|
Family member got pulled over for violating Scott's Law in Illinois. The penalties seem very steep, should he get an attorney? This would be his first traffic ticket.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
It looks like the minimum increased in 2020 from $100 to $250 for the first offense but it goes up to $10,000. If the fine seems exorbitant, I feel like there's probably more they're not telling you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
It was the potential for $10K that had him spooked. It's his first offense in 10 years. I told him to show up to court, dress up, and apologize. Personally it sounds like the cop had a power trip but that's neither here or there. Guess no attorney then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
It seems like it was one of those kneejerk laws, albeit a justified one, because a firefighter got pasted during a response by a drunk driver that didn't stop. If he shows up in at least a dress shirt, tie, and slacks and is apologetic, chances are he should do alright and get away with the minimum fine. If he was drunk, that adds to the fine and the potential of jail time. I am, however, not a lawyer. Any IL lawgoons can probably weigh in more about this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
DTaeKim posted:It was the potential for $10K that had him spooked. It's his first offense in 10 years. Don’t they usually give you the amount of the fine when you get the ticket? That sounds weird that he wouldn’t even know if it was just a pull over. ChickenDoodle fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Mar 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
ChickenDoodle posted:Don’t they usually give you the amount of the fine when you get the ticket? That sounds weird that he wouldn’t even know if it was just a pull over. It's pretty easy for a cop who gets irritated or is on a power trip that you "failed to yield" or whatever to an emergency vehicle. If you don't instantly slow down and pull over when he turns the lights on, that pretty much meets the criteria. Say you're stupid and young and listening to music loudly and your girlfriend says hurry over right now and the cop just doesn't like you. This happened to "a friend" of mine. Defaulting to believing a cop that you were ChickenDoodle posted:gently caress[ing] around with emergency vehicle
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
I think Scott's Law applies to stopped emergency vehicles, not those in transit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:They won’t have you do the test if you don’t go to the customer site, why would they spend the money? Oh I'm already booked for the test. It just seems to me to be an easy way around the "no random testing" rule. Company picks a handful of employees, tells them "Hey we might send you to whatever site," and then requires them to do the test.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
From my brief trip to Wikipedia, it looks like Scott's law requires you to slow down and change lanes. What if you are on a two lane road with a double yellow line? I'm guessing no cop in the world would ticket you if you crossed over the double yellow for his safety, but from a legal standpoint, it seems like a double edged sword.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
The fine wasn't listed on the ticket and it's a mandated court appearance. He said he was cited for specifically not using the farthest lane while passing the stopped cop car with flashing lights because he was going to make a right turn soon afterwards. He had slowed down but it wasn't enough for the cop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:It looks like the minimum increased in 2020 from $100 to $250 for the first offense but it goes up to $10,000. If the fine seems exorbitant, I feel like there's probably more they're not telling you. he should probably call his attorney in his area and ask them
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
DTaeKim posted:The fine wasn't listed on the ticket and it's a mandated court appearance. He said he was cited for specifically not using the farthest lane while passing the stopped cop car with flashing lights because he was going to make a right turn soon afterwards. He had slowed down but it wasn't enough for the cop. Hieronymous Alloy posted:he should probably call his attorney in his area and ask them
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 11:51
|
|
|
Attorneys talk with the prosecutor and sometimes get you deals when you plead guilty You turn money into reduced consequences Having money to pay a lawyer is great, highly recommend
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 12:33
|
|
|
FL’s version of that law allows for situations you can’t by requiring that you slow down 10mph under the speed limit. Your story wouldn’t fall under that exception, though, as “needing to make a right turn shortly after” isn’t a valid reason that you cannot change lanes. Valid reasons to not change lanes in FL are things like traffic preventing it (very common on the turnpike and on other freeways) or if you’re on a road with only one lane in either direction. I don’t know if your state has this. You should talk to a local lawyer. I think mastershakeman is an IL attorney. You could hire him. In my opinion (not that it matters), you probably should have moved to the left lane and then back over for your right hand turn. Definitely check with a local attorney to ensure you get the minimum fine and community service.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 12:47
|
|
|
I'll advise him to find a traffic attorney in the area then. Thanks everyone!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 13:48
|
|
|
I’ve heard of lawyers tracking their time to the tenth of an hour. Does that actually pass through to the client bills? (Reason I ask is that we got a bill for a consultation / researching some questions and it was an even $600 and the itemization was just the textual list of stuff they did. Not complaining about the cost, just curious how it works.