|
About expunge of minor traffic offenses, it sounds like that if you are put under court supervision (i.e. traffic court) the offense is never actually entered. The relevant page is here. Specifically, quote:Many people who receive a traffic ticket come to court and request an order of supervision. This disposition is authorized in most traffic violations that are punishable by fine only . . . This is what I want . . . I am not exactly sure how to ask for it though.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
Chuu posted:About expunge of minor traffic offenses, it sounds like that if you are put under court supervision (i.e. traffic court) the offense is never actually entered. The relevant page is here. Specifically, Correct. That's not in itself a bad thing that it will stay on record, but if you happened to get another ticket sometime within a few years of that judgment, they might potentially use it against you in working out a deal or fine for that charge, and then the next charge, and so on and so on... That's why you sometimes hear people saying how the first ticket is the most important one to fight if you don't believe you are truly guilty. Since you said expungement, it seemed like you might have wanted it gone with no trace after you completed supervision. In your case it doesn't sound like that would be a factor at all, so if your claim of it being bogus is even a little true, either pay a lawyer to get rid of it, or see the prosecutor on your court date and let him know you'd like to do supervision, it's nearly 99% chance you'll get it based on what you've said. If the reason you don't agree with the ticket is very solid and you would definitely win if going to trial, he might just dismiss it even if you hinted at proceeding to trial. There's also a good post in AI under one of the mega-threads which will give you a good summary of what you are to expect when at court. I believe it's stickied and I think under #10 is where the OP discusses it. A link to an informative pdf is there as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 08:39
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:The problem with simply being pulled over by the police and given a ticket seems to be that most goons(and other people that don't know me) presume guilt instead of innocence. And I thought since this was a smaller issue than I posted before, I would get some interesting opinions other than "GUILTY!!" and "Lawyer up". Plus you can say it's biased all you want, but I am honest when it comes to the facts and if I was guilty of something, I would admit it. I don't think I have even come within 10ft of a car when stopping in emergency situations because I always avoid emergency situations by being aware of my surroundings. Here's the thing, I honestly believe that you weren't tailgaiting the dude. The problem is that people generally trust cops more than the guy who got the ticket. You've identified this in your post and it's an important stumbling block to your case. The only thing that matters is what you can prove, and honestly, if you're the only witness on your side it's gonna go poorly for you. Right now you're presenting a he said she said where one of the parties (you) has an incentive to lie. It isn't fair and it isn't right, but it's what's going to happen. PoOkie posted:Most goons laughed at me when I was trying to figure out how I could be accused of drunk driving while just sitting in a car in freezing weather with the heater on too. I eventually was convinced to take a deal that apparently involved a "supervision" that could never be expunged from my record and other things like not being able to go to Canada for 5yrs. When I found out that information 5 months after entering a plea, every lawyer I contacted said it was nearly impossible to do anything after 30 days and even an ex police chief said he has only heard of someone being successful 1 time in his career....despite that, I submitted my motion, went to court, and won the option to reopen my case. PoOkie posted:PS- If the courts here actually followed procedure and had audio recordings or verbatim accounts of pretrial actions, I would post the audio if that happened. I really wish I had audio of the bizarre statements the DA was trying to use to stop me from requesting a new trial. I think he angrily ended with, "Well if you want to go ahead and screw yourself..." You should read up on 42 USC 1983. It's what you're going to be suing pro se under for the unproveable (but probably real) slights that you encounter in jail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 08:58
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:Correct. No, not correct. A disposition of traffic school supervision is NOT the same thing as offense not entered. The former will show up when you get a full driving record report done, which some jobs require you to do. The latter will not. This is why you shouldn't be posting here. Leif. fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
Ok, here's (what I'm assuming is) a simple one here. I got a citation for violation of 2133.03(A) (ACDA) in Ohio. It was an accident with a crash that is more than likely going to total my car out, but that has yet to be determined. The citation has it listed as being an injury accident, but both myself and the other involved party told the officer at the scene that this was a non-injury accident and all is well. My question is, with this being marked as an injury accident with both parties stating that this was a non-injury incident to the reporting officer, is there any way that this can be contested and overturned? Possibly with a signed statement from the other party involved stating that there were no injuries? I ask wholly on the the fact that while I have no issue and am perfectly content in paying the fine and taking my lumps, it sure as hell would be nice to not have to shell out $126 on this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
