Police Refuse to Provide Evidence For Alleged Traffic Violation

Just wanting to get the experiences of others and if this is a thing.

TL;DR Father was accused of running a red light and police won't provide any evidence to support this

So basically this was about an alleged driving violation last year. We were driving through an intersection which had a green light and maybe 2 metres in the light turned yellow/amber. We completed crossing the intersection while the light was yellow.

A few minutes down the road we are pulled over and told we went through a red light by an officer. Officer says they were on the other side of the road and the light on their side was yellow when we entered the intersection and that by the time the light had turned red our back tires were still not through the intersection which is a violation. We refute this and say we had only passed through green and yellow lights to which they counter running a yellow light is also a traffic violation.

In any case, when the infringement notice comes the violation is "failing to stop at a red light", which even the officer didn't say at the time.

Later we get the supposed evidence which is body cam footage of the officer (which wouldn't even be helpful given they couldn't see the lights we saw to even prove what happened). The disc (and I can't believe they are still using DVDs to pass on evidence) is defective and doesn't work, even with me speaking to the police station and asking specifically which multimedia player they use, which I downloaded and tried to play the disc on, only for the disc to fail again. I checked with another DVD I had and it played fine, meaning the player is not at fault.

Eventually, at the hearing, I speak on behalf of my father (who speaks English as his second language) and ask them about the evidence to which the court says ask the prosecutors for it which I have been doing for the past few weeks. They have yet to provide this evidence and now say they won't talk with me any more, only my father or his lawyer, even though they haven't provided us with anything.

To me this feels like them either trying to exploit someone less educated to try and force us to pay the fine, or tie us up in unnecessary paperwork/work engaging a lawyer (not to mention cost).

Any advice/anyone had similar issues?

Comments

  • +5

    …and ask them about the evidence to which the court says ask the prosecutors for it which I have been doing for the past few weeks.

    Put your requests in writing, signed by your father (so they don't bring up excuses about "privacy") and send it via registered mail. They must supply you with copies of any evidence they intend to rely on in court. Chase them up every week in writing. If you don't get anything, you've got proof that you've requested the evidence and they've failed to supply it.

    • +2

      to follow on - here is the process to request it formally (via your father who will have to request it if his lawyer isn't doing it) https://www.police.vic.gov.au/body-worn-cameras

      • Thanks for this. I figure this is what we will do now, it just seems odd that I can speak on someone's behalf in court with a judge but can't request a disc be sent to my father's address.

  • Only read the TL:DR version.

    Police are not required to provide you with evidence of their witnessing of an offence. It's like if they saw someone using a mobile phone while driving. They're not going to take a photo of the offender and then pull them over.

    The officer's word is good enough to issue the fine.

    If you want to contest it, then that'll require you going to court.

    • +10

      Have gone to court, so would recommend reading the whole thing.

      However, by that logic, if a police officer says you stole a loaf of bread or killed someone with no evidence, you say their word is good enough? (deliberately exaggerating here to show why that logic is flawed)

      • -6

        Yes. Police are also legally allowed to lie to you but when you lie, you will get penalised. Ie they ask you to say you were responsible for 9/11 and you'll get a million. Then when you do, they'll jail you for terrorism and deny the million.

        They are becoming increasingly British-style policing instead of community oriented. Ie not blue heelers any more.

        Lawyer up. Have you seen news with police doxxing and harassing people for finding justice against police? Be careful.

      • Do you think cops walk aorund all day with 20 cameras facing in each direction filming everyone in sight incase they steal that loaf?

        • -1

          Nobody expects them to do that, but by the same measure nobody expects them to go around accusing anyone they want of stealing a loaf of bread or committing any other crime. Pressumption of innocence is the fabric of our legal system and the only thing that sets us apart from shitholes like North Korea.

          Can't prove somebody did it? Tough shit. I'm sure the government will be fine without useless road fines.

      • if a police officer says you…

        Bad logic… Not the same. There is a difference between saying you did it and seeing you do it. At the point that the police officer saw you commit an offence, their word is good enough.

        People get convicted all the time based on what people say they saw

        • -1

          I agree if they actually saw it, but they were on the opposite side of the road, so they couldn't see the same lights as us.

          • -1

            @Mikestar55555: He doesn't need to see your lights, as lights are coupled to activate in a set sequence with all other lights, they only need to see their own. From that, they can then determine what yours were showing.

            At the end of the day, it will be your word against theirs. Their evidence is the eye witness account from an expert witness. They don't need to have MS Paint drawings or high definition video with director`s cut, they just need the testimony of the police officer and/or any witness.

            The other thing to pursue is the whole "rear wheels behind the line" bullshit that seems to get regurgitated here a lot of the time. This is not the law. Don't accept it as an excuse and use it to your advantage.

            • @pegaxs: Thanks for the advice, in all honesty, I hadn't thought about the wheels before typing this up as I've been focused on getting the video, but that would also be useful.

              • +1

                @Mikestar55555: What you can also do is go back to those lights and do a check to see the lights he saw and the ones you were using are in sync or not. Have one person stand on the opposite side and raise their hands when the lights change and you do the same and see if both of you raise hands in sync or not.

                That will prove to you if that is viable line to pursue in court. If they are in sync, then that line of questioning is not going to get you anywhere. If they are not in sync; you have more ammunition to use in court.

                • @MrHyde: I'd take that a step further and video both sequence of the lights with timestamps at the same time.

              • -1

                @Mikestar55555: They should at least have car cam footage. This would clearly show your car and the relationship of the lights they were seeing compared to were you were traveling at the time.

                Body cam footage will be virtually useless.

                But like what has been said above, they have to provide you with all evidence they have collected. If they refuse to provide this, they could be ones having their shit thrown out of court.

