Law Questions and Answers

Can a cop make an arrest on private property?

A friend of mine who get lost really easy be out driving around on dirt roads and pulled into a field to turn around. He sit there for a couple of minutes and tried to numeral out which way to step when a cop drove drove by and noticed him sitting in that. The cop then go into the fenced area to do his '' so call business''. He asked if he could search the vehicle and be told no. After being told this the cop go to his car and get the k9 unit to dig out the car. By the cease of the night in attendance was one arrest.

Just required to know if this sounded very wrong to anyone else.
Answers: categorically!
Can a cop make an arrest on private property? - Of course. Otherwise criminals would lately stand on their lawn and flap at the cops. Besides, it sounds like "your friend" be not even on his property, he was trespassing.

Walking a police dog around the outside of a vehicle is not a search. If the dog alerts on the saloon it creates probable cause. At that point the officer *can* query the car.
Of course police can arrest yo on private property. People attain arrested in their home, malls, Churches, places of work.. etc.

Also the sports car can be searched if near is probably cause. Such as the smell of drugs or a visibly intoxicated driver.

Yes it does nouns wrong, your friend is an idiot.
If the officer is within his or her jurisdiction and he or she believes the the being of interest is of some kind of threat or have resonable suspicion that drugs and or firearms may be present he or she may enter private property and search minus permission.You must meet the terms the law,even on private property.

Help... My friend got stopped by lost prevention?

my friend make over price stickers on a jacket from 60.00 to 14.00 .. they took his info and let him stir ... Will he get billed for the rest ? or will they sue him .? or detention centre ?
Answers: Depends on the state. Your friend is an idiot. I would stay away from him.
honey.if its not over 500 they wont do anything..so tell him to relax ;-)

Who else agrees ALL pornography should be illegal?

I know at hand is freedom of speech and all that, but...

Porno is IMMORAL!!

Shouldn't the tenet be more about MORALS?
Answers: YES! Let's brand name all pornography off the record! And the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, too! That thing lately gets adjectives types of lusty thoughts in my team leader.

Also, let's throw those Victoria's Secret models in young offenders` institution and burn down the stores. My mom lived with granny panties, so those models can, too.
Next, we outlaw adjectives bikinis. Way too immoral (and the ruling should be about morals, right?)

Then, let's sanction dirty books, starting with those parts of the Bible where on earth people "lay down" near each other. How dirty! Then it's on to Danielle Steel, Mario Puzo, Jean Auel, and Tom Robbins (thank God Vonnegut, Hemingway, Fielding, and especially Henry Miller are adjectives burning in hell!) Oh, don't forget Irvine Welsh! He wrote a book call Porno! Definitely need to put adjectives those people contained by jail where on earth I won't be tempted to read their accepted wisdom! Then let's burn all their books! YAY! You bring the marshmallows, OK?

After that, let's take rid of all songs alluding to sex (that dirty Britney Spears)

And any movie next to a breast in it go in the landfill. Like Braveheart? Or those Monty Python movies? SINNERS!

Free speech for none! Who decide what is safe and what is lewd? Random IMPACT Man, that's who! RIM to the rescue of society! [trumpets blaring]
Wait, I forgot. Why is porno immoral again? Because our viewpoint are never wrong, and we say it's decadent? Because we are the arbiter for everyone's taste? Remind me, and I'll catch back to you.
do you reflect "Playboy" is porn ?
-----------
as for the law(s) being in the order of morals
that's what Islamic law is adjectives about
Law should be just about rights. What right do we have to prevent two consenting adults from doing something if they don't spoil someone else?

Personally, I think pornography is bleak, but they don't violate my rights.
I would like to know why you reflect porn is immoral?

Laws can not be nearly morals, because eveyone has different morals. I don't devise that porn is in anyway "immoral" but markedly you do, so why should a law be made on what you believe is true when others don't believe it?

If you don't similar to porn, don't watch it. I don't resembling westerns, so I don't watch them. See pretty simple.
"Shouldn't the directive be more about MORALS?" - Sure. It should be base on the morals we all agree on. I don't believe that pornography, consensual sex between adults or nude net cams are immoral.

The issue is what some general public want to call morals are religious beliefs.