bulbous nub posted:Ok, here's (what I'm assuming is) a simple one here. I got a citation for violation of 2133.03(A) (ACDA) in Ohio. It was an accident with a crash that is more than likely going to total my car out, but that has yet to be determined. The citation has it listed as being an injury accident, but both myself and the other involved party told the officer at the scene that this was a non-injury accident and all is well. My question is, with this being marked as an injury accident with both parties stating that this was a non-injury incident to the reporting officer, is there any way that this can be contested and overturned? Possibly with a signed statement from the other party involved stating that there were no injuries? No. What you were cited for has nothing to do with injuries sustained in the accident. You might be able to use it to undermine the officer's credibility, but the fact remains that you still had the accident and you don't have any real evidence to show that the officer's stated reason for the accident occurring isn't the correct one
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
bulbous nub posted:Ok, here's (what I'm assuming is) a simple one here. I got a citation for violation of 2133.03(A) (ACDA) in Ohio. It was an accident with a crash that is more than likely going to total my car out, but that has yet to be determined. The citation has it listed as being an injury accident, but both myself and the other involved party told the officer at the scene that this was a non-injury accident and all is well. My question is, with this being marked as an injury accident with both parties stating that this was a non-injury incident to the reporting officer, is there any way that this can be contested and overturned? Possibly with a signed statement from the other party involved stating that there were no injuries? Are you asking whether the determination that it is an "injury" accident can be overturned? If that is what you are asking, then why do you care? Do you not have insurance? If you do have insurance, then let your insurance company worry about it. If you do not have insurance and are trying to guard against a later lawsuit, the officer's determination at the scene is not determinative of anything. It may not even be admissible (but probably is). You'll still be able to challenge whether or not the other driver had an injury if he or she files suit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
First of all, thanks for the serious and informative reply. I completely agree with you on all of it.JudicialRestraints posted:If your lawyer/the judge doesn't explain to you what exactly you are giving up with your sentence, your plea is reversible. Other than that you basically need to be tortured into pleaing to reverse it. So, since your judge/your lawyer didn't do their job you got a reversal. Great. (p.s. you probably made the right decision to avoid your lovely lawyer in the future. doesn't mean there aren't good lawyers out there.) JudicialRestraints posted:These aren't bizarre statements. You're gonna get your rear end thrown in jail. Being drunk in a running car is used to prove intent to DWI all the time. The reason why the ADA was confused and angry with you is that he didn't understand why you were foregoing a pretty decent deal in order to take an absolutely terrible case to trial (also DWIs usually allow for semi scary sentences as you will soon find out). Well, he was making the more bizarre statements and personal attacks before that statement which I was trying to block out so I could stay focused on what I had to say to the judge, but I understand the risks of what could happen, that's why I'm still researching to make sure my arguments are solid and can't go a different way. I've got 2 weeks to decide if I still want to risk it. I'm almost certain it can't go a different way other than my arrest being quashed since there are already IL supreme court decisions backing up how I was arrested. Since she stated that I was sleeping in a legally parked car and that when she woke me up and asked that I opened the door, I responded affirmatively with a clear "No". According to existing standards for legal arrests, the "consensual encounter" stops there unless she had reasonable suspicion that I was doing anything other than relaxing, waiting for a friend, listening to the radio, or simply taking a short nap because I was travelling somewhere and was too sleepy to drive. The possible conclusions based on the facts she had at the time are virtually limitless. People v. Luedemann, 857 NE 2d 187 - Ill: Supreme Court 2006 I don't think at this point I even care about how I was treated so I think that's why I never really investigated 42 USC 1983 further, but I might look more into it if they still happen to have the videos they never submitted to my lawyer(highly doubtful). Obviously I'm taking a chance, but I am holding out hope that since the system has worked in similar situations before, that it will work for me. SWATJester posted:No, not correct. "Illinois traffic courts are required to report all traffic convictions to the Secretary of State's office to be entered into the driver's official Illinois driving record." http://illinois.drivinguniversity.com/traffic-court/ -and- "In the past, orders of supervision were not reported to the Illinois Secretary of State. However, effective October 1, 2000, the Clerk of the Circuit Court is required by law to report all dispositions of supervision to the Illinois Secretary of State. These reports are confidential and can only be used to provide the court, law enforcement agencies and the Illinois Secretary of State with information. This information cannot be used to suspend or revoke driving privileges or be made available to insurance companies." http://www.cookcountycourt.org/traffic_court/supervision.html *I'm washing my hands of this topic now. I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, but I think it's at least clear enough now so I'm just going to agree to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
