|
Porky_Oboe posted:Thanks for the help chaps, but I've spoken to her today and its getting sorted. A significant portion of the law, including almost every waiver you sign (and some limitations on warranties) exist only to confuse people who don't know the law into not suing. A good portion of that poo poo will not stand up in Court (disclaimers are notoriously hard to find valid), but they're just there so someone in risk management can push you around.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
I'm in the UK, but I'd be interested in answers concerning US law too, since this is purely hypothetical and I would never dream of doing this: can one be done for drink driving if you're above the normal prescribed limit, but driving only on private land?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 17:03
|
|
|
Anjow posted:I'm in the UK, but I'd be interested in answers concerning US law too, since this is purely hypothetical and I would never dream of doing this: can one be done for drink driving if you're above the normal prescribed limit, but driving only on private land? Why is the cop on private land to cite you in the first place? Like are we talking a parking lot or a gated compound?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
Anjow posted:I'm in the UK, but I'd be interested in answers concerning US law too, since this is purely hypothetical and I would never dream of doing this: can one be done for drink driving if you're above the normal prescribed limit, but driving only on private land?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Anjow posted:I'm in the UK, but I'd be interested in answers concerning US law too, since this is purely hypothetical and I would never dream of doing this: can one be done for drink driving if you're above the normal prescribed limit, but driving only on private land? DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND HAVE NO REASON TO BE POSTING IN THIS THREAD This is purely anecdotal, but when I was a kid, we lived in a very rural area with lots of farm land and it was quite common to see 12-15 year olds driving pick ups and tractors on their family's private land (I can't comment on whether they were drunk or not, though...heh). I don't know if it was legal or if it was just ignored by law enforcement since no one was getting hurt and it was pretty necessary for the farmers to have their kids helping them out. Also, I worked at a private airport when I was 15 and they had no problem with me driving the jet fuel tanker around the tarmac without a license, even though you'd probably need a CDL or something to drive one on the street. Again, not sure if this is because it was private or just general apathy on everyone's part. So at least in my experience in rural areas, either not all road laws apply on private land or LEO are pretty chill about it. Edit: Although DUIs are pursued with prejudice here, so underaged kids might be viewed a lot differently than drunk drivers on private land. Epic Doctor Fetus fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Sep 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
mboger posted:DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND HAVE NO REASON TO BE POSTING IN THIS THREAD Farm license.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Farm license. Ahh, that makes sense. What's the age minimum for those? Also, does that mean it was just apathy in my airport case?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
It depends on the statute, but most statutes are written to allow it. Of course, if the officer was not authorized to be on that land in the first place, you may be able to beat it at trial simply by suppressing enough evidence, but that's fact-dependent and probably unlikely. Simple answer: don't drink and drive on any property.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1988/cukpga_19880052_en_2#pt1-pb2-l1g9:quote:4 Driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs. The laws on being in control of a motor vehicle only apply on roads and public places. You can do whatever you want on private property (subject to the whole 'it won't get you out of civil liability' disclaimer) including but not limited to driving without a license, on drink, on drugs and whilst having sex. On the other hand if a policeman reasonably believes that you've been drink driving on public land he can follow you literally anywhere in order to get a breath/blood sample. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Sep 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
Oh. I missed the part where he said he was in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
mboger posted:DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND HAVE NO REASON TO BE POSTING IN THIS THREAD I'm not sure if the laws are written to allow drunk driving on private land, but you're right about traffic laws being substantially loosened on private land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Simple answer: don't drink and drive on any property. That's not really an answer though, because my question wasn't "I fancy getting hammered and driving around in a car park, is that okay?". SWATJester posted:Oh. I missed the part where he said he was in the UK. Doesn't matter, I'm interested in answers for elsewhere too. Just interested in the issue in general. Alchenar posted:The laws on being in control of a motor vehicle only apply on roads and public places. You can do whatever you want on private property (subject to the whole 'it won't get you out of civil liability' disclaimer) including but not limited to driving without a license, on drink, on drugs and whilst having sex. This is what I thought may be a point of contention. I know here in the UK council traffic wardens can give parking tickets for publicly accessible parts of private land (example), so I wondered if perhaps an open private area would be counted as public for these purposes. In my question I didn't specify open/closed-off because I wondered if there would be different answers for each - perhaps I should have said that in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
