Around 10pm, I see red and blue lights through my window. I look outside, and I see 7 cop cars (and a bike) in front of my house. There are 8 cops standing around in a circle, laughing -- I'm concerned because I bought this (my first) home only months ago. I go out and from a distance have the following dialogue: me: "Is everything okay?" cop1: "It's okay, was just a shark attack." me: "What?" cop2: "We caught the bad guy." And they turned back around to their group, barring me from further conversation. Did I just have a run-in with an arrogant group of officers, or am I in the wrong here? Can I legally pursue the question of "Hey, what's happening here?" Are they not required to inform me if I ask? Edit: I live in west Florida, if that's relevant. I could see it possibly being based on local laws?

You are allowed to ask the police whatever questions you like. There is an upper limit that you can't refuse to obey a lawful order on the premise that you want to ask a bunch of questions, but they don't seem to have ordered you to do anything, so you can ask away. They have no obligation to tell you anything or to be truthful, except for certain questions like "am I free to go" when you want to leave and are testing whether you are under arrest. Even then they don't have to answer your questions right away. The...

As stated, this is not a reasonable restriction and runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act . You cannot discriminate based on family status, with an exemption for " housing for older persons ", and the act "does not limit the applicability of reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling" (let's leave aside HOA restrictions for a moment). The number of occupants can legally be restricted in terms of a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest such as parking availability, safety, noise or securing the property. A restriction based on...

The article says: Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence. Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines. The article also says [ bold italic emphasis mine]: Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution . “ The conditions would never be better . Yet, Rhodes and the others...

Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a "stop" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct...


At what point is uploading a movie with heavy compression not copyright infringement?

My friend recently linked me a GIF of the entire Shrek movie in 60x60 resolution . At the time of writing this, it has 12 million views on imgur. This got me thinking, could a copyright holder technically sue over the uploading of this GIF? I'm guessing yes, because it's still barely legible. But at what point are they not allowed to do so? Surely they can't claim intellectual property over one pixel shifting to specific colors for 90 minutes, for example? How about 2x2? Etc. I read What considerations determine copyright infringement? which to me makes it seem like they COULD sue over the one pixel shifting colors for 90 minutes, because I did copy and modify the movie. Is that really true? I also read How similar should a tune be to constitute theft of someone else's tune? which states that it depends a lot on the case since there are so many variables. Is that also true in this case? I imagine songs work very different from movies. Looking for both US or EU answers.

united-states copyright intellectual-property internet european-union

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.

Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...

In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...

A few years ago, there was a trial in the USA about some short sound on some music CD: One party claimed that one piece of music on the CD contained a sound of less than one second length which is copied from another CD without the permission of the copyright owner of the other CD. It could never be found out if this claim was really true. The court's decision was: If it is not possible to distinguish between a copy and a work that does not depend on the other work at all, it is not a copyright...


Why are Russian combatants in Ukraine considered soldiers rather than terrorists?

The question bothers me since February 2022. Why (legally) are Russian combatants in Ukraine considered soldiers (thus POWs when captured) rather than terrorists? There is no formal declaration of war. They are members an organization (Russian military) that commits acts of terrors to civilian population in clear violation of international law of war. Moreover, they either directly or indirectly contribute to the mentioned acts of terror. Their state (Russia) explicitly claims that there is no war (thus unilaterally waiving the protection of law of war for Russian forces). Why is that particular group of armed people acting in clear violation of Ukrainian law treated as "soldiers in war" rather than state-sponsored criminals? Note, that waiving the protection of law of war does not waive the protection of Ukrainian law (right to due process etc.).

international laws-of-war russia ukraine terrorism

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of " 30 days of employment with xxxxx ". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of " 1-year commitment " is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, " not to quit ") in...

Why it is considered as terrorism to murder a CEO? It's not, as such. That is, CEOs do not have special status under New York or Federal law that would inherently make murdering them terroristic. Brian Thompson having been a CEO is not directly relevant to Mangione being charged with terrorism. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. I think your doubt is misplaced, but it is in any case irrelevant whether Mangione's alleged actions were effective in intimidating or...

It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to "furnish" alcohol to a "minor" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the "minor". This is to prevent "straw" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...

The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...


Can a Resident Assistant be told to ignore a lawful order?'

Today I have an interesting question involving Police, Fire and university administration. A little bit of background: for the past few years, my University has been involved in a small, awkward cold war with local emergency responders over expectations on live-in Residential Assistants during emergency situations. Specifically, the biggest flashpoints are fire alarms and wellness checks on residents. Within the dorms, we have been told that both Campus Police and Local Fire Departments have been provided keys to all rooms in case an emergency (fire or safety) is reported. We have also been told that we are, under no circumstances , to assist Police or Fire with entering a room (to which we have keys as Resident Assistants, for lockouts and the like) until we have received permission from several layers of (on-call) department administration. The heads of the Residential Services Office insist that this is to protect the department in the case of a privacy complaint on behalf of a resident who we let police into the room of, and to avoid liability from ordering (by policy) RAs back into a potentially dangerous building under alarm. Police and fire, meanwhile, never seem to have the keys. Thus, for the safety of the building or the resident, they will order us to open up the door for them, right now. Which brings us to the issue: Police/fire wants us to open a door, and gives us what I believe is a lawful order do so. Meanwhile, Residence Life policy wants us to call up to our supervisor and follow a whole procedure, directly countermanding the orders of the officer or firefighter on scene. Must I open the door, legally speaking? And is my department's policy of refusal illegal/unenforceable?

Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...

There is a state law that requires you to obey the police: ORC 2917.13 , which says you may not Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind. If you do, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the first degree. You also cannot...

Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f ("processing is necessary for the...

Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...


What are the legal repercussions of taking a stranger's picture in public?

With Snapchat and Instagram it is all too easy to abuse picture taking and really inexpensive to snap a photo of an unknowing stranger. If you are in public and will only post pictures online without their permission, can the victim take legal action against you? What would be the effect on the photo taker? Will there be punishment for the host company (if it encourages this type of behavior)?

united-states privacy right-of-publicity photography

In order to accommodate various objections that have arisen in recent generations, in general: You are allowed to "affirm" instead of "swear" You do not have to say "so help me God" You do not have to place your hand on a Bible or any object These variances are often allowed by statute. A witnessed "solemn affirmation" has the same legal consequences as the traditional swearing on a Bible: I.e., you would be held to the same statutes and rules that apply to sworn statements.

There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by "qualified organ procurement organizations" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...

In the United States, You have no expectation of privacy in public . Anything you can see from a public place, you can take a picture of, even if the "victim" is in their own home but has the blinds open. If you are standing on a public sidewalk or street, you would legally be able to take a picture with certain exceptions. An exception to this would be: if with just your eyes you can see into a private home, you can take a picture of that, but if you require a telescopic lense with some sort of IR...

An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of "vegan approved" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...


Can UPS really trademark the color brown?

So, today as I received an email from UPS, I read the disclaimer at the end and it said: © 2016 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved. What exactly does it mean that the " color brown " is a trademark of someone? Does it refer specifically to the brown in the logo's arrangement? And if so, anyone that uses that same color is subject to trademark infringement?

Inks for reproduction can be mixed to create very custom colors. It is entirely possible to trademark a special "recipe" of ink which results in the same color each time. So yes. In terms of branding -- colors, or specific color combinations, can be trademarked. Don't confuse "trademark" with "ownership" or "copyright". Trademark merely means in that particular industry the company has staked a claim on a specific color or color combination. Trademarks are more about preventing brand confusion within the same industry. You're free to use the same colors in a completely separate industry and even in some cases...

Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a "stop" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct...

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...

Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...


Can illegal aliens claim sanctuary in a church?

This tweet (as quoted in a Washington Post article ), seems to suggest that illegal aliens can claim sanctuary in a church: #GuadalupeGarcia attorney says @ICEgov has lied to him and he will advise future clients to seek sanctuary in churches. (For context, Guadalupe Garcia was living in the US without documentation and was deported during a regular check in with ICE.) However, I did a search and only turned up articles saying this wasn't actually a law in the United States. Then I came across the case of Elvira Arellano , who sought refuge in a Methodist church for a year. I'm assuming the church didn't simply hide her whenever the police came around for a whole year, since she did interviews and such, but she was arrested when she left, so the authorities were clearly still actively looking to arrest her. Are police legally required to recognize a claim of sanctuary in a church?

united-states police immigration arrest religion

The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...

The case you identify is not unique. For example, the Unitarian church in Denver has done much the same thing. There is not a legal right to sanctuary in a church. But, as a manner of law enforcement discretion and public relations and customary traditions of law enforcement respect for churches that long predate the formation of the USA, law enforcement routinely acts as if there was a right to sanctuary in churches (in the absence, for example, of an active shooter situation or a hostage crisis or a kidnapping with a missing victim). I am not aware of any...

This has been prosecuted criminally, in the scenario of people taking a huge pile of "free" newspapers to sell for recycling. See coverage in the Independent from 16 February 2019. Some previous prosecutions against the same or similar groups had been dropped but this one succeeded. While copies of the Evening Standard are given away for free at train stations, the big stack of them is still somebody's property, and the socially expected arrangement is that a member of the public will take just one, rather than the lot. The reason they are being offered is to achieve a wide...


Can I sue a restaurant for serving me meat in vegetarian dish?

I am a vegetarian for religious reasons. I was at Chipotle on Saturday and ordered a sofritas rice bowl which is "vegan approved". To my surprise, I found a chunk of chicken in my bowl when I was halfway through eating it. Made me feel sick to the stomach realizing that I may have eaten chicken already. Went back to the Order desk and showed the server meat in my bowl. They immediately offered a refund and asked if I wish to file a complaint. The manager brought out a complaint form and filled for me. Gave me a copy as well. I did not take any refund. just walked out, I was very upset. My question is: Can I take a legal action against Chipotle?

Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...

While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...

Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...


Do we have to take down the material for 14 days even if the DMCA notice is erroneous?

A very large site and my site are both licensed to use product images created and photographed by the same vendor. Now the large site comes after my site and sends a DMCA notice to my hosting provider, asking us to take down quite some of our most popular products. While it's absolutely a false claim and it's possible that they had no idea we were licensed just as they were, it seems I have to take down the infringing materials and send back a counter-notice and wait for 14 days ? My question is is this fair? 14 days are enough for Google to de-index the page and for it to lose all the ranking juices. Not to mention the sales losses . What if they actually know we are licensed but just wanted to ruin our site rankings and keep coming after us in future? Do we still have to follow the legal procedures to take down whatever products they claim infringing for 14 days? What better options do we have here? Update After I first posted this question, my host restored the allegedly infringing product after 14 days of my providing the counter DMCA notice. Now the same complaint is after us again on another of our popular products. This is really annoying and stupid. How can I end this once and for all? We are not physically in United States, can we still find someone to win the lawsuit for us? Or is there any other way to stop them?

While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...