I just got a "Failure to keep right" ticket on a multi-laned highway. Other cars were in fron of me in that lane and I could not have moved right at the time I was pulled over because there was a line of cars to my right. I am not arguing the fact of whether or not I deserved the ticket, but I do want to know if I have any chance of lowering the ticket to a no-point violation. It is my first moving violation and I have a clean record.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 03:34
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:I'm almost certain it can't go a different way other than my arrest being quashed since there are already IL supreme court decisions backing up how I was arrested. Since she stated that I was sleeping in a legally parked car and that when she woke me up and asked that I opened the door, I responded affirmatively with a clear "No". According to existing standards for legal arrests, the "consensual encounter" stops there unless she had reasonable suspicion that I was doing anything other than relaxing, waiting for a friend, listening to the radio, or simply taking a short nap because I was travelling somewhere and was too sleepy to drive. The possible conclusions based on the facts she had at the time are virtually limitless. People v. Luedemann, 857 NE 2d 187 - Ill: Supreme Court 2006 While you have correctly stated the case law relating to a seizure/consensual encounter, napping in a car the engine on is pretty suspicious. Also, all the cop has to do is lie and say she thought you were slurring your voice when you said no. Reasonable suspicion is an incredibly LOW bar for the cop to hurdle. I believe it is defined by 'abuse of discretion' and as long there is some SOME reason from which the officer can determine that she thinks you are about to commit a crime (drive drunk), she can search you. 4th Amendment quashing is pretty hard to do and listening to your facts I'm pretty sure that the officer had adequate facts to arrest. The reason why your lawyers are being uncooperative is that you have a pretty bad set of facts. I believe that you weren't going to do anything, but I don't think you have adequate facts to convince a judge or jury. As much as America talks a good game about 'innocent until proven guilty' it's largely a farce. I'm sorry you have to take the brunt of it, but I think you should be really really cautious before trying to challenge this conviction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 04:13
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:<stuff> Thanks, I'll definitely take that under consideration. I've already had a few long nights, but the next couple weeks are going to be rough thinking about what I am going to do. I have been thinking it's all about timing and as long as I don't hint at that as my reasoning, I can wait till she testifies to the existing facts and then ask for a directed verdict based on those facts when the prosecution rests.....ugh, still a gigantic risk though :-/ (If she changes her story much, I know 2 people that are on the chamber of commerce for that city that have known me much longer, and a 3rd who is the daughter of the president of the chamber that has known who the officer is in question and they can all attest to her aggressive personality, not too mention her empty threat on my voicemail and her remarks on the video. I do understand how much of a hurdle it would be to impeach her testimony though...) Anyways, thanks for your opinion on it. It seems I couldn't even get any feedback like that from lawyers I talked to on the phone without hiring them and I even offered to pay by the hour for their time in discussing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
You need to be careful and find out your local court (I'm assuming Cook County Circuit Court) rules on directed verdicts. In some jurisdictions there are very specific timing rules on when you can file them (or restrictions on what you can do before filing one), and in some jurisdictions, if you miss the opportunity, it's waived. Let me also point out you're not going to win on one either. The standard for a directed verdict in Illinois is as follows: A directed verdict is properly entered when all of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could stand. Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510, 229 N.E.2d 504 (1967). The court has "no right" to enter a directed verdict if there is any evidence demonstrating a substantial factual dispute or where the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses or the determination regarding conflicting evidence is decisive to the outcome. Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445, 453-54, 177 Ill. Dec. 438, 603 N.E.2d 508 (1992). That standard is incredibly difficult for you to meet, and it almost never happens. Not saying you shouldn't file the motion, you should always file the motion, just saying you shouldn't waste your time expecting to win on that. -e- Also that witness testimony you're talking about presenting, if I'm understanding who is who correctly, is going to be inadmissible. But w/e we're not your attorneys, this is not advice for you to take, this is to point out that there might be a reason that your attorneys are ignoring certain routes because they simply aren't as fruitful or even possible as you think. Leif. fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jul 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
