The summary isn't quite right. A warrant would not be required to seize your phone or other recording device if the officer has probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime (and exigent circumstances exist, which they probably do). Then he can try to get a warrant to get that evidence off your device. An example would be they roll up on a crime scene and you were recording before they got there, or, maybe you got video of the suspect assaulting the police. They wouldn't need a warrant to seize it at that point, because exigent circumstances (you could leave, the evidence could easily be destroyed if they don't secure the phone) would justify seizure without a warrant. However they could not legally search it without a warrant. (Typically in a case where a bystander has video of the crime they'll be cooperative and send the video to the police if possible, or give consent to them to get it off their device).
The smarter police aren't going to go around taking phones. If they believe you have evidence on your phone they'd probably like to talk to you about what you saw anyway and ripping your phone out of your hands isn't going to help that. But just be aware that they can most likely legally seize your phone without a warrant, if they have probable cause it has evidence of a crime, and if seizing your phone is the only way to preserve that evidence from being destroyed or lost (you could delete the video or walk away before a warrant could be obtained).
In most jurisdictions felony murder is actually a lesser form of murder.
Generally a felony is a series crime, a misdemeanor is a petty crime. Misdemeanors usually carry a maximum punishment of less than one year, felonies have much higher punishment.
As far as what crimes are classified as what is up to the legislature, obviously, but the legal distinction is more significant than just a label. One of the biggest distinctions being that felonies require a grand jury indictment (in states that have grand juries), or a probable cause hearing in non grand jury states.
Also it's not like the U.S. invented the distinction, we inherited it from England.
Evidence that that police heard you on an illegal wiretap saying that you wanted to buy a kilo of cocaine is not exculpatory if you happen to later commit a traffic violation while transporting said kilo of cocaine and the police develop independent probable cause justifying a search of your vehicle.
It might be exculpatory if you said you wanted to buy a kilo of cocaine and the police found a kilo of heroin, though.
The prosecution is required to hand over all the evidence they intend to use at trial, and any potentially exculpatory evidence. Not "all the evidence they gathered."
Most importantly, though, we don't hold his past against him because his offense was something like "Intent of Sexual Assault," which is something that any cheating or otherwise regretful whore could have fabricated after leading a man on while in a drunken stupor before her boyfriend found out and gave her an ultimatum.
You don't have to justify your non-hate of a convicted sex-offender by downplaying their guilt. It's perfectly acceptable to say that he committed a crime, and has changed his life, and is now a law-abiding citizen. He is still paying part of his debt to society by being a registered sex offender for some period of time.
Instead of believing that a criminal is capable of change, you instead choose to believe that this particular person was never a criminal in the first place. I'm curious why that is? Is it easier to work next to someone believing they're not actually a registered sex offender?
So, do me a favor when you return to work: Consider the fact that he may actually be guilty of this crime. That he may have actually done something wrong, and attempted to take advantage of some woman sexually, and that is capable of doing so. Are you still as comfortable working next to him?
but the bicyclist or pedestrian that doesn't hear the car coming, Might dart out In front or turn in front of the vehicle more quickly than it can respond. Something they wouldn't have done if they knew a car was there.
Cairo was very similar when we visited in late 2010. For added excitement, not only do the drivers there honk nonstop, they also drive with their headlights off at night.
If my employees can receive a check for not working that is higher than what I am willing to pay them to work (or, probably even lower than, because who would work a full time job if you're only going to make a few bucks more than if you didn't work), what is my incentive to maintain my business at all?
Rather than pay my employees more so I can stay in business, but make less money myself, I too could simply not work and make a decent wage.
I wouldn't really call this "natural selection." Social, cultural, political, and economic factors drive birth rates. It so happens that women in places with the highest birth rates tend to be shorter and heavier. It's not because they're more likely to be fertile and reproduce. It's just that they haven't figured out how not to get pregnant yet. (Or choose not to practice birth control despite it being available).
Maybe they're saying we should legalize it, because in most states possession of any amount of cocaine is a felony, and it appears that 90% of us who carry cash are guilty of it, even knowingly guilty of it, since we now know that there is a 90% chance that each bill in our wallet is tainted.
Actually, attorneys are supposed to do what their clients want (for the "big picture" things), not what is necessarily in the clients "best interest." The only time we care about anyone's best interest is typically when children are involved, and they will typically get a special advocate appointed.
A real good attorney can convince their client that what the client thinks is the right thing to do is not, and in that way persuade them to do something that is in their best interest as opposed to what they really want to do, but at the end of the day, all of the big decisions are made by the client, and it's up to the attorney to make it happen. (Client decides the what, attorney decides the how).
