|
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. I think all he's done is say that the police found drugs in his friend's house, which the police already know. Unless I missed an edit, I don't think he's revealed anything re: dominion and control of the drugs. fake edit: Alchenar is not trying to dick with you, he/she's looking out for your friend's best interests. In your case, since we're taking about a warrant, all that information is stuff that police say they already know, so I don't see a problem asking for more info on the warrant.(if you have it) On the other hand, if you say, "no, the drugs weren't in his backpack, they were in his wallet that the burglar took," you should shut up. Chill, and realize that when you ask for free opinions, you'll get them. You don't have to follow anyone's advice, but most of the regular posters here will not try to lead you astray. You don't know my qualifications, and even if you did, I might be lying. I'm not your attorney, I'm not your friend's attorney, Alchenar and I are just saying "these are some areas of concern in the fact pattern you've given us." Take the free advice you've solicited or don't - but don't get your hackles up if you don't agree with it. pretending that United States law applies, Based solely on what you've said, your friend should win a motion to suppress. btw, that it was drugs strengthens the staleness argument. If you know, and if it won't compromise your friend, What, exactly, was the basis for the warrant? If the burglar got caught with a baggie and told the police it wasn't his, but he got it from this house he burgled, good. If he took your friends backpack with his student ID and the backpack had the drugs in it, not so good. Did the police do anything to corroborate the burglar? Did they do a trash pull and find similar drugs/ paraphernalia for similar drugs? Did they observe a large number of short-term term visitors at your friend's house? Did everything he said he lost match exactly what the burglar had on him, except for the drugs? There's got to be a 'the rest of the story' angle to this. (Or a 'Canadian law is totally different' angle) Unless you're in a tiny jurisdiction where the authorities just don't have much experience with warrants, there's got to be something more to it. again, pretending that United States law applies
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
The law on exclusion of "bad" evidence has changed significantly in like the last year in Canada. R v. Grant and R v. Harrison both deal with the exclusion of evidence obtained unconstitutionally and significantly broaden the admissibility of tainted evidence. The test is basically how badly the administration / repute of justice would be tarnished by the evidence being thrown out weighed against policy concerns and how egregious the police actions were. On the facts as they were related in the thread earlier I would not bet on whatever was seized being excluded joat mon posted:questions Don't answer this stuff terrorist ambulance fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
joat mon posted:pretending that United States law applies I again appreciate the response, and I wasn't trying to sound like I don't appreciate any (useful) advice that people post, whether it's what I want to hear or not. It just seemed like (Alchenar) was not contributing at all, only urging me to shut up because the crown prosecutors could be reading this very page, or somebody could connect some very vague dots. I'm not certain enough about the details of the police interrogation or what the thief was caught with, it's basically "word on the street" that he's been bragging about getting away with robbery by being a rat. The information I have seen indicates that they executed the warrant the same day they got the information, and it's accompanied by a "worthless" crime stoppers call (his lawyer used this term), so the police did literally no investigation, just went on the word of criminal. What "rest of the story" are you looking for? I know i'll be deemed a police-hater for this statement but the local police are pretty corrupt and don't anticipate people going to trial to fight their infringements. Said individual also has an infant son which they did not know about prior to breaking in his door. sorry, ambulance, why shouldn't I answer? Even if I had specified which province I reside in, there are so many local drug charges that it would be a herculean effort to find out who i'm talking about, not that i've mentioned anything my friend isn't willing to contend anyway. He won't argue there weren't drugs in his house, just that the police didn't have a reliable source of information. I understand it's up to a judge to decide if the evidence is admissable, so whether he's got a great case or not it could still come down to a bad judge. Robawesome fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Jul 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:I again appreciate the response, and I wasn't trying to sound like I don't appreciate any (useful) advice that people post, whether it's what I want to hear or not. It just seemed like (Alchenar) was not contributing at all, only urging me to shut up because the crown prosecutors could be reading this very page, or somebody could connect some very vague dots. No, they're right. There's no information we can give you besides what you already know now -- your friend needs a