread. Yes I know, it's a minor mistake, but I felt that I had to point it out.
 

Steve Fidler

New member
Feb 20, 2010
109
0
0
Saltyk said:
Squarez said:
Police Officers, or traffic officers in this case must have "reasonable grounds to believe [whatever they charge you with]" if your friend wasn't talking on the phone, she can appeal the ticket and have it repealed.

The system works.
That's not always easy. How can she prove that she wasn't talking on a cell phone? A video? If she had a video showing that she wasn't talking on the phone, she would still likely be charged with the same basic offense.

Actually, this is the problem I have with red light camera's that can issue tickets. What if you weren't driving? How can you prove that you weren't driving? Was it your friend? Mother? Maybe you were being rushed to the hospital? Was your car stolen? Worse yet, they can issue tickets if you were for all intents and purposes through the light (A coworker got a ticket from such an offense and it said the light had been red for about 1 second). It's completely unfair. And who do you argue against in court? The picture?

Also, never talk to the police. It literally can't help you.
This is why I love the way Red Light Cameras work. I never get RLC-Tickets when driving a work vehicle, because its a fleet vehicle and it's not legal to charge the owner of the vehicle (which is the only person whom they know of.)
 

Kalahee

New member
Jan 12, 2011
45
0
0
Some peoples are taking this a bit too large here. Yes, I'm not some law attoney or lawyer here and have overlooked some special case, but I'm not talking about some major criminalized gang/drug dealer/serial killer with heavy file at the CIA.

I'm talking about a police officer that gave a ticket to a friend on the street. I may have made it more spectacular speaking of Judge Dredd (thanks Queen Micheal) and presumed innocent thing, but if you're one to go point out all flaws in a live comedy show to the person himself, consider yourself a jerk. This post was intended as an amusement.

I'm not saying you can't give your two cents. I may have overdone it myself at some point and I'm sorry.

I've only receive a ticket once in my life because I've not crossed the street at the crossing. Yes, I did it, I won't argue on that. I was a little annoyed that out of 100 persons crossing in the middle of the street I was one of the few unlucky peoples.

As for WIKI links, I have to say I have been a bit biten by the poster I've quoted and posted links for. Sorry for my reaction.