If this guy's goal was to be a political statement, then maybe his attorney did the right thing. I would hope he tried to talk him out of it first and explain to him that working a reasonable settlement would be better for him in the long run financially, otherwise he did his client a disservice.
sell your debt to a junk debt buyer. This entity buys your debt for pennies on the dollar and then attempts to collect 200-400% of the original amount owed. They keep 100% of what they collect. The people from whom you actually borrowed the money don't see a dime.
You left out that the junk debt collectors will continue to call the phone number that you abandoned 5 years ago no matter how many times the new owner of that number explains to them they don't know who the hell Monica is. Or, when you finally get them to stop calling, they sell the account to someone else, and it starts all over again.
I don't recommend refusing. Your refusal to take the test can be used against you in court. (South Dakota v. Neville, if you don't believe me). Also, if it's not your first offense, many states have stiffer penalties for refusing.
Instead, if you know you're not under the influence, offer your blood if you don't trust the breath machine. Two advantages. A more accurate test, and, can be preserved for independent testing down the road.
It actually doesn't stop anything. It's a non-binding resolution. It has as much weight as when the U.S. Congress passes a resolution declaring it Bob Smith Got a Hang Nail Today Day.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing for sale at the National Mall is freedom and 'merica. No pressure cookers.
The summary isn't quite right. A warrant would not be required to seize your phone or other recording device if the officer has probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime (and exigent circumstances exist, which they probably do). Then he can try to get a warrant to get that evidence off your device. An example would be they roll up on a crime scene and you were recording before they got there, or, maybe you got video of the suspect assaulting the police. They wouldn't need a warrant to seize it at that point, because exigent circumstances (you could leave, the evidence could easily be destroyed if they don't secure the phone) would justify seizure without a warrant. However they could not legally search it without a warrant. (Typically in a case where a bystander has video of the crime they'll be cooperative and send the video to the police if possible, or give consent to them to get it off their device).
The smarter police aren't going to go around taking phones. If they believe you have evidence on your phone they'd probably like to talk to you about what you saw anyway and ripping your phone out of your hands isn't going to help that. But just be aware that they can most likely legally seize your phone without a warrant, if they have probable cause it has evidence of a crime, and if seizing your phone is the only way to preserve that evidence from being destroyed or lost (you could delete the video or walk away before a warrant could be obtained).
In most jurisdictions felony murder is actually a lesser form of murder.
Generally a felony is a series crime, a misdemeanor is a petty crime. Misdemeanors usually carry a maximum punishment of less than one year, felonies have much higher punishment.
As far as what crimes are classified as what is up to the legislature, obviously, but the legal distinction is more significant than just a label. One of the biggest distinctions being that felonies require a grand jury indictment (in states that have grand juries), or a probable cause hearing in non grand jury states.
Also it's not like the U.S. invented the distinction, we inherited it from England.
Every ABA accredited JD program in the US requires you to first have a bachelor's degree at a minimum.
Many states now give felons the right to vote back after they have served their time in prison or on probation.
Evidence that that police heard you on an illegal wiretap saying that you wanted to buy a kilo of cocaine is not exculpatory if you happen to later commit a traffic violation while transporting said kilo of cocaine and the police develop independent probable cause justifying a search of your vehicle.
It might be exculpatory if you said you wanted to buy a kilo of cocaine and the police found a kilo of heroin, though.
The prosecution is required to hand over all the evidence they intend to use at trial, and any potentially exculpatory evidence. Not "all the evidence they gathered."
Most importantly, though, we don't hold his past against him because his offense was something like "Intent of Sexual Assault," which is something that any cheating or otherwise regretful whore could have fabricated after leading a man on while in a drunken stupor before her boyfriend found out and gave her an ultimatum.
You don't have to justify your non-hate of a convicted sex-offender by downplaying their guilt. It's perfectly acceptable to say that he committed a crime, and has changed his life, and is now a law-abiding citizen. He is still paying part of his debt to society by being a registered sex offender for some period of time.
Instead of believing that a criminal is capable of change, you instead choose to believe that this particular person was never a criminal in the first place. I'm curious why that is? Is it easier to work next to someone believing they're not actually a registered sex offender?
So, do me a favor when you return to work: Consider the fact that he may actually be guilty of this crime. That he may have actually done something wrong, and attempted to take advantage of some woman sexually, and that is capable of doing so. Are