good lawyer yesterday. You can't give us any information that will help, and can very possibly offer information that will hurt your friend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:No, they're right. There's no information we can give you besides what you already know now -- your friend needs a good lawyer yesterday. You can't give us any information that will help, and can very possibly offer information that will hurt your friend. I understand. I didn't expect it to be a black-and-white scenario, but it doesn't sound logical to me that police can literally break down your door and search your residence based on the word of a thief/criminal (not reliable criminal informant) edit: I'm tempted to edit out all the posts regarding this question but I still don't feel I've provided any real information that could be harmful to my friend. Thanks for the responses everybody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:I understand. I didn't expect it to be a black-and-white scenario, but it doesn't sound logical to me that police can literally break down your door and search your residence based on the word of a thief/criminal (not reliable criminal informant) Just so you know, it really isn't paranoid to be worried about internet detective dickery. All it takes is one bored and malicious goon to narrow you down to a city/town (easy enough if you've left an IP lying around somewhere) and then a polite email from the local prosecutor's office to Lowtax asking for your personal details (which he will have to give up). The timescale for goons to win a 'come and find me if you can' internet challenge is anything from 5 minutes to 30 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Just so you know, it really isn't paranoid to be worried about internet detective dickery. All it takes is one bored and malicious goon to narrow you down to a city/town (easy enough if you've left an IP lying around somewhere) and then a polite email from the local prosecutor's office to Lowtax asking for your personal details (which he will have to give up). and what is that prosecutor getting in touch with me for? To ask me what my friend has told me about this incident? I still think you're being unrealistic in regards to the amazing SA goons tracking down [me] in [Canada] regarding my [friend's] [drug] case. I'm not disputing there's a legitimate concern with being tracked down, but how do they figure out which "friend" I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:and what is that prosecutor getting in touch with me for? To ask me what my friend has told me about this incident? I still think you're being unrealistic in regards to the amazing SA goons tracking down [me] in [Canada] regarding my [friend's] [drug] case. I'm not disputing there's a legitimate concern with being tracked down, but how do they figure out which "friend" I'm talking about? I can't imagine there are too many ongoing cases that match the facts you've given in your local area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I can't imagine there are too many ongoing cases that match the facts you've given in your local area. You'd be surprised how many local drug warrants are executed then.I don't think the general public has access to legal disclosures, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
Florida goon with questions about home ownership and legal responsibility of utilities unpaid. I work for a privately-owned utility and am witness to an increasing number of theft cases in rented homes - the tenants stop paying on the account, get cut off, start stealing service but generally skip town shortly thereafter. If we can't verify the account holder as living there, and if the owner can't properly document the tenants as living there, my company can collect any unauthorized usage from said owner before we agree to restore utilities to the property. None of my direct management has adequately explained the legal matters behind this (nor do they seem to agree on the answers). Every instance has it's own specifics, but I figure the law is going to apply the same way. - Does a lease absolutely have to be notarized to be accepted as legal proof, i.e. to show an owner has no responsibility for what happened during the lease dates? Are there specific rules about when it was notarized? - How does a lease differ from a month-to-month agreement? We're usually advised to not accept monthly rental agreements, for the record. - If the owner can't track down the tenant, do they genuinely have any other way to to file a claim - can they bring legal action against my company for attempting to collect a debt that although they didn't directly cause, they don't have evidence to prove they didn't, either? Keep in mind we don't send a bill to the owner. We inform anyone asking about service to the property 'X amount is the cost to open an account at this address.' Also, could someone please clarify the specific law about utilities and children? So many times I get customers who threaten to sue because 'it's illegal to cut service off when children live in the home.' I have heard having utilities cut off can be grounds to have children removed from a home, but that's clearly customer fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
Is driving through a parking lot in a "high crime and drug area" a reasonable cause for a cop to pull you over?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 14:49