Anjow posted:This is what I thought may be a point of contention. I know here in the UK council traffic wardens can give parking tickets for publicly accessible parts of private land (example), so I wondered if perhaps an open private area would be counted as public for these purposes. In my question I didn't specify open/closed-off because I wondered if there would be different answers for each - perhaps I should have said that in the first place. That case really came down to a fine legal point: he was parked on the pavement which was technically on his land but where there was a public right of way. A 'public place' means more that publicly owned land, it means a place where the public have a right to go. As long as you are exercising sufficient control over your private land (ie. your private airport with the 15 year old driving the fuel truck might allow public visitors on the provision that they don't go running out onto the tarmac) you should be fine. The best example is go-karting. A go-kart track is a prime example of motor vehicle use on private land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
Anjow posted:This is what I thought may be a point of contention. I know here in the UK council traffic wardens can give parking tickets for publicly accessible parts of private land (example), so I wondered if perhaps an open private area would be counted as public for these purposes. In my question I didn't specify open/closed-off because I wondered if there would be different answers for each - perhaps I should have said that in the first place. Yes, the courts in the US treat private parking lots like grocery stores, bars, etc, like public property if it is open to be used freely by the general public. That's the reason I was approached by police while napping in a parking lot where sections of it were private(part I was on) and other parts were public. To stop someone on private land to investigate for DUI, all that really is needed is observation of any signs that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were committing a crime. That's the reason people have been arrested listening to the radio in their driveway when an officer can see a beer can in or around the car and a person inside it as they drive by. *I'm not a lawyer, this isn't advice. I talk in general terms to the issues I have researched for my own legal problems, but obviously things may be different in your state/county* VVV Haha thanks, I loved that guy as a kid. 
PoOKiE! fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Sep 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:*I'm not a lawyer, this isn't advice. I talk in general terms to the issues I have researched for my own legal problems, but obviously things may be different in your state/county* Every time you post legal advice, I imagine it's this character speaking: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Every time you post legal advice, I imagine it's this character speaking: Internet high-five for whoever buys him an angry red avatar with that as the picture and the caption 'I took some bad legal advice once and I'm here to return the favour!'
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Internet high-five for whoever buys him an angry red avatar with that as the picture and the caption 'I took some bad legal advice once and I'm here to return the favour!' Oh come on... If anyone can point out some fundamental flaw to what I said I would like to hear it. Since I know you guys don't like speculation on things that aren't clearly defined by statute and case law, I have kept things simple and general when somebody poses a question I know. If I'm wrong, why was I (and many others) arrested for the exact issue he's asking about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
Hey legal goons, I had a quick question about hiring an attorney that I hope someone can help me with. I got a speeding ticket today and I'm trying to figure out how to sort it out. I'm going to get an attorney and try to keep from getting or reduce the amount of points on my license/insurance. Therein lies the problem. I previously had worked with an attorney in another area on a non-traffic-related issue, and he was basically worthless and ended up ripping me off for a several hundred dollars while I did all the actual work myself. As a result, I'm sort of nervous about selecting a lawyer. I saw the bit in the OP about Bar Association referrals but how do I keep from hiring another deadbeat attorney? Is it just a crapshoot? If anyone has any suggestions/links to some sort of lawyer review site or something, I would greatly appreciate it. This is in Wake County, North Carolina if it matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
two forty posted:Hey legal goons, I had a quick question about hiring an attorney that I hope someone can help me with. Call Glenn Gerding. He's in Chapel Hill. We worked together doing criminal defense appeals in the late 90s/early 00s. I'd trust myself or my family with him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Call Glenn Gerding. He's in Chapel Hill. We worked together doing criminal defense appeals in the late 90s/early 00s. I'd trust myself or my family with him. Thank you, I'll give him a call tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