There is a slight confusion here: The large company sent the DMCA notice to your host, not to you. You are not taking down anything. The host does that. If the DMCA takedown notice is following all the rules, then your host has two choices: Take down your content, or be willing to be part of a copyright court case. Assuming that the host doesn't want to go to court and potentially lose tons of money, they will take down your content. Until you send a counter notice. Now you can only legally create a DMCA notice as the copyright...

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.


Can I forbid the government from using my patented invention?

(this is a purely hypothetical situation, for literary research) I've filed a patent on a certain technology for facial recognition/analysis, and as the patent holder I want to use my exclusivity to ensure it's not used to harm anyone. Unfortunately, the nature of the invented technique can be easily misused for what I believe are evil purposes. Military, then law enforcement agencies, have begun connecting me with manufacturers who want to incorporate my technique into their software suites, to which I am firmly opposed. Mind, the patent is still in review, so getting inquiries this soon strikes me as odd. My question is, can I deny the military use of my invention should the patent be approved, and if not, are there any ways in which I can sabotage or otherwise render it difficult for them? Perhaps by requesting an impractically large royalty or purposely presenting a subtly faulty implementation to their manufacturing firm?

If you are not a member of the Bar of Maryland, you may not "practice, attempt to practice, or offer to practice law in the State unless admitted to the Bar." Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-601 . "Practicing law" includes "representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political subdivision." Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-101 . "[A] person who violates § 10-601 of this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both." Maryland Business...

You cannot deny the federal government the right to use your patent, but you can sue them for "recovery of [your] reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture", see 28 USC 1498 . Note that the statute refers to such use as being "without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same", that is, there is no lawful right to infringe on a patent, but recourse for infringement is highly limited. A suit against the government under §1498 is (see the summary in Airborne Data v. US , 702 F.2d 1350) on...


Is it illegal to backup your hard drive if you have copyrighted software on it?

Is it illegal if you create a backup of an HDD that has copyrighted software installed on it? This could be anything from legally purchased games and or expensive popular graphics/video editing programs, just as an example. Is this backup an illegal copy of the original HDD?

united-states copyright software licensing online-piracy

Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....

See 18 U.S.C. s. 1621 (a) . Perjury only relates to material matter . In my opinion, your little logical paradox isn't material. You might be scolded by the judge to stay on point. If you keep doing it, you'll be held in contempt of court .

You're allowed to make backups of copyrighted software, as long as you are authorized to use the software, the backups are not distributed, and they are destroyed when/if you are no longer authorized to use the software. 17 USC §117(a): (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) ...(not very helpful)...or (2) that such new copy or adaptation...


In Los Angeles can I defend my own property against looters?

Currently, there is looting being done in Los Angeles by many people who are pretending to protest against the killing of George Floyd (some others are actually protesting and a few people are helping to stop looters). If someone were to loot my property (business) would I be within my rights to deter them by shooting at them with a paintball gun and / or using a long-leashed German Shepard near the door? Also to potentially citizen arrest with zip-ties? (if feasible)

united-states california property trespass citizens-arrest

My impression, and the plausible explanation in the absence of the actual facts, is that this was something that the attorney agreed to, in order to allow a skittish client to reveal information pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The police probably insisted that the client be handcuffed to someone while doing this to prevent the client from fleeing. The attorney probably offered to do the job instead of a police officer, to be able to provide advice to his client and keep his client calm enough to do it, which might not have happened (sacrificing the favorable plea deal...

If you are arrested for assault, you have available to you the defense of the right to defend real or personal property : you "may use reasonable force to protect that property from imminent harm. Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from imminent harm". The level of force proposed is clearly within the boundaries of the reasonable.

The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...


If Congress passed a bill written in a language other than English, would it be valid?

Suppose Congress passed a bill written in Spanish and the President signed it. Everything about the bill and the procedures by which it was written and passed were completely normal, other than the language. (Assume everyone in Congress, as well as the President, is fluent in Spanish.) Would the fact that the law is written in a language other than English have any effect on its enforceability, other than the practical difficulties caused by many people not understanding it?

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)

It would indeed be valid and legally enforceable. The Constitution places no limits on what languages bills must be written in. The Constitution specifically allows each house of Congress to make its own rules for how it passes bills, so, even if a house of Congress had a rule requiring its bills to be in English (which they don't, as far as I know,) they could simply change the rules and then pass the bill. From a practical standpoint, though, enforceability would also require courts to be able to discern Congress' intent from the bill. As such, unless we're expanding...

"Posted" is a Term of Art " Posted " is a term of art in trespass law, specifically meaning that signs forbidding entry have been placed at the borders of a parcel. The page "Properly posted definition" from Law Insider reads: Properly posted means that signs prohibiting trespass—or bright yellow, bright orange or fluorescent paint—are clearly displayed at all corners, on fishing streams crossing property lines, and on roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land. Or, they are displayed in a manner that is visible to a person in the area. The entry "Posting" in the "Legal" section of The...


A Virginia employee was terminated within 1 year of hiring because the on-site customer felt he was "too negative". Offer Letter: Along with this offer, you are receiving a $10,000.00 signing bonus, which includes $3,000.00 to be paid directly to you in your first company paycheck and the remaining $7,000.00 to be paid to you at 30 days of employment with xxxxx. A 1−year commitment required or the bonus will be repaid in full to xxxxx. Can the employer legally keep the employee's last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ?

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of " 30 days of employment with xxxxx ". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of " 1-year commitment " is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, " not to quit ") in...

Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a "welfare check." You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...

There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...


Is it legal for a bar bouncer to confiscate a fake ID

Background: I read a Reddit thread where someone had an international passport confiscated from them at a bar. I imagine that the bouncer probably didn't recognize what he was looking at and assumed it was a fake ID. From what I understand, the bar does not have the authority to confiscate such a real passport, but that got me to thinking, what if the Bouncer was right? Does he actually have the legal authority to confiscate the fake ID? The reason I ask, is because if he does have that authority, it feels to me like an awkward law, because a simple gap in knowledge can be what makes the difference between legal and illegal.