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:Is driving through a parking lot in a "high crime and drug area" a reasonable cause for a cop to pull you over? What time of day is it? What condition is the car in? (Any lights out?) What sort of driving are we talking about? Fast driving? Really slow driving? Driving that involves a little swerving? Cutting across parking spaces? Are the headlights on? The standard that must be met for Terry stops and the standard for actual arrests are both very fact dependent. ...and the answer is almost always "Yes, the cop was allowed to pull you over."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
entris posted:What time of day is it? Noon. No broken equipment, clean washed car. Probably 10-15 mph going through the parking lot to the exit. The entrance is one way. No cutting through spaces. No swerving. During the stop he asked me why I was nervous. I told him because I didn't know why he pulled me over, and he gave his reason for me being in a "high crime and drug area." Checked my license and let me go and told me he didn't believe my story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:Noon. No broken equipment, clean washed car. Probably 10-15 mph going through the parking lot to the exit. The entrance is one way. No cutting through spaces. No swerving. If he let you go, what's the problem? And I would bet that his stop would hold up in court, if he had arrested you on something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 15:11
|
|
|
entris posted:If he let you go, what's the problem? I was just curious, the whole stop was weird. I've been pulled over before but the reasons were always more concrete than being in a bad area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:I was just curious, the whole stop was weird. I've been pulled over before but the reasons were always more concrete than being in a bad area. Yeah, I don't think he could say just that in his testimony to the court, but he wouldn't. He would throw in a couple of other factors. Also, is your skin color non-white? That's not an acceptable factor for the court, of course, but it is definitely one of the real reasons that cops pull people over in high crime areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
Lenins Potato posted:During the stop he asked me why I was nervous. Haha, I love that. What a loving prick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
entris posted:He would throw in a couple of other factors. Nice car in bad neighborhood Driving too fast Driving too slow failed to signal right/left turn upon entering parking lot not parking in parking lot occupant's 'appearance' (can't say race) doesn't match neighborhood Looking like you know where you are going Looking like you don't know where you're going remained calm upon seeing cop appeared nervous upon seeing cop made 'furtive movements' waited too long to stop after being signalled to do so pro- or anti- cop/authority/patriotic bumper stickers dirty/obstructed/illegible tag/mirror/inspection sticker circumventing traffic signals by cutting through parking lot been observed driving through parking lot before put on your Kafka hat and you can probably think of a few more...
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 16:58
|
|
|
^^plus those "credible reasons" the cop might use^^entris posted:If he let you go, what's the problem? I've been reading case law for months on the issue of legal and illegal search and seizure, and I can say that it shouldn't hold up in most courts in the US, but if it did in the trial court and the defense properly brought it up in their appeal, it should be reversed on appeal. It's right on the line because a cop could say you swerved a little over some line and that might be enough to make it stick... PoOKiE! fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jul 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:I can say You can say a lot of things, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:You can say a lot of things, I'm sure. He's actually right here though. There needs to be a reason other than 'crime control' for random stops and making a seizure in a bad neighborhood needs to be based upon something other than 'just doesn't fit in' (at least I think, my professor didn't really give us a case cite when he said it). He's also right about the part where the judge would uphold it anyway. 'driving erratically' followed by 'acting nervous' is all you need.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:He's actually right here though. There needs to be a reason other than 'crime control' for random stops and making a seizure in a bad neighborhood needs to be based upon something other than 'just doesn't fit in' (at least I think, my professor didn't really give us a case cite when he said it). Making a seizure in a bad neighborhood needs probable cause, but making a terry stop, however, doesn't (no matter what neighborhood - in fact, easier in a bad neighborhood to get mere suspicion). And if there's a valid pretext from a minor traffic violation, that's OK too. Also don't conflate crime control checkpoints (generally not OK), with orders to heavily patrol a specific area and pull over even for the most minimal violations or suspicions (much closer to OK).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 06:44