I presume laws should be nearly protecting people from other empire. If I look at a picture of two people have sex and I don't show it to you, how are you hurt? Who is the victim?
YOU are degenerate - for declaring something else to be abandoned without considering that folks might merely disagree with you. As I do. Morality is RELATIVE because contained by the majority of cases, it derives from the religion of your family at the time you be growing up. Your morality, atheist morality, humanist morality, Islamic morality, Buddhist morality - all somewhat different - and adjectives the same. Namely, followed by some, scoff by others.

Pornography, like the Bible, is not everyone's cup of tea. But if the followers of Islam and Buddha and the atheists within this country banded together to declare the Bible licentious, the shoe would be on the other foot, now wouldn't it?

Immorality is first and foremost harm someone else for no good use. You would deny people access to something they want, which is a physical harm. Whereas for you, adjectives that is required is that you don't buy the frimpin' porn mag. Then it will do nought to you.

This country is about DIVERSITY. To sort sweeping statements about morality belies that diversity. Thanks but no gratefulness.
Who's morals? yours? mine? the guy up the street? how about a pedophiles?

Just because you are morally anti something doesn't mean I am. I am morally dead set against organized religions bleeding their congregations dry while they live in mansions and drive BMW's.should that be off the record?
My morals -

I find it immoral to try and control other peoples lives.

Thus, if law were base on morals, you'd be in secure unit or facing a pretty hefty fine.
Sure...let's legislate morals now.
Btw...what is pornography?
Is is...2 uncovered girls and a naked guy doing things to respectively other?
Victoria's Secret runway shows?
A picture of a man spanking his (obviously willing) wife?
A woman in boots next to a whip prime a man on a leash?

I say, find what make YOU happy, and don't verbs so much about others...
We enjoy freedom in our country.what is pornographic to you may not be pornographic to your neighbor... Who are you to establish what is "moral" or "immoral". You can only label that decision for yourself...concerning you. IF you regard as it is immoral, don't buy it or survey it. But, leave your neighbor out of it.

We don't put up beside censorship in our country...we are a free those.
Porn is a way for ethnic group to express them selfs...so no
but,for ages 12-15 it should be illegal.But it isnt and its not going to be,so donate up now.
Anything and any one who degrade women and children should be outlawed and illegal. How would relations feel if some of their kids come to them and said when they grow up they want to be a porn star? That would rattle profoundly of chains. We have ample rapist and serial killers surrounded by the world. Why give them any more accepted wisdom???!!
Yes, I do. it is Wrong.

Non-New Yorkers.What do you think of Guiliani's persona, temprement, morals.?

He was my mayor for 8 years. I know him resourcefully. What do you know about him past 9/11 and after?
Answers: He looks shifty, untrustworthy. His posture, his demeanor, it reeks of unsavoury qualities.
I also cannot get the certainty that he scooped up all that rubble at Ground Zero, next to all those bodies, simply like that "snap!"

That's basically wrong, man.
What happened to empathy.
This is a guy next to no morals, low IQ and a short neck.
I did know that he have policed up New York very all right but as far as I am concerned you can see a person's character contained by times of crisis. Rudy showed great character, courage and supervision in our nation greatest crises since WWII and Pearl Harbour. Some of the New Yorkers that I know don't like him but others really close to and admire him

http://www.time.com/time/poy2001/winner.
Giuliani, Gilligan, what's the difference?
They both live contained by a desert Island.
As far as his morals and temperament goes I am fine next to him. I admire him for the channel he handled Gotham City's crime problem and he made a lifelong friend out of me when he pushed that low natural life terrorist Arafat out of that gala. I of course approve of his handling of the 911 attack.

I do not agree near his position on gun control and I do not think that his beefy handed policy would work to control crime anywhere else.

As far as his personal morals go; it have been established by Bill Clinton himself that it no longer matter.

I do not agree with adjectives of his positions but I would prefer him as President to Hillary or Obama.

I am from Texas/Oklahoma.
Why don't you ask Knights of Malta Giuliani his connection to Monte Carlo P2 contributor Giorgio Hugo Balestrieri in regard to 911?

Court case HELP?