The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...

There are a couple of indications that a bouncer may not confiscate an ID. This policy document adopting licensing policies to Require licensees with fake ID violations to temporarily or permanently hire on-site law enforcement or certified security guards who are properly trained to check IDs during regular or peak hours to deter the use of fake IDs and give gatekeepers the opportunity to pass suspected fakes to an officer or guard for a second opinion and potential confiscation. Where appropriate, jurisdictions could empower the gatekeeper to confiscate fake IDs so they are not returned to the underage drinker and...


Is it legal for a supermarket to refuse to sell an adult beer if an adult with them doesn’t have their ID?

Today I went with my dad grocery shopping at a supermarket in New York (ShopRite) and he put a six-pack of beer in the cart. They then wouldn’t let him buy the beer because they couldn’t ID me (21, but I dress for work so I look more like 25). Even when I left the store to wait in the car they made him check out at a different register. Is this legal? I wasn’t buying anything; I was just helping him load stuff onto the conveyor belt.

united-states new-york-state alcohol is-x-legal identification

Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited "for cause strikes," which are...

It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to "furnish" alcohol to a "minor" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the "minor". This is to prevent "straw" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...

While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...


Can I enter a rental property without giving notice if I'm afraid a tenant may be hurt?

I rent a “Mother-In-Laws quarters” (guest area) that is on the side of my house. It has a private entrance. If I'm concerned something has happened to the tenant, am I legally allowed to enter the building without giving notice? Some background : For the first time, my tenant is late on rent, and hasn't contacted me in any way which seems very unusual for her. Yesterday I texted once to remind about the rent, and a second time asking if they are okay once I noticed there was still mail from a few days ago in her mail box right by her door with no response. I also couldn't hear TV through the wall which I usually can, and her curtains were never opened which I notice she usually does during the day. The air conditioning also wasn't on all day, which is also unusual. She's elderly and I'm afraid she may have fallen or even worse. I'm planning on knocking on her door on my lunch break. If she does not answer the door, I'm trying to figure out if I can go ahead and enter the property and make sure everything is okay.

Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a "welfare check." You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...

Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...

No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.


If I'm the CEO and largest shareholder of a public company, would taking anything from my office be considered as a theft?

To summarize it, I'll give an example: I'm Bill Gates. I own Microsoft. On a desk, there's a Microsoft Surface that is branded by my company. I decide to take it home and never bring it back, although I didn't buy it personally, and the company's budget was spent on it. Would that be a theft?

Yes. Let's assume this anecdote takes place while Gates was CEO. Bill Gates doesn't own all of Microsoft, and as an officer of the company, he owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Taking the company's property for personal use breaches that fiduciary duty . Now, in this particular hypothetical, Gates might have a decent argument that, as a public figure who can afford any piece of technology he desires, him being seen using a Microsoft Surface actually is acting in the company's best interests. But that wouldn't...

Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...


After buying from a brick & mortar shop they've contacted me to say buying things from them is consent to arbitration. Is this legal?

A few days ago I bought over-the-counter goods from a shop. There was no signature involved in this purchase. I walked up to the counter with off-the-shelf items, was asked for a phone number, paid in cash, then left. They just sent a text message claiming that buying anything from them constitutes waiver of right to sue them and consent to binding arbitration. Is the shop violating any law? The shop was in Ohio, United States of America.

united-states contract-law consumer-protection ohio arbitration

There is a history of "giving away patents", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company "will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...

Technically speaking, it's not illegal: spontaneously making a false statement to someone does not fall under any of Ohio's laws regarding fraud or the like. It also doesn't have any legal effect. You can't retroactively change the terms of a deal; if they didn't tell you about an arbitration requirement at the time you made the purchase, there is no arbitration requirement (and the burden of proof here is on them, not you).

Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)


What 'specific legal meaning' does the word "strike" have?

Over on main meta, on the post containing a statement from Stack Overflow about the current moderator action , there was a brief edit war over the inclusion (or not) of the word "strike" in the title. An SO staff member said : While we recognize that the community is referring to this event as a "strike", that term has a specific legal meaning and we have been advised not to refer to it as such. For that reason, we ask that future editors of this post do not edit it to use that language. What 'specific legal meaning' might be being referred to here? Why might a corporation want the act of refusing to perform duties to not be referred to as a strike? Is it relevant that those withholding effort are unpaid volunteers? I'm guessing at the jurisdiction and hence the appropriate tag.

Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...

Yes. Let's assume this anecdote takes place while Gates was CEO. Bill Gates doesn't own all of Microsoft, and as an officer of the company, he owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Taking the company's property for personal use breaches that fiduciary duty . Now, in this particular hypothetical, Gates might have a decent argument that, as a public figure who can afford any piece of technology he desires, him being seen using a Microsoft Surface actually is acting in the company's best interests. But that wouldn't...

Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...

united-states Under US law, unions and employees enjoy a set of protections codified under the National Labor Relations Act. Some of those rights specifically pertain to strikes , and in particular, employees engaged in "lawful" strikes cannot be fired merely for striking (but they can be replaced). Stack Exchange, Inc. takes the position that moderators are not employees and are not subject to the NLRA. Their reluctance to use the word "strike" likely stems from this position. If the moderation strike were a "strike" within the meaning of the NLRA, that would imply a large and complex set of restrictions...