I could help you more if you were in federal court (I do mainly federal stuff in the same circuit you're in), but some of the witness testimony may have limited admissibility and often witnesses who are willing to tell you things privately are a lot less willing when they have to stand up and say the same things in open court. The impression I'm getting from this is that your lawyer didn't negotiate quite hard enough for you (he under assessed your case), but I don't think you have a very good chance at this and I want you to be aware that jail time is a very VERY real possibility if this goes south. Also, if you are going this route (impeachment and the like) you probably are going to need depositions and a lawyer. Good luck to you, but again I'm pretty sure this is a very bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
pookie posted:So because you thought I was an idiot, that makes all my information wrong? If they're teaching people that at law school then I guess that's why my friend keeps posting about the decline in actually being hired right out of law school. Sounds like you have a lovely attitude towards lawyers and the law students actively trying to help you in this thread and have no clue about the state of the legal profession in general. Also, just to warn you, pissing off the ADA is really not smart. I hope you look good in orange.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
NnamkcebNairb posted:I just got a "Failure to keep right" ticket on a multi-laned highway. Other cars were in fron of me in that lane and I could not have moved right at the time I was pulled over because there was a line of cars to my right. I am not arguing the fact of whether or not I deserved the ticket, but I do want to know if I have any chance of lowering the ticket to a no-point violation. It is my first moving violation and I have a clean record. What state are you in?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 09:14
|
|
|
My friend is in a situation and I'm trying to help direct them to the best lawyer and options for them. The short of it: Family of 6 moves from Ohio to Florida. They pay something like $1,000 to have their stuff moved by a moving company who says they will deliver in 5-6 days. Six days pass and they start calling the movers asking where their stuff is. The people who answer would say nothing but "let me try and figure it out, I'll call you back." No matter how much they would try to keep them on the phone, they would just say they weren't sure and never call them back. At the two week mark, they cancel the check, which a day later finally prompted a response. The company said, "Hey, your check bounced." and my friend responded, "No, it was cancelled, I want my stuff." The company then proceeded to say that they won't deliver until they have the money, my friend said she won't pay until she has her stuff since its already suspicious that she has had zero status and no still no stuff. She has called the BBB and the AG of Florida, but she didn't seem to make much of this. She did her own research and said that going to court would only get her the money she paid for the service back. I think that she's mistaken, I can't imagine someone being able to effectively steal your stuff and only charge your for whatever arbitrary amount they charged. 1) What options does she have, anything I can quote to tell her? 2) What type of lawyer and perhaps any recommendations for Deerfield Beach, Florida?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 12:30
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:What state are you in? I'm in NJ. I more or less just want to know the level of ease/difficulty I'm going to have at taking this to court. I'm fine with a ticket but definitely not the points. I mean I did technically leave the passing lane before the cop turned his lights on, which goes against the name of the ticket "failure to keep right", but I have no idea if that will help my case in traffic court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 12:38
|
|
|
ODC posted:My friend is in a situation and I'm trying to help direct them to the best lawyer and options for them. She wants a contract lawyer. There may be a context specific route you can go but at a minimum she should be suing for specific performance on the contract that they've failed to deliver on. Surely the company has terms and conditions that detail payment?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 12:45
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:She wants a contract lawyer. There may be a context specific route you can go but at a minimum she should be suing for specific performance on the contract that they've failed to deliver on. She had already given them the check, the just hadn't cashed it yet. Basically after two weeks, she was trying to figure out what to do and called her bank. The bank said they hadn't cashed the check yet and could stop payment on it. I'll be calling her here in a little bit to talk to her about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 13:38
|
|
|
ODC posted:She had already given them the check, the just hadn't cashed it yet. Basically after two weeks, she was trying to figure out what to do and called her bank. The bank said they hadn't cashed the check yet and could stop payment on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