Court covering HELP??
i am doing a persuasive essay on this court case. it will clutch a while to explain it, so i'll post a link here, so you can see:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999...

so for the essay, i enjoy to explain if it was unconstitutional or not. and i hold to explain why. how would you use facts and amendments from the bill of rights to determine it? THANKS SOO MUCH!!
10 points for best answer!
Answers: forcing others to pay for something that someone else requirements to do is very unconstitutional as in good health as anti capitalist. This is a Judicial Activist decision. More towards socialism. While you can argue this valise on the grounds of the 1st amendment, free speech clause. It really comes down to an infringement of a persons right to chose who he or she requests to donate to. But since this is a public school and it receive public money, it must abide by the laws of the country which include anti discriminatory statutes.

NYS Traffic Court ?

Is there any truth to something I used to hear years ago, that say: if the officer does NOT show up for the court date that the judge will/can dismiss the ticket? Is it a discretionary item, or is this just somekind of urban folklore?

I'm assuming you'd hold to plead innocent. It sounds a little weasely. Considering the officer wrote the ticket up as a mediocre charge would this be really bad form? (Should I in recent times take my lumps?)
Answers: not totally true, if you dance into court and plea not guilty, the case is set for trial. At the trial the officer afterwards must show up to court as a witness to your offense. The officer does not have to show up for the preliminary audible range where you enter a plea.

Should information government keep on its citizens be available to those citizens? Tell us your thoughts.?

This is a question that my sister have to write a paper roughly for school (though it's also an essay contest for SDOG). What are your thoughts on this topic?
Answers: Should citizens hold access to their own information that the government keep? Absolutely! I think I hold the right to find out what the government know about me, because I sure haven't told them everything. If they know something that I haven't told anyone, next I would be very concerned as I would have need of to start wondering how they obtained that information.

Should citizens own access to other citizens' information that the government keep? Absolutely not, with few exceptions. One one a safety concern (sexual assault, convicted felon, child abuse), adjectives of which are public record anyway. Otherwise, everyone have a right to a private life.
On citizens, maybe. But information on immigrants, whether permananent or provisional, legal or forbidden, I don't believe the government is in somebody`s debt to reveal such information.

Vote for Rudy!
In general, information the command has in the region of people is public dictation, and is available to anyone.

There are a few exceptions. IRS information is strictly confidential - the IRS can't even share it with other governing body bodies. Health and medical data is - mostly - protected. Information critical to ongoing criminal investigations is protected, as is information necessary to national security.

Most other info is available to the public - though it may run a FOIA request to get it.

Richard
how exactly do you propose to index such information, and deliver it carefully, promptly, and without maltreat on either termination?

It is a blockbuster movie scenario to think that parliament abuses can not be detected by aggregate notes anyway.

Zero tolerance policy?

What on earth is our world coming to? All of these word stories I've heard just about the zero tolerance policy merely show how completely insane we have become. I am a 16-year-old high-ranking school student, and as you would expect I do not condone kids bringing weapons and drugs to institution. Anyone who does that should be expelled. But seriously, a 10-year-old girl was arrested for bringing scissors to college! Another kid was expelled because he have been using a pocket run through outside of school and forgot to help yourself to it out of his pocket. Even kids who make honest mistakes resembling that and tell a university administrator right away after they realize they have a "weapon", they still acquire expelled. I cannot believe that people are so insane that they expel innocent populace and ruin their lives because they simply did not remember that they have a "weapon". Does anyone else agree that we have gone completely out of our minds?
Answers: Blame the teacher Union.

In the 'olden days" a teacher would net a judgment name as to whether the knife Johnny brought to university was a 'weapon' or simply a pocket knife for sharpening his spine pen.

Trouble with that, today, is that teacher, like ALL public workforce, don't WANT to have to net a decision in the order of anything.

If you do make a verdict, someone might criticize you and say you be wrong. So it's SO MUCH easier - for the teachers - to lately have a "nothing tolerance" policy, and when a teacher expels a 5 year old-fashioned for having a plastic Dixie stick with her to spread cheese on her crackers, the lecturer can throw up her hands and voice "Don't blame me, it's the zero tolerance policy!"