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Making a seizure in a bad neighborhood needs probable cause, but making a terry stop, however, doesn't (no matter what neighborhood - in fact, easier in a bad neighborhood to get mere suspicion). And if there's a valid pretext from a minor traffic violation, that's OK too. If the cop had reasonable suspicion stemming from something other than 'you don't belong here' he obviously could make a terry stop. I used the checkpoint legal rationale because the case in question seemed to be a 100% random stop from what the cop said (this is a bad area so we're stopping everyone). As a cop flashing lights is inherently a seizure, the cop needed some permissible reason for his suspicion. Of course, my professor may have just been wrong in saying that a nice car in a bad neighborhood is an impermissible reason, he kinda sucked a lot and taught us really poorly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 13:59
|
|
|
It's not dispositive in of itself, but it counts towards reasonable suspicion. Plus, there's all sorts of things the OP couldn't have known. Was a crime reported with a similar vehicle? Have there been a rash of drug deals in the area with nice cars, where they aren't normally? Did he have out of state (this is canada right? Province?) plates and the cop knew that most deals in this area are normally conducted in cars with out of state plates? etc. There's no way the OP can know these things at the time of the stop (or maybe even ever), but they factor into a reasonable suspicion/probable cause analysis. -e- also, IIRC the checkpoint thing just got relitigated in DC recently, so I don't know that the issue is entirely settled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:
...and you're not a lawyer so you need to be quiet in this thread, thanks. I think you've contributed quite enough of your untrained analysis and opinion. No offense, but reading case law does not mean you know what you are talking about. I wince every time I hear a layperson say "But I read this case/statute that says _________." It's not that simple. Laypeople can be right about the law, sometimes, but it's more luck than it is anything else. I know that sounds a little snarky, sorry. But hell, I don't give legal impressions for areas of law that I know nothing about, and I am trained to read cases, statutes, and regulations. For example, you will never see me pipe up about anything IP-related. I could go find cases if I wanted, but I don't know that area of law and I'd be bullshitting the thread. If you are a layperson, you're in an even worse position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
entris posted:...and you're not a lawyer so you need to be quiet in this thread, thanks. I think you've contributed quite enough of your untrained analysis and opinion. I think you'll find the only things I have been speculating about and giving opinion not based on known facts by myself has been in relation to my own case because there are areas I have heard many numerous different interpretations. The couple times I have given advice have been because I have been through it in the past in the same state as the OP, and because I have studied every angle of the other poster's question. Yes I knew very little about the "real" truth 8 months ago, but if you are not working, you're a goon that's addicted to finding out correct information, and you are trying to potentially clear something from your record you feel wrongly convicted for...you learn a lot, and very fast. He asked a hypothetical question. I had a hypothetical answer based on extensive research I have done over all that time as well as information from my dad's employee who is a retired police chief of 30+years. If I gave him an uninformed opinion I read out of a fortune cookie or something, then yes PLEASE bust my balls. Otherwise, give me the benefit of the doubt that a "lay person" does not always mean "OMG DON'T LISTEN TO ME I COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:
I actually said quote:Laypeople can be right about the law, sometimes, but it's more luck than it is anything else. So I have admitted that lay people can be correct, although rarely. You have said quote:I've been reading case law for months on the issue of legal and illegal search and seizure, and I can say that it shouldn't hold up in most courts in the US, but if it did in the trial court and the defense properly brought it up in their appeal, it should be reversed on appeal. Ok, here's the thing. 4th Amendment analysis, especially for determining the legality of a stop by a cop, is tricky and very fact dependent. The other legal people in here all responded by asking questions for more facts, or by pointing out that other facts would sway the analysis; we understood that the OP's question couldn't be answered as framed. You, on the other hand, offered up a conclusion and dressed it up as expertise by referencing your months of untrained case law research. This is why you need to stop. Your conclusion may or may no be correct, that's not the point. The point is that you don't know how to reach a proper legal conclusion, and in this case you jumped the gun. That's not helpful here. entris fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Jul 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
Ripped from the headlines! http://jalopnik.com/5589270/maryland-judge-decrees-pontiac-g8-gt-tail-lights-illegal If you were advising this guy, what would you tell him to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 07:51