ODC posted:She had already given them the check, the just hadn't cashed it yet. Basically after two weeks, she was trying to figure out what to do and called her bank. The bank said they hadn't cashed the check yet and could stop payment on it. I mean the delivery contract should state whether payment needs to be in advance or not. If it does then the best course of action is probably what gvibes posted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Not saying you shouldn't file the motion, you should always file the motion, just saying you shouldn't waste your time expecting to win on that. Thanks for the helpful info. I basically feel that uncertainty about everything I could potentially do. As you said, I would just be filing it just to have it on record, and based on what facts exist currently, there is no conflicting evidence in that area according to the all the reports and statements. I don't really expect to win on it, but the judge was very interested and sympathetic to my case and said I had one of the best motions she has seen from a person appearing pro se and that I should be proud it was better than most law students. So that's something....but I won't win on the human aspect of it, so I really need to get all my ducks in a row. (I understand people I don't hire aren't my attorneys, every choice I make is my own and I hold nobody else accountable) JudicialRestraints posted:I could help you more if you were in federal court (I do mainly federal stuff in the same circuit you're in), but some of the witness testimony may have limited admissibility and often witnesses who are willing to tell you things privately are a lot less willing when they have to stand up and say the same things in open court. I know 2 should have no problem testifying and I assumed if the officer's judgement/demeanor was called into question, people that have known her since she's worked there would be the ones to aid in proving that point. I didn't really plan on all that working out either, that's why I've been trying to decide if I have enough from recorded audio and video, and her many little errors/mixing up of numbers and addresses on all her paperwork. Your genuine words of caution have definitely given me more believable concern though, and I have realized I'll need to get a public defender, but I was hoping it could be mostly to make sure things were filed and done right and that I could still do some talking. But then again, if I do that, any appeals would not construe any of the definitions and arguments used at trial "liberally" like the pro se appeals I have seen. Those appeals seem to go much much more in-depth and don't just decide it on a technicality and disregard other arguments because of some technicality. Is there any way to have the guidance of a lawyer but still officially be considered "Pro Se"? I came to the conclusion it was not the best idea before I even started the process, but the differences of a dui supervisions are ridiculous and as a person who constantly nags anyone who drinks at all to not drive, I just am not ok with it being on my record for life. I didn't even feel what drunk was until the age of 23... I'm hoping if jail seemed to come into the fold, my friends and family would go into battle mode and get one of those iTeam's from a news show to cover my story or something, lol. My faith that the system might have a way of properly protecting the people was renewed when NM Supreme Court ruled on the initial issue I was contesting that I was informed I had no hope of winning on. Of course, the odds of Illinois working that way after convicting people in similar situations is highly unlikely, but there are other cases around the country that have been winning on similar merits, so it's clear the attitude is changing as more and more people hear about this shocking perversion of the words "actual physical control" This interpretation is quite literally the perfect example of how the whole country should do it, it addresses exactly what the legislation intended without encouraging people in those situations to risk driving. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9959167310094336341&q=state+v+sims&hl=en&as_sdt=400002&as_ylo=2010 Thoras Hammer posted:Sounds like you have a lovely attitude towards lawyers and the law students actively trying to help you in this thread and have no clue about the state of the legal profession in general. Also, just to warn you, pissing off the ADA is really not smart. I hope you look good in orange. Actually no, my friend is a law student and a good one at that. He has just been pointing out all the recent stories about the dropping percentage of students hired out of law school and how some schools are resorting to bumping all their GPA standards so it looks like students have a slightly higher grade than before. I have been given the runaround by lawyers in my area, but hey, it is the Chicago area in one of the corruption capitals of the US... I know there are good ones, I just don't know who I can trust anymore since they all seem so secretive for some reason. **Thanks for the additional help guys. It definitely is coming at the right time.**
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
I've got what I hope is a straightforward question on behalf of a friend. Is it illegal for police to use information obtained in a crime to get a warrant? A friend of mine was robbed early this year, and the police executed a search warrant at his house a month or so later based on information received from the person apprehended for invading his home. Is this legal? edit: Canada, if that matters. Robawesome fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:I've got what I hope is a straightforward question on behalf of a friend. Is it illegal for police to use information obtained in a crime to get a warrant? A friend of mine was robbed early this year, and the police executed a search warrant at his house a month or so later based on information received from the person apprehended for invading his home. Is this legal? Your answer is no (it's not illegal), because otherwise police informants would be impossible. Well actually yes and no. The police can't use information they've gathered by committing a crime but that isn't what's happened here. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Your answer is no (it's not illegal), because otherwise police informants would be impossible. But in this case it's not an informant, it's a crime they didn't have any direction in. The way I see it, without the information from the robbery suspect (who likely got a deal for his information), they wouldn't have any information to obtain a warrant. edit to your edit: the police didn't commit a crime, but this certainly wasn't an informant before he robbed my friend. It doesn't sound like you're sure of your answer in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:But in this case it's not an informant, it's a crime they didn't have any direction in. The way I see it, without the information from the robbery suspect (who likely got a deal for his information), they wouldn't have any information to obtain a warrant. I'm not sure about your logic about information from someone who isn't an informant being illegal when by definition that's how they become an informant. I'm not a Canadian lawyer and rules on admissability vary across jurisdiction but as a general rule as long as the police themselves haven't done anything dodgy then it's admissible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm not sure about your logic about information from someone who isn't an informant being illegal when by definition that's how they become an informant. I suppose you're correct, that most informants don't become one by submitting a resume. It just sounds strange to me in this case that they are able to break into my friend's house because he reported a robbery. (What I mean by this is if he never called it in, they never would have been looking for the individual that robbed him, and thus never learned of the contents of the robbery) How did they know the know the information they received was credible? A credible criminal informant to me is somebody who has been proven reliable. Thank you for your input, though. My friend has already secured a lawyer, but i'm trying to encourage him to take the case to trial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:I've got what I hope is a straightforward question on behalf of a friend. Is it illegal for police to use information obtained in a crime to get a warrant? A friend of mine was robbed early this year, and the police executed a search warrant at his house a month or so later based on information received from the person apprehended for invading his home. Is this legal? I don't know Canadian law, but here are some ideas your friend might want to talk to his Canadian lawyer about : Staleness - the information that formed the basis for the warrant was a month+ old; depending on what to police sought to seize, there may be no reason to believe that the item(s) would still be there. reliability - the burglar is not reliable, so the police would need some additional evidence to corroborate what the burglar said. The most obvious hypothetical where these concerns wouldn't apply would be if the laptop the burglar took had kiddie porn on it. The laptop corroborates what the burglar is saying, and the likelihood of a larger stash (plus, "think of the children!") might be enough to get over the staleness bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 19:48
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:... and thus never learned of the contents of the robbery... Wait a second. Are you saying your friend called the cops on someone who stole drugs [or other illegal items] from him, because lol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I don't know Canadian law, but here are some ideas your friend might want to talk to his Canadian lawyer about : Thank you very much for your reply. I will surely note those terms as I believe they directly apply. If it helps, it's drugs I'm referring to and not a laptop, so I suppose it's not unreasonable for police to assume the staleness doesn't apply to a drug house but reliability of a first-time informant should be an issue. edit: mboger yes, but obviously he didn't claim it was drugs that were taken from him. It also occurred in a security building with cameras so the landlord would have reported it had he not. Perhaps content wasn't the term I should have used
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:Thank you very much for your reply. I will surely note those terms as I believe they directly apply. If it helps, it's drugs I'm referring to and not a laptop, so I suppose it's not unreasonable for police to assume the staleness doesn't apply to a drug house but reliability of a first-time informant should be an issue. I want you to bear in mind that you just told us your friend was in possession of drugs on a public forum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I want you to bear in mind that you just told us your friend was in possession of drugs on a public forum. thanks for pointing that out. He's not contending what was found in the search, it's a matter of the search being illegal. Haven't you ever heard of a case of drugs being thrown out for illegal search? You're really not contributing here. edit: not trying to be rude, but am I supposed to be worried about the internet detectives tracking me down, somehow figuring out which of the undoubtedly many recent drug cases in my town my friend is in, and then submitting this information to the Crown? That's quite the stretch, and you've ignored the details of the case I'm asking about, such as an illegal search, in which the evidence would be thrown out if it were to bring the administration of justice into disrepute blah blah Robawesome fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 20:31
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:thanks for pointing that out. He's not contending what was found in the search, it's a matter of the search being illegal. Haven't you ever heard of a case of drugs being thrown out for illegal search? Not in the UK (for warrant reasons). You'd be laughed back to the cells for making that argument. e: I'd be willing to wager that there's nothing wrong with that warrant. Your friend needs a lawyer and he needs one right now and not having one is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:thanks for pointing that out. He's not contending what was found in the search, it's a matter of the search being illegal. Haven't you ever heard of a case of drugs being thrown out for illegal search? You're really not contributing here. How was the search illegal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
It's mighty dangerous to assume that the exclusionary rule applies in other jurisdictions the same way it applies in the U.S., since the rule has developed over a long period of time in each country in historically specific ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Not in the UK (for warrant reasons). You'd be laughed back to the cells for making that argument. alright, time to read before posting. I've already mentioned he has a lawyer. also, if you like, I can link you to several supreme court of canada rulings in which large amounts of drugs were excluded based on illegal search and seizure, both of vehicle and home. edit: Loopyface, hypothetically you get robbed for your TV and the thief also takes a bag of weed from your kitchen table. When apprehended, he tells the police about the bag of weed and then break in your door for drug dealing based solely on that thief's information. Is that cool with you? Robawesome fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 20:36
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:alright, time to read before posting. I've already mentioned he has a lawyer. Wait, if your friend has a lawyer and is recieving legal advice why are you on the internet asking random people for legal information while disclosing and making admissions on key elements of your friends case? PS; I would nevertheless enjoy reading these cases if you could link them
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Wait, if your friend has a lawyer and is recieving legal advice why are you on the internet asking random people for legal information while disclosing and making admissions on key elements of your friends case? ugh, really? He has just retained a lawyer, and has not had the time to have a meeting with him, so I'm trying to gather some preliminary information. What key elements have I disclosed, exactly? You don't know my friends name, the type or quantity of drugs, really any key elements. You're really trying to insinuate I should be scared of the SA anonymous here, it's pretty ridiculous. I don't have time to look up examples at the moment but i'll respond later this evening with examples. If you have some time, here's a link with lots of information about Canada's Search laws, including when evidence would be tossed. There are many links to cases as well, but i'll still find you some specific examples when I get some free time. Robawesome fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:ugh, really? He has just retained a lawyer, and has not had the time to have a meeting with him, so I'm trying to gather some preliminary information. What key elements have I disclosed, exactly? You don't know my friends name, the type or quantity of drugs, really any key elements. You're really trying to insinuate I should be scared of the SA anonymous here, it's pretty ridiculous. Life lesson: Never, ever discuss the detail of ongoing or potential litigation with anyone other than your lawyer. Nothing good can come of it. Neither you nor your friend should be trying to do legal research, that is what your friend's qualified lawyer is there to do. Your friend will explain the situation to him and be given advice. That advice is better than anything either you or anyone on this thread can give you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:Life lesson: Never, ever discuss the detail of ongoing or potential litigation with anyone other than your lawyer. Nothing good can come of it. What legal qualifications do you have? The purpose of this thread is for people to ask legal questions that they expect to get rough, not necessarily qualified advice and guidelines for. All you're doing is trying to repeatedly reinforce that some terrible net detectives are going to track him down and ruin his case, all over facts you perceive to be important. There's nothing wrong with people doing legal research, if they didn't the police would just walk all over people's rights because they don't know they exist. Please stop posting in regards to my questions if you can't offer anything other than "oh man i'd be worried about SA ruining your life" I'd like to again thank joat mon for providing the only response that was actually useful. Robawesome fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 21:11
|
|