Pokémon Go hot spots and private property

As we all know Pokémon Go is all the rage. There have been reports that police stations are common hot spots for gyms and collections. Churches have also been a common hot spot. I think there is also a story where a man bought an old church and now that is his residence. Regardless of whether that story is true it made me think: What is the legality of someone putting a virtual hot spot on your property without permission? I know we are in uncharted territory, but how would this compare to setting up a contest that would require going on your property without permission? Is it currently legal to say, "Go to person X's house and touch a tree"? If not, does the current law extend to augmented reality? To me both are attractions which cause a gathering of people.

What is the legality of someone putting a virtual hot spot on your property without permission? I know we are in uncharted territory but how would this compare to setting up a contest that would require going on your property without permission? The existence of a game does not authorise entrance to private property, barring some agreement with the owner. That is - if it is trespassing without Pokemon Go (or, for that matter Ingress), then it is trespassing while playing them. That being said, the creators of the game are free to place their in-game targets anywhere they please,...

Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....


Is "My Cousin Vinny" dismissal actually possible?

In one of my favorite films of all time, 1992's My Cousin Vinny , at the end of the trial when it's abundantly clear the prosecution will lose, at least that's the conclusion the filmmakers want the audience to surmise, Trotter pronounces... "the state would like to dismiss all charges." And . . . as per Hollywood, everyone rejoices. I am fully aware movies are movies and not real life and the film is a pure work of fiction . Since I have no direct connection to anyone in the legal field, I thought I would ask some knowledgeable users about something that's always had me wondering. (Just saw the film again tonight.) I am aware that an acquittal means one can not be tried for the same crime again (double jeopardy). But a dismissal may not provide such protection. Acquittal meaning the prosecution could not prove the defendant committed the crime, whereas dismissal may allow for retrial. So, is there a legal basis for Trotter dismissing a case merely because he'll clearly lose? Common sense leans towards thinking this may be "Hollywood fluff" and it could not actually happen at the final stages of a trial so close to jury deliberation. But.. again, I don't really know. I think this is fluff because if it were actually possible, why wouldn't all prosecutors merely drop charges if they fear they are going to lose, then go build a better case and retry the defendant. Are the requirement for an actual dismissal more stringent than the film would have the audience believe or in this aspect, is the film pretty close to reality? (I am referencing U.S. criminal law in general)

united-states trial law-in-fiction dismissal

You don't know. You can't know. And you can't force the officer to tell you. Detention Status As a practical matter, you have no way of knowing if you are compelled to follow an officer's order because you are being detained unless the officer volunteers that information (your detention status) which they are not compelled to disclose and have every incentive not to disclose. Consider the situation when the officer does not have reasonable suspicion do detain you. If the officer instantly informs you that you are "free to go" then you are likely to leave and end the encounter...

Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...

Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...

This is entirely possible in a number of different motions that could have been made. At this point, Vinny had destroyed the Prosecutor's eyewitnesses by showing they had issues that called their testimony into question (The first has a timeline that doesn't line up with events, the second has poor vision and her prescription glasses were not doing their job, and the third had many obstructions blocking his view of the scene). His first witness tears apart the "expert" witness, who was only there to testify that the tires were the same brand (albeit, a popular brand at the time......


What is the legal take on the trolley problem?

From the Wikipedia page on the trolley problem: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. What are the legal aspects of finding yourself in a train yard in the United States when this happens? Is it a crime to pull the lever? Is it a crime to not pull the lever? Does it depend on if you're professionally qualified to pull the lever?

Parliamentary Supremacy was established by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which James II & VII was deposed by Parliament, and the line of succession was changed by Act of Parliament to favor William and Mary. Key laws passed during the aftermath of the Revolution included the Declaration of Right (which forbade keeping a standing army without Parliamentary consent, and put control of the military in Parliament), and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 which established in law obligations of the monarch. Since 1688 it has remained the governing principle of English (later British and UK) law that ultimate authority lies...

Doing nothing is legally safer than doing something, but you're not without hope if you pull the lever. Although you'll likely have committed murder or at least manslaughter, case law is littered with lenience in exigent circumstances, even where convictions have been affirmed. Because this is a philosophical problem, there are plenty of opinions from that perspective, but not so many from a legal standpoint. Let's assume that you're an innocent bystander, (not an employee of the railway company or the train company, etc) and have no duty to act. If you do nothing, then it is unlikely that you...

The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...


Is it a crime to take my own package from a delivery truck before it has reached my home?

Not that I would ever do this, but I'm curious: if I were to go into a stopped delivery truck and remove from it an item that is addressed to me, would this be a crime? If so what crime would it be? It seems to me that I would not be stealing anything since it's my own property that I'm taking. I might even have a reason to suspect that if I did not take the package from the truck, then the driver would leave it sitting out in the open where it would likely be stolen (or that the driver himself might steal it), in which case I'd actually be preventing a crime by taking it from the truck directly. I don't think this would be burglary either, since that would tend to require that I was breaking into a restricted area with the intent to commit a crime. Especially if the delivery truck had no doors or I acted while they'd been left open, then I wouldn't even be "breaking and entering." I can't see this as being "trespass" if the truck was on a public street, unless trespass applies to the interior of vehicles. Even then, as long as I'd leave before anyone noticed me, I could just say I only went in to retrieve what's mine and prevent it from being damaged or stolen. So I'm guessing there must be some kind of arcane laws that only the US Postal Marshalls deal with. Yes, there are special guys called "US Postal Marshalls," who investigate mail-related crimes. So I'm curious what crime this would be? Note: I did review this post about "stealing your own property back" but it does not really seem to apply here.

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of " 30 days of employment with xxxxx ". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of " 1-year commitment " is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, " not to quit ") in...