                You might not want to do it, but you really do need to consider consulting a lawyer at this point. They may be able to get it thrown out using a legal reason that most normal citizens would not know. It may already be a done deal if you spoke to a lawyer.

            • -1

              @pegaxs:

              Their evidence is the eye witness account from an expert witness

              How does a police officer get counted as an expert witness? They're not lawyers. Most of them are sub average at their jobs.

              Must be nice to graduate as a trainee and officially become an expert in your field. In most other industries, you need to build a reputation over decades to be counted as an expert witness.

              • @SlavOz: What a sweeping generalisation, one that’s not based on anything other than your non-expert opinion.

                • @Downvoter: The only generalisation here is calling every and any police officer involved in a traffic stop an "expert".

                  Normally an expert is someone who's been individually assessed to be of high standing in their field, that's not really the case here though. The government is rorting the game to make sure anyone on their side is classified as an expert regardless of individual merit.

                  I'd also like to see what would happen if a police officer received a traffic fine and contested it in court. Would his testimony against the government still be classified as an "expert" judgement?

      • "by that logic, if a police officer says you stole a loaf of bread or killed someone with no evidence"
        Can't happen, they do need to prove the offence. In your case the officer claims he "witnessed" the incident.
        If someone saw an incident happen then that is enough proof to charge someone.
        It is then the accused job to disprove that witness. It gets curly because people do lie and sometimes imagine they see things.

      • It's a traffic violation, not a crime.

        Theft and murder are crimes.

        If you tailgate a police car that is speeding, the officer can issue you a fine without speed testing you as they know that you're already speeding by virtue of following them.

  • +3

    AFAIK it doesn't matter if the light goes red while you are in the intersection, as long as you have already entered the intersection before it goes red that isn't running a red.

    I design the timings for intersections and the whole idea of a red is to give enough time if someone enters on the very last second of the amber to get them through the intersection before the green starts on a conflicting approach. They are designed so that people entering on the amber get through fine.

    • That is my thinking too. There is no violation against yellow lights as the rule is "prepare to stop if safe to do so", already being in the intersection means it is safer to continue than to stop and reverse back out.

      • +4

        This is wrong.
        People get fined all the time for running amber lights.

        The law is that you must stop if it is safe to do so. Clearly if you are 2 metres from the line at 80kph you can't stop, but you can not gun it to blast through on amber if you were able to stop safely.

        • +1

          yeah but he's stated that the light was green when entering and then went yellow whilst inside the intersection. Your point is invalid then for OP's situation.

          Looks like Victoria Police (or at least that officer) is trying to get your father on trumped up charges, I think you should follow others and put your demands in writing and when going to court display their incompetency in providing evidence and you should be fine.

          Tbh its a completely shitty situation to be in and a waste of time for all involved. Hope you are successful though.

          My dad's had similar been pulled on him too (English is good but not native) as he got caught in a no stopping zone (sign was covered by hanging branches of a tree), and had disability permit in the car, as he was picking up my crippled grandfather.
          Motocop spotted him and came to the window and gave him a clear verbal warning and my dad moved about 10 secs later.
          Ended up getting a fine in the mail a week later, as it looks like a sergeant reviewed footage and decided to fine him in spite of the warning. Ended up paying the fine as an offence was clearly committed but asked for a review and they didn't budge despite acknowledging that a warning was given onsite.

          • @JDMcarfan: Completely agree - based on his description, his Father could not stop safely so it's a bs charge by the cops.

            His statement "There is no violation against yellow lights…" is totally incorrect though and is a very common misconception.

        • +1

          Isn't the driver the best person to reasonably judge whether it's safe to continue or not? Im petrified of the idea of police telling me what's best for my safety when I'm on the frontline of a situation and they're watching from a few cars back.

          It's like telling a rock climber what the safest approach is while you're comfortably on the ground.

          • @SlavOz:

            i'm petrified of the idea of police telling me what's best for my safety

            Petrified LMAO! better sell your car and hand your license in then cause it happens more often than you may think.

          • @SlavOz:

            Isn't the driver the best person to reasonably judge whether it's safe to continue or not?

            Yes, that's why accidents never happen when car is controlled by a driver. Hate it when the car goes rebel and runs over people by itself.

            • @Ughhh: Well, the overwhelming amount of cars controlled by drivers aren't involved in accidents, so…

    • Entering during intergreen time is not permitted unless it's unsafe to stop despite design times.

      Of course the intergreen and all-red times needs to allow the vehicle to get through before allowing an opposing movement to go green. Otherwise an opposing movement would have green when another car is potentially still in the intersection.

  • Was it a HWP car or a uniform car?

  • +8

    This is why you should get a dashcam for back and front. And even the sides at this day and age lol.

    Viofo A129. End of story.

  • +1

    Wouldn't a lawyer cost much much more than the fine?

    Doesn't sound like you're in the wrong, but it just looks like copping it on the chin and moving on is the best approach here.

    • Yep, already wasted more time than the fine would be worth.

  • Normally a cops version of events against a driver is uncontestable without further proof to the contrary.
    Surely if you have a witness, which in this case is you, you can discredit the officers claim. 2 vs 1.

    It's times like this where a dash cam pays for itself. Most cops are ok but there is no shortage of bad ones either so having proof of driving incidents keeps them honest.
    BTW… never admit you have a cam if you are pulled over. Let him write the ticket then send the cam image to his boss.

    • +1

      Your first sentence is 100% wrong, and only applies in corrupt courts.

  • +1

    goodluck and keep us updated.

  • Go to court, deny prosecution implication, ask for evidence. Dun.

    Either they show the evidence and you go from there; or they admit zero evidence and it's dismissed; or you get a corrupt court and get the fine and court costs cos yolo.

Login or Join to leave a comment