tl;dr attempted to move into apartment yesterday, door was locked, was not given key, management closed, called locksmith, $250 bill. Who is responsible? Yesterday evening I came to my new apartment at 5:30pm to move in. The cleaners were still there so I said I'll come back in an hour. I come back at 6:45pm and the door knob to my apartment door is locked and I was not given a key for it. I was given 4 keys (apartment exterior, apartment interior deadbolt, mailbox and the last doesn't go to any door in my apartment). I called management and they were closed. I called management's emergency number and they said they do not offer lockout services at all (despite being given the wrong key). They said call a locksmith and or wait till tomorrow. I ended up calling a locksmith who charged $250 to unlock the door. I call management around 9pm and left a voice mail explaining that I need to be reimbursed for these expenses. Legally, where do I stand? They are responsible for the bill, correct? The state is Massachusetts. Thanks. Melting Eggs fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Sep 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 14:21
|
|
|
Melting Eggs posted:I was given 4 keys (apartment exterior, apartment interior deadbolt, mailbox and the last doesn't go to any door in my apartment). Did you try the interior deadbolt key in the locked key slot? Sometimes doors are set up like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 14:36
|
|
|
Yes. No key I had would open the handle. Come to find out after moving all my stuff in, there was a disassembled door handle thrown on top of the cabinets. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
I have another question, this time specifically concerning the UK. I've seen the 'Don't Talk to Cops' video on youtube, but I wondered how much of it applies to the UK? Is it still the best advice to just be polite but not say anything other than the details you're required to give (AFAIK this is your name and address)? Or can an explanation sometimes help? I'm not in any trouble with the police, nor am I involved with anything that makes me think I might be soon. I'm just interested (been watching 'reality' cop shows). Sir Sidney Poitier fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Sep 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:
Oh and his non-legal non-advice was pretty sound in this case, at least for the states I've been in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
Anjow posted:I have another question, this time specifically concerning the UK. I've seen the 'Don't Talk to Cops' video on youtube, but I wondered how much of it applies to the UK? Is it still the best advice to just be polite but not say anything other than the details you're required to give (AFAIK this is your name and address)? Or can an explanation sometimes help? Does not apply. Ok really it's more 'don't talk to the police until you've spoken to the duty solicitor or your lawyer'. But our rules on how far legal protections continue and what police officers are allowed to do in interrogations are very different (and in a word, 'better'). Ultimately if you don't have an explanation for the police by the time you get to interview stage then whatever you say at trial the CPS counsel will turn to the jury in summation and say "the reason he didn't just tell the police this in the first place and save himself all this hassle is because it's a complete fabrication". That always looks incredibly bad and juries never buy the appeal to the right of silence. Make sure you haven't actually done anything wrong, then be as helpful and co-operative as possible as early as possible. PS. Under The Police and Criminal Evidence Act a policeman cannot under ordinary circumstances ask you questions if he suspects you of a crime. He has to caution you first and then take you back to a station for an interview. Basically unless you are about to blurt out a confession if you haven't been cautioned you'd be safe to talk to them. tl;dr: If you have an innocent explanation then by and large you are safer the earlier you present it. On the other hand things are much worse for you than in the US if you clam up and only start talking at trial. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Sep 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
Thanks, good answer. Though it seems annoying that someone can be condemned by a jury based on them wanting to seek legal counsel before talking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 18:46
|
|
|
nm posted:Oh and his non-legal non-advice was pretty sound in this case, at least for the states I've been in. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 18:55
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile (This doesn't mean he should be giving non-advice)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
Anjow posted:Thanks, good answer. Though it seems annoying that someone can be condemned by a jury based on them wanting to seek legal counsel before talking. That is basically the only answer that a jury will be fine with 'I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong' because they can accept that motivation. If you talk to your lawyer and still remain silent then you had better hope that the CPS case is extremely shakey.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
nm posted:Jesus christ, how old are you? I was wondering that myself. Futurama isn't that old.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
The Law School thread brought up an interesting point about being stopped by the police and being asked to submit to a search. Is the answer to this question always "No thanks?" If I say No, what happens?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 13:23