It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to "furnish" alcohol to a "minor" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the "minor". This is to prevent "straw" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...


Is the President at the top of all organ waiting lists?

In the United States, people can often wait for years on organ lists before receiving the organ they need. Does the President automatically move to the top of these lists, should they find themselves in need of an organ, or do they have to wait like everyone else? Edit: Is there a legal mechanism in place for getting the President an organ, should they suddenly need one?

Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to...

There isn't any rule which would prioritize the President, as far as I can tell. Generally, organ allocation is required to be based on medical criteria, not on factors such as the occupation or societal role of the patient. 42 USC 273 specifies that organ procurement shall be administered by "qualified organ procurement organizations" and sets up ground rules for their operation, one of which is: have a system to allocate donated organs equitably among transplant patients according to established medical criteria. Further regulations implementing this law are to be found at 42 CFR 121 . 121.8(a)(1) specifies that allocation...

The article says: Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence. Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines. The article also says [ bold italic emphasis mine]: Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution . “ The conditions would never be better . Yet, Rhodes and the others...


If the police search my vehicle or house without my consent, and they don't find anything, what recourse is there?

I understand that if the police perform an illegal search, then any evidence found during that search will be excluded from a trial, but what if they didn't find any evidence? If the police do an illegal search, and they don't find anything, is there anything I can do about it?

There are two parts to copyright liability: civil and criminal. TL;DR: both cases are criminal offences, and it is illegal to break the law even when you are paid to do it. In the USA criminal copyright infringement requires a deliberate act to infringe copyright for commercial gain. Both of the scenarios meet these requirements. In the UK (and probably the rest of Europe) criminal copyright infringement includes possess in the course of a business an article which is, and which you know or have reason to believe is an infringing copy of a copyright work with a view to...

As stated, this is not a reasonable restriction and runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act . You cannot discriminate based on family status, with an exemption for " housing for older persons ", and the act "does not limit the applicability of reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling" (let's leave aside HOA restrictions for a moment). The number of occupants can legally be restricted in terms of a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest such as parking availability, safety, noise or securing the property. A restriction based on...

You can file a federal criminal complaint under 18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law , or (most commonly) a civil claim under 42 USC 1983 for the violation of your civil rights. There are usually state laws, from some form of harassment (usually a summary offense) to misdemeanors like the Official Oppression we have in Pennsylvania. Note that you can file these complaints even if they do find something incriminating. An illegal search is illegal regardless of its fruits.


How is it legal for a hospital to put two patients together in the same room in the US?

In the United States we have HIPAA regulations in place to (among other things) prevent healthcare providers, insurance providers, and any other entity that handles medical information from leaking patient information. From my experience with various HIPAA certifications, it seems pretty stringent. No leak is too small. So how is it legal for a healthcare provider to pair up two or more patients in a single room, when they are under inpatient care for several days? I ask this because I recently stayed in the hospital for 2 nights. Never spoke one word to the old guy I was roommates with. When I was discharged, I knew the following details about him: his full name his DOB his medical record # (if I felt like writing it down) some of his prior health history (he fought, and won, a battle with colon cancer) the reason he was in the hospital now (hasn't pooped in over a week) current health concerns (doctors wanted to do a biopsy to make sure the colon cancer wasn't back) These were all details given verbally by one or many different doctors or nurses over the course of my 3 days, 2 nights in the hospital. Of course, I'm sure he knows a lot of my details now, too, for the same reason - we were inpatient roommates in the hospital and the doctors used no discretion when discussing my condition. So how is this legal?

As a short answer, guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services has clarified that HIPAA does not require hospitals to provide separate rooms. As a longer answer, HIPAA is very deeply misunderstood. It does not prohibit "leaking" patient information; it prohibits unreasonable and unpermitted disclosures of protected health information (PHI). Among the PHI disclosures that are permitted are uses that are for the purpose of delivering medical treatment . Of course, the covered entity (in this case, the hospital) is required to take reasonable measures to safeguard that information. One of the areas that trips people up is...

Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...


Does Elon Musk have any grounds for legal action against people who track his plane?

Most airplanes, including Elon Musk's private jet, are required by law to broadcast their location throughout a flight in a well-documented, unencrypted digital format called ADS-B. This system is a critical part of aviation safety infrastructure. Several services, such as FlightAware, FlightRadar24, and ADS-B Exchange, collect this information with ground-based radio receivers and publish it on the Internet. FlightAware and FlightRadar24 will hide aircraft on request from the owner, but ADS-B Exchange does not, and provides unfiltered data. Elon Musk has threatened to take legal action against people who share tracking data from his jet online, referring to it as "doxxing" and claiming it's a threat to his safety. He also bans Twitter users who post any plane-tracking information. I don't see how he could have any claim for legal action against people who track his jet. As I have mentioned, ADS-B data is by no means private. When you are on an airplane, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for your location. Collecting public information about a controversial public figure seems like a very clear case for First Amendment protection. This wouldn't affect his ability to ban Twitter users; he can (within reason) ban anyone for anything on Twitter because he owns it. (It's quite odd that he claims to be a free-speech absolutist but censors the reposting of public information, but that's beside the point.) It would, however, seem to preclude any involvement of the government. What possible legal action could Elon Musk take against people who post ADS-B data from his private jet?

united-states privacy freedom-of-speech first-amendment air-travel

Specifically, the threatened action is about stalking and implicit threats to his family. I'm not suggesting that there is a lot of merit to the claim, but that is how he is presenting the argument. The question would be where there is an intentional, repeated following of a person for the purpose of harassing the person with express or implied threats of violence or death. The jury would have to decide whether the implicit threat is credible (somebody plans to blow him or his family out of the sky), a decision would probably turn on the number of death threats...

Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...

Yes. Let's assume this anecdote takes place while Gates was CEO. Bill Gates doesn't own all of Microsoft, and as an officer of the company, he owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Taking the company's property for personal use breaches that fiduciary duty . Now, in this particular hypothetical, Gates might have a decent argument that, as a public figure who can afford any piece of technology he desires, him being seen using a Microsoft Surface actually is acting in the company's best interests. But that wouldn't...


What is the legal status of "warrant canaries"?

A warrant canary is a repeated claim by an individual or organization that they have not been served any warrants with an attached gag order. The idea is that you can say whatever you like if you have not been served such a warrant, but if you are ever served a warrant you simply stop publishing your warrant canary. Attentive listeners or readers would infer that you have been served a warrant, contrary to the intent of the gag order. The EFF gives an overview of these warrant canaries here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq What legal theories would support or harm the case of anyone attempting this technique?

The question actually asked, "what legal theories would support or harm...", is somewhat unclear. But what the questioner seems to be asking is, basically, what would happen if you tried it? The answer, it seems to me, is pretty straightforward. In the hypothetical case, you have been publishing a notice for years, saying "I have not been served with a subpoena." You then get served with a subpoena that includes a gag order. The gag order, presumably, includes wording prohibiting you from revealing the existence of the subpoena. You then cease publication of the warrant canary. By doing so, you...

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.

Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited "for cause strikes," which are...

You don't know. You can't know. And you can't force the officer to tell you. Detention Status As a practical matter, you have no way of knowing if you are compelled to follow an officer's order because you are being detained unless the officer volunteers that information (your detention status) which they are not compelled to disclose and have every incentive not to disclose. Consider the situation when the officer does not have reasonable suspicion do detain you. If the officer instantly informs you that you are "free to go" then you are likely to leave and end the encounter...


What legal liability does one's participation on Stack Exchange carry?

This question is motivated by a question which came up recently on engineering.SE: Cracks on the wall . It may be closed in the future so I will summarize. The user posted pictures of (very large) cracks in the wall of his house and asked the community "could you please advice to do continue the construction as per proper standard or I have demolish the house and re-built again?" A professional engineer advising this individual under the auspices of a hired firm would have certain legal obligations to the correctness of their opinion. If one were to advise this individual in a way that led to him living in an unsafe structure on Stack Exchange, what legal repercussions could they face? In particular, is there any legal precedent (read prior court case) which absolves freely offered online advice from liability?

I imagine that under English and Welsh law, the relevant tort would negligent misstatement, as there is no contract between the parties. From Practical Law : A claim for negligent misstatement may arise whether or not a contractual relationship exists between the parties. However, if there is a contractual relationship, it is more likely that a claim would be brought for negligent misrepresentation. Whether or not a claim for negligent misstatement would succeed would depend on several factors. Firstly, a duty of care must exist between the parties. From the Oxford Dictionary of Law : A negligent misstatement is only...

Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...

A few years ago, there was a trial in the USA about some short sound on some music CD: One party claimed that one piece of music on the CD contained a sound of less than one second length which is copied from another CD without the permission of the copyright owner of the other CD. It could never be found out if this claim was really true. The court's decision was: If it is not possible to distinguish between a copy and a work that does not depend on the other work at all, it is not a copyright...

Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...


Why does browser cache not count as copyright infringement?

My browser is saving a copy of the web pages I visit on my computer. How is that not copyright infringement? in this answer I read: I would hazard a guess that displaying an HTML webpage online is implicitly allowing others to read that code How does that imply that you can make a local copy, when a web page includes a copyright note, or does not mention copyright at all (in which case standard copyright rules apply)? I suspect that the only possible way out would be stating that digital text is not the same thing as printed text and therefore the same rules should not apply, but we are constantly told the opposite, aren't we? UPDATE I'm adding some quotes from the only answer and comments below, to bring more elements for further answers that I hope will come, since I'm still not convinced that this situation makes completely sense. It has been pointed out that Fortunately I don't need to be convinced, as I'm not a judge on a relevant case (Jon Story. I changed "you" from the original comment to "I" ) And that's totally true, so I feel like reassuring that my question comes only out of my couriosity and noone needs to answer if they don't wish to satisfy that. I'd like to receive an answer that copes with some alternative views seen here, possibily making me understand which one is right (or more logical, or more convincing). I don't mean to make this question become too broad, so we are still dealing with the original problem: whether browser cache violates (US and EU) copyright laws in theory . I do hope this is a good subjective question . Please be aware that I believe the term Intellectual Property , which appeared in the comments, to be misleading . It refers to patents, trademarks, copyright and other stuff, while we're just discussing about copyright here. Quotes from answer and comments: Copyright is not about copying, it is about use (Jon Story) Many misconceptions are based on copyright being about use. Copyright is not about use, it is about copying (Marcks Thomas) To expand on the point about use, not copying, being the main issue, it would be a violation of copyright to take a BD and project it onto a large screen and charge money for people to watch it. I didn't copy the disc, just played it for profit (or even if i didn't charge, as a public performance) and I'd go to jail (Andy) You wouldn't say the optical fiber the data was sent through was copying the data? (kasperd) In order to read printed text, your eyes make a copy of that work (in a different format, made up of neurons firing in your brain) (Jon Story) routers don't copy the data in full. They process one packet at a time, which by no means is enough to contain the full work. A packet is more comparable with a citation, than a copy of the work. (kasperd) FURTHER UPDATE: I'm going to start a bounty on this question. Here I add the parts of the current answer (Jon Story's) I'm less satisfied with: Because you are not duplicating the content or re-publishing it I'm clearly doing the first of these two things. The web page is publicly available anyway (or at least, accessible by you), so you have permission to read it: copyright is about whether you have permission to access and read the file, not about whether you have permission to make a copy of the file as part of the technical process of accessing and reading it. I'm almost certain that copyright is not about the permission to read and access the text, but about the permission of making copies, modifying, redistributing and other stuff like that. For instance, I don't think you can make a copyright note that does not allow reading your content. Is fair use the key point here? That may be, and in the comments I was almost convinced. However, I've never known that fair use could justifiy copying the entire text. They won't let me photocopy an entire copyrighted book for personal use, I guess.