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I’ve heard of lawyers tracking their time to the tenth of an hour. Does that actually pass through to the client bills? What you're talking about is minimum billing increments. The 1/10th of an hour increment means that no matter how quick a task is resolved, it bills a minimum of 6 minutes. I have worked at firms that had 12 and 30 minute billing increments. The former was a criminal law place and the billable hours was literally just a boss tracking our time because every client paid up front the full amount. This would guide future flat rate charges. The latter was a plaintiff's firm that very rarely ever billed hourly because everything was on contingency basis (we got 33-40% of your total recovery IF you recover). When we did have an hourly bill, though, minimum increment was 30 minutes. I'm an academic now, though. gently caress billing. I think 1/5th an hour (12 minute billing increments) is the most common, but I could be wrong. That means if a phone call takes 1 minute, it is still billed for 12. If you can type up emails on five different cases in 10 minutes, you've billed an hour's worth of work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that not all work you might do on a case is reasonable to bill to the client, and you're often trying to stick to an estimate and not go too far over it so you might decide to not bill stuff because the client will be super unhappy to pay way over estimate. So you might have got a round number because the lawyer was like ehhh I spent x time on this but it's only really reasonable to charge $600 max for what I did. Or at least that's what I learned in law school, my firm is fixed fee so we don't have to worry about that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I don’t know BC law, but having worked for a similar company in Quebec, the drug test is usually conditional to admission to site and they can bar you from site for any reason they want. What your employer does after that though idk, but they can’t use you on that particular contract. drat. Australian work camps (at least 10 years ago) would have a mandatory camp wide alcohol check plus randomly selected daily drug tests. They also sold a staggering amount of booze so there was a near scientific approach to calculating exactly how much you could drink the night before and blow zero the next day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
For what it's worth I talked to my union rep and he said I have the right to refuse the test, though he cautioned that it probably puts some kind of target on my back. On the other hand, I'm not a guinea pig to be subjected to arbitrary medical exams at the whim of a corporation, so gently caress em. I'm leaning towards just refusing on those grounds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Guinea pigs are used as medical research test subjects that’s where the phrase comes from there’s nobody out there giving Guinea pigs breathalyzer tests or testing them for marijuana usage it’s not really the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I’ve heard of lawyers tracking their time to the tenth of an hour. Does that actually pass through to the client bills? I bill in 1/4 hour increments. If I do something on your file that isn't worth $100, I'm not gonna bill you for it. If I do, and it takes only 12 minutes instead of 15, I'm gonna bill you for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Guinea pigs are used as medical research test subjects that’s where the phrase comes from there’s nobody out there giving Guinea pigs breathalyzer tests or testing them for marijuana usage it’s not really the same thing. I mean, I'm pretty sure they do drug tests on guinea pigs somewhere, at least sometimes. Flawed analogy aside, is it your position that companies should be allowed to collect private medical data from their staff arbitrarily?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I’ve heard of lawyers tracking their time to the tenth of an hour. Does that actually pass through to the client bills? Yes, my time gets billed to tenths of an hour. If it’s a six minute task it usually doesn’t get billed though. The client bill will reflect all the time they got charged and the detail for that time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Outrail posted:drat. Australian work camps (at least 10 years ago) would have a mandatory camp wide alcohol check plus randomly selected daily drug tests. For what it’s worth I’ve never gotten tested, but we did blanket bag and effects search on the way to site, plus randomized canine searches. The entire camp was dry, zero tolerance for booze and drugs. Exploration drillers got busted with weed all the loving time though. EKDS5k posted:I mean, I'm pretty sure they do drug tests on guinea pigs somewhere, at least sometimes. Flawed analogy aside, is it your position that companies should be allowed to collect private medical data from their staff arbitrarily? I don’t know what you think they get from those tests, but in practice your employer find outs whether you passed or failed. The company’s health staff might, depending, know what drug you popped hot for, but probably not. Honesty they don’t care, they just need to be able to tell their insurance that they checked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 01:51
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:For what it’s worth I’ve never gotten tested, but we did blanket bag and effects search on the way to site, plus randomized canine searches. The entire camp was dry, zero tolerance for booze and drugs. No, in practice what happens is I get sent to a facility where some dipshit lackey makes me pee in a cup so he can test it in front of me. Depending on if a square changes colour or not, then they call my boss and tell him I've been naughty, and then I get labelled an addict and treated as such, complete with forced counseling and unpaid time off. For something I might have bought from a government run store and used on my own time. Sure, my company only finds out yes/no, with no more details than that, but from that they can infer a bunch of stuff that isn't any of their business. And then use it to gently caress with my life. In my opinion they should not be allowed to do this. Seems like, according to the union's legal department, they aren't. So I'm not real sure why the vibe I'm getting from this thread is that arbitrary drug testing is cool and good, actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:22
|
|
|
EKDS5k posted:No, in practice what happens is I get sent to a facility where some dipshit lackey makes me pee in a cup so he can test it in front of me. Depending on if a square changes colour or not, then they call my boss and tell him I've been naughty, and then I get labelled an addict and treated as such, complete with forced counseling and unpaid time off. For something I might have bought from a government run store and used on my own time. But it's not arbitrary. They have a contract with a company that for perfectly legitimate reasons do not want druggies on their site. It is quite literally their business to ensure that people who may reasonably be sent to that site will are clean. I don't quite follow why you consider this so outrageous?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:31
|
|
|
And for this thread the question isn't "cool and good", it's "lawful or unlawful". Nobody here is in charge of what the laws are, people in here are just good at knowing what the laws are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:20
|
|
|
It's not that it's cool and good it's that if they want to find an excuse they probably will
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 13:11
|
|
|
Austen Tassletine posted:But it's not arbitrary. They have a contract with a company that for perfectly legitimate reasons do not want druggies on their site. It is quite literally their business to ensure that people who may reasonably be sent to that site will are clean. I don't quite follow why you consider this so outrageous? Ask a surgeon how often they get drug tested. Lots of jobs that have lives on the line don't do any kind of testing, yet for construction it's required. What do you suppose the difference is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
I'm in charge of whats cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 13:37
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Ask a surgeon how often they get drug tested. Lots of jobs that have lives on the line don't do any kind of testing, yet for construction it's required. What do you suppose the difference is? I suspect a lot of people'd be fine with drug tests for surgeons too, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
I love getting drug tested. Company pays me to drive some weird place and piss all to learn that nope, my slovenly appearance and slurred speech is not due to drugs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Ask a surgeon how often they get drug tested. Lots of jobs that have lives on the line don't do any kind of testing, yet for construction it's required. What do you suppose the difference is? The difference is one of social class (and having a really good union-like guild) but you’ll be happy to find out that pilots and ship captains get tested on the reg. poo poo, at one point the technical college where I learned to drive boats was talking about doing blanket tests of students because a lot of coop employers were doing them and it was a pain reassigning the potheads. Check if they do test for THC though because with it being legal nowadays, a lot of places test separately for it. Like I said, we did cheek swabs post accidents or if we had strong suspicions, because the outlook was much shorter. I just recalled that I got pee tested a year and a half ago (I’d forgotten because it’s, to most people, not a big deal) and didn’t pop hot for weed even though, you know, yeah. If you feel that strongly about drug tests, you’re going to want to stay away from natural resources exploitation, oil and gas, transportation and heavy machinery operations. Construction should be fine unless you touch one of the above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:
this is double-billing and is generally considered unethical by rules of practice and you could get in trouble for it. same reason if you do work that benefits two clients, you cannot bill both of them the full amount of the time. you can only bill the total amount of time you worked in a day to all of your clients, how you whack it up should be reasonable but double-billing is not permitted. not that anyone's going to file a complaint based on a minimum time increment of course - unless you start telling people to do so (or that you do so) as a matter of practice. and in practice, if a client finds a telephone call on their bill they know was one minute, they're gonna be pissed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:and in practice, if a client finds a telephone call on their bill they know was one minute, they're gonna be pissed. That's why I relied on the partner to write it off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:The difference is one of social class (and having a really good union-like guild) but you’ll be happy to find out that pilots and ship captains get tested on the reg. poo poo, at one point the technical college where I learned to drive boats was talking about doing blanket tests of students because a lot of coop employers were doing them and it was a pain reassigning the potheads. Yeah, a good question might be "how much is the company potentially on the hook for if they were to come in while high and gently caress up," along with "if we made employees drug test, would we be able to find enough / good enough employees to make up for it?" Also "are we a federal contractor" though that's a much smaller chunk of people
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:And for this thread the question isn't "cool and good", it's "lawful or unlawful". Nobody here is in charge of what the laws are, people in here are just good at knowing what the laws are. Right. This is why everyone is giving advice that is the opposite from the actual legal advice I got from my union rep, with no links or resources to back anything up. Austen Tassletine posted:But it's not arbitrary. They have a contract with a company that for perfectly legitimate reasons do not want druggies on their site. It is quite literally their business to ensure that people who may reasonably be sent to that site will are clean. I don't quite follow why you consider this so outrageous? The company can make whatever contract with whoever they want, but it doesn't supersede legal rights that I have. As far as I have been able to research the only time companies can force their staff to do drug tests are post-incident, upon suspicion of impairment, or randomly (and then only in very specific circumstances). "Because a customer wanted us to" isn't on the list.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
EKDS5k posted:Right. This is why everyone is giving advice that is the opposite from the actual legal advice I got from my union rep, with no links or resources to back anything up. Here’s a link. https://bccla.org/privacy-handbook/main-menu/privacy5contents/privacy5-10.html This is the BC Civil Liberties Association, so not a group likely to be taking the employers side. And here’s what they have to say: “There are no specific laws prohibiting or requiring these types of tests, and courts and labour arbitrators are left to establish rules on a case by case basis.” “Regular drug testing may be imposed on all employees in a safety-sensitive environment, but is generally dealt with in a collective agreement.” “In British Columbia and Alberta, in workplaces that are more safety-sensitive, the employer is permitted to institute a drug testing policy – including, in Alberta, pre-employment testing – without having to prove that a drug problem exists in the workplace.” So there’s at least some reason to think that what your employer is asking is legal. That said, the recommended advice of “ask your union” is good advice and they’re the ones who should be doing this research for you/repping you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
EKDS5k posted:Right. This is why everyone is giving advice that is the opposite from the actual legal advice I got from my union rep, with no links or resources to back anything up. I'm sightly confused. Where is the contradictory advice? Are they actually forcing you? I thought you said that the union told you that you could refuse, not that the company can't ask you to take it. As far as I can tell, that's all they've done so far so that they can adequately plan for this particular job. Where exactly is the wrongdoing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 17:37
|
|