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:The Law School thread brought up an interesting point about being stopped by the police and being asked to submit to a search. Is the answer to this question always "No thanks?" If I say No, what happens? Well, that depends. You can say "I don't consent to any searches." This does not, however, mean they cannot search your vehicle. It simply means they have to have a reasonable suspicion for doing so. If you have contraband in your car, by all means, refuse consent. No point making it easier for the police. As for what to do if you have done nothing wrong, that's really a personal preference. Some people will simply consent to a search so they can get it over with and go about their day. Other people will go full tilt "I HAVE RIGHTS" just to make a point. Nothing wrong with this approach, if you have time to kill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 13:59
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:The Law School thread brought up an interesting point about being stopped by the police and being asked to submit to a search. Is the answer to this question always "No thanks?" If I say No, what happens? Ask if it's an order or a request.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 13:59
|
|
|
Anjow posted:That's not really an answer though, because my question wasn't "I fancy getting hammered and driving around in a car park, is that okay?". It really is an answer. Don't drink and then get in a car; you then can't ever find yourself in that situation. This applies equally to you, or anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
I have a question about statutes regarding fraud in NY (this is related to my being defrauded, for those who followed that earlier in the thread). As it happens, the scammer who got me had previously committed fraud in California and in Massachusetts (where he spent time in jail). I spoke with one of his California victims and learned that there is a statute that deals with *inducement* to fraud. For example, drawing up what purports to be a contract for an apartment share (and signing the contract) in order to get a security deposit/rent--which money is then kept--would violate the statute. I'm having trouble determining whether an equivalent statue exists in NY. For one thing, I don't exactly know where to look. For another, my comprehension of legalese is about on par with my comprehension of Icelandic. Maybe one of you can shed some light, or suggest how to proceed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
Actie posted:I have a question about statutes regarding fraud in NY (this is related to my being defrauded, for those who followed that earlier in the thread). Why don't you tell us your situation with some specificity so we can better point you in the right direction? Fraud in the inducement is an equitable defense to enforcement of a contract and not a crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
Texas. Got in an auto accident four months ago. Other guy's fault. The date of the accident was 4-30. I saw an urgent care doctor on 5-2 and 5-9. I was still in constant pain until the end of May, but I considered myself done with treatment. I told the adjuster this, mostly because I wanted to settle the claim and move on with my life. Thing is, when I get really upset or nervous, my back spasms in the same location and manner that my back spasmed after the accident. Because the adjuster who is working with me is trying to settle for a ridiculously low amount, the claim is still unsettled. I told her that I was done seeking treatment, but I didn't sign any forms. My back is spasming right now (ironically because I filed a complaint about the insurance company with my state's department of insurance and they cc'ed me on their response to the department of insurance, which is full of lies), and I'm wondering if it's still possible for me to see a doctor about this issue, even though the last time I sought treatment was 5-9? The adjuster said that I had to finish treatment within 30 days of the accident, but she's lied to me many times. I also wonder if there is a certain lapse in time of treatment that would render me responsible for the doctor's visit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 04:15
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Why don't you tell us your situation with some specificity so we can better point you in the right direction? Of course. But to avoid burdening the thread with repetition, I'd ask you just read the first couple posts here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3266659&userid=79672 I have learned a lot since I wrote that (a few weeks ago)--mainly, I've learned that the scamster has a long trail of a couple dozen victims, most of them for larger sums of money and in different states and in much more complex scams. I should feel (comparatively) lucky. He did the exact same Craigslist roommate type scam to one other person (that I know of). I'm hoping that if she and I visit the NYPD together, we'll have more luck getting them to file a report. I was told that the signed contract constitutes inducement to fraud, which is a criminal matter--at least in California. (The California victim--of a different scam, same scamster--prevailed on the LAPD to let him file a report only after he visited the station four times, and only after he got someone to look at the exact statute in question.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Why don't you tell us your situation with some specificity so we can better point you in the right direction? Haven't read the other thread so I don't know his factual situation, but in my jurisdiction there is a consolidated theft statute that includes larceny by deception. quote:A person may not obtain control over property by willfully or knowingly using deception, if the person: This particular statute doesn't apply to you unless you live in MD, but you should be looking for something similar. If your state has a consolidated theft statute, it should be there. If theft crimes are not consolidated, look around for something like larceny by fraud, larceny by deception, or larceny by false pretenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 06:22
|
|