If you are not a member of the Bar of Maryland, you may not "practice, attempt to practice, or offer to practice law in the State unless admitted to the Bar." Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-601 . "Practicing law" includes "representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political subdivision." Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-101 . "[A] person who violates § 10-601 of this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both." Maryland Business...

I'm only going to consider US perspectives, which may or may not answer your question entirely. Also, I'm not going to address the guesses in other answers because, and except to say, they don't appear to be based in law, but rather (mis)understandings of law. 17 U.S. Code § 512 provides protections for service providers when providing content, online. This expressly includes caching. In Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. , 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2012) at 39, the Court held that to exclude these functions from the safe harbor would remove protections for service providers under subsection...

The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...

at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...


Consent to searches: Who wins "my-word-against-yours?"

Hypothetical Officer testifies citizen consented to be searched. Citizen denies consenting to be searched. There is no other evidence (that weighs net in favor of either party). Question Whom does the judge believe? Clarifying Discussion from previous comments... Point The testimony of the officer and the citizen would be more complete than just the officer saying "The defendant consented to be searched" and the defendant saying "I did not consent to be searched". Each would give a narrative of the situation that could be cross-examined. This would give the judge more information on which to base a judgement of trustworthiness. Response Although everything you say is true, to put all that information into the question would miss the point. Which is: What is the standard of proof (for consent to searches)? And is their any " weight " advantage (in practice) for testimony from either side (all other factors being equal). For the purpose of this question, please assume all the other factors (the ones you mention and all the others) cancel out each other. Imagine both narratives agree except in one version the citizen gives consent. In the other he does not.

Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....

Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a "welfare check." You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...

This is not a simple question. There are hundreds of page treatises on consent - explicit, implied, obtained by trickery, revoked, coerced by show, coerced by intimidation. If it ever was just a he said (s)he said situation, that certainly does not mean that the testimony of those two individuals are all that's considered to determine (1) that the prosecutor failed to meet it's burden; nor does it mean (2) that the consent was (legally) given. None of these answers (nor this answer) could possibly adequately address the complexity of the analysis a court will endeavor to undertake when evidence...

There is no legal obligation of the police or any of its officers to reimburse you. It comes within a police powers exception to the 5th Amendment obligation to provide compensation for takings. Sometimes a government will compensate someone even though it has no legal obligation to do so, but this is unlikely to happen. A petition for certiorari from 10th Circuit decision of Lech v. City of Greenwood Village (10th Cir. October 29, 2019) recaps a lot of the relevant law and arguments for changing it (the petition was subsequently denied by the U.S. Supreme Court). The question presented...


Do I have legal rights against a company that offered me a raise to not leave, and then promptly fired me after turning down the other offer?

I was just informed of this situation that occurred somewhere by a co-worker, and was wondering what the legal ramifications are (U.S. Law). To be clear, the scenario is as follows: I tell my boss I've been offered a position at another company. My boss later comes to me with a counter offer of a raise, if I choose to stay with them I accept the counter offer, and inform the other company that I have chosen to stay with my current employer After a week, my boss then informs me that I'm being let go, and that this should serve as a lesson to not mess with him. For the above scenario, regarding U.S. law, do I hold any legal grounds against this? What options would I have to defend myself (and my family) from being blatantly told that I was fired because I was willing to accept another offer without some other counter-offer from my current employer? As for the chap this did happen to, I'm informed that he contacted the company who originally gave him the offer, and they were still willing to bring him on-board. So, yay (somewhat) happy ending to an otherwise terrifying situation. However, I'm specifically asking about the scenario in which he was forced to be unemployed for some period of time, while looking for another job (i.e., the other company no longer had the position open)

It depends to a large degree on local employment laws. Depending on how the counteroffer was worded, it might have constituted anything from a binding legal contract for employment for some reasonable minimum term, or a totally non-binding suggestion that was worth less than the air breathed while pronouncing it. Some things to consider would include: What are local employment laws like? Do they require that termination be for cause? If so, what are causes for termination? Does termination require any kind of remediation beforehand? Note that in an at-will, right-to-work state in the US, odds are that the employee...


Suppose someone kills more people than they intended. Did they murder the extra people?

If a person sets a bomb in a music festival. Based on previous attendance numbers, they expected 60,000 people to show up. 120,000 people showed up and were killed by their bomb. Legally, did they murder 60,000 people, or all 120,000? Also, suppose they set up the bomb just to kill the production crew, and they end up killing the attendees. Did they still commit 120,000 murders?

An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of "vegan approved" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.

In this specific scenario, not only is it not a crime, failure to do so is a breach of proper maritime protocols and could be illegal. A person manning a boat and sees a human in water in distress should immediately go to the rescue or recovery of the victim. This is commonly started by the crewman of the vessel who spots the body shouting "Man overboard" once... which triggers every crewman on the deck to also shout the same thing exactly once regardless of if they can see the man who is overboard (The idea is that the call...