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Ripped from the headlines! Pay the fine. Stop living in rural areas with rural judges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Ripped from the headlines! Well, from reading the story, it looks like the stock lights violates statute in Maryland. If I were advising him, I'd probably suggest he start formally talking to Pontiac about getting reimbursed if that's what he wants, or suing them. In Maryland we have the tort of negligent misrepresentation, which is probably the closest thing that would apply here. Whether he would win or not is another story - Maryland is not really a plaintiff friendly state, and this is not really an easy tort to meet. -e- also might wanna change your lights or stop driving pontiacs so you don't get ticketed again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:I think you'll find the only things I have been speculating about and giving opinion not based on known facts by myself has been in relation to my own case because there are areas I have heard many numerous different interpretations. You know in Top Gun? Where Ice tells Maverick he's worse than the enemy because he's dangerous to his own side? You're like that. Except not cool. And you don't fly jets. You just give poo poo advice about stuff you know nothing about. Like Tom Cruise. Advising on mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 09:26
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Ripped from the headlines! Get the dealer to swap in/ fab up some 'Maryland legal' taillights. Appeal the ticket and argue Federal supremacy. See if NHTSA wants to intervene. Go to Federal court and get an injunction. Federal regulation has pretty much preempted state law in this area since the mid 1960s, though some stuff, like headlamps, has been Federally regulated since the 1940s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 13:03
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Maryland is not really a plaintiff friendly state PG County and Baltimore City tend to be pretty friendly to plaintiffs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 15:36
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Get the dealer to swap in/ fab up some 'Maryland legal' taillights. Can't state regulations usually be more restrictive?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
Well, I think it's about time I file a claim over an unpaid final paycheck. Here is my story :  About 3 weeks ago, I had to leave my position with a security company because of a job opportunity in Taiwan. I wasn't able to give the normal 2 weeks notice, but I was able to give them 48 hours notice. Before I left, asked if there would be any problems with my final paycheck and they said it would be directly deposited into my account. 3 weeks and numerous E-mails later, I still have yet to be paid. I keep on asking "Did you mail out the check? Is there a problem of some sort? Do I need to fax some documents or make some phone calls?" and all they keep on saying is "we're looking into the matter." I can live without the ~$600, but it is quite a dent in my budget. I plan on dropping the "file a claim" bomb in hopes that it gets them motivated to figure out why I haven't been paid yet, but is this just a bluff on my part? Or can i actually file a claim in Oregon (state of employment) from Taiwan?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
King of the Cows posted:PG County and Baltimore City tend to be pretty friendly to plaintiffs. perhaps more so than the rest of the state, but on a whole the state is pretty pro-defendant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Can't state regulations usually be more restrictive? Where did he buy the car?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Where did he buy the car? Would it matter if he bought in or out of state? SWATJester posted:I'd probably suggest he start formally talking to Pontiac about getting reimbursed if that's what he wants, or suing them. The reasoning on that tort would be that GM did not do anything to check whether its car was legal according to Maryland laws, and authorized a dealer to sell it to a customer who assumed it was legal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Can't state regulations usually be more restrictive? Only if state regulations haven't been explicitly or impliedly preempted by Federal regulations. The ultimate source of the doctrine is the Constitution's Supremacy clause. In the case of vehicle safety regulations (including lamp/lens/signal requirements), the preemption is explicit: 49 U.S.C. 30103 posted:b.PREEMPTION The guy with the G8 GT might also try to find a state or local power player with a G8 GT and have him/her put a bug in the locals' ear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Would it matter if he bought in or out of state? It's a variant of a standard negligence tort, basically that GM had a duty to the customer (either to sell him a car that was in compliance with state standards, or to warn him that the car did not meet state standards), and that their commercial misrepresentation breached that duty, causing damages. The question ends up being whether such a duty exists. It's not a slam dunk case, but it's one of the more direct ways of getting any kind of substantial money out of GM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 21:55
|
|