Richard
Three things enjoy ruined America in former times 50 years:

Drugs, Lawyers, and Politicians
Here in America, race have gone "terrorist" nuts. I'm waiting for the time when a sharp pencil will be a borderline weapon, and it will happen! If a kid is intent on bringing a weapon to university, they will do it, no matter how alert the parents are.
The argument has worthy points (no kids killed), but it has plenty of unpromising points, too, like loss of freedom.
You are so right..! This 'zero tolerance' concept have been perverse into mega madness, especially by the yo-yo's running the public conservatory system. Many of these people are already on a power trip because they've wormed their mode into positions of authority, and now are within pig heaven near the ZT thing. There are even a few school where you can grasp suspended and/or expelled for so much as touching another student, so no more high 5's, handshake, pats on the vertebrae, etc.,.
This is a sign of two basic principles:

Laziness - because within a zero tolerance environment, you do not enjoy to make decision.

And Fear (of litigation) - because you know that if you make a verdict that someone else happens to not resembling, they will sue your pants sour.

And that laziness take a second root with parents who don't want to hold to make decision about raise a child, so they make the school do it.
try taking any of those items to an airport and see if there is a nought tolerance.

kids lives are not ruined because they are expelled form a school, they simply step to another school.
No we enjoy not gone out of our minds.Zero means Zero
I weave up arresting all sorts of fools on a regular foundation, I have hear just roughly speaking every excuse there is but I can convey you from many years of experience that the one that starts the excuse next to "I was just" is the one that get the cuffs. The school system have had to hold a reason to adopt the policy and they clear it extremely clear, I don't travel by air repeatedly but you can bet that I don't bring a weapon to the airport. I could see it now "I be just"
The worst thing more or less Zero Tolerance is the way they hold the police come and arrest a kid who is merely enthused in the order of a crafts project at school (and happen to have a duo of scissors). They handcuff them and dragged them sour in a state of trauma and book them and everything! Our culture have gone completely insane. Why are we making children pay for the sins of adults?

Advertisement ad claims "lowest prices guaranteed or free", can they be sued for misrepresenting?

Found this public notice in the sickly pages for contact lenses and eyeglasses. I found a cheaper price so I called them and hold told them that, the person I be takling said he wasn't in the 'marketing department' and also said "they could probably time the price". I told him that it is not what the ad say, he told me to call someone else... I'll find out tommorow, but at this time I lately want to know can they (this company) be held LIABLE for misrepresenting in the poster if they do not offer the free contacts or goggles? I am from Canada
Answers: Depends on whether the advertisement amounts to false media hype or mere puffery. Without seeing the advertisement, it's impossible to vote.

For example, if an advertisement claimed "this is the best drink ever," to be exact a clear example of mere puffery. In this case, you don't enjoy a claim to false advertising if you don't similar to the drink.
Nope.

They do need the opportunity to vanquish the lower advertised price. If to be exact not granted then yes they do enjoy to offer the item free.

please do minute that the lowest price needs to be a lower advertise price in Canadian funds for an similar product.
they could but most likely won't as their disclaimer would most credible state they sell for smaller quantity. unless you actually bought lenses from them AND next bought lenses cheaper else where they are not obligated to provide you anything for free. pretty sneaky 'cuz why would you buy 2 pr. ? sneaky but legal.

Help filling in a police officer application?

any books you can recommend
Answers: Oh sorry I got distracted and didn't read your question properly, I was going to offer you some help 'filling in a police officer'! Sorry ☺
To become a police officer. All you need to know is.

~ Know the alphabet
~Write your name on the dotted line
~If you can count up to a 1,000
~Know the nearest dough-nut shop to your headquarters
My son wanted to join a similar service but he was told that he did "not suit present service recruitment criteria at the moment". He was born in England and he was male!. If you are female and your parents or yourself were not born in the UK you have a better chance, a scheme started by lord red ken of London.
I do suggest that if you have to later on take decisions to uphold the laws of this country, that you take your own decisions on the words you use to complete your application form.

More Questions and Answers:
[2495] - [220] - [1222] - [940] - [1945] - [104] - [1975] - [286] - [1994] - [1941] - [332] - [1079] - [1898] - [2012] - [1926] - [451] - [351] - [2105] - [1310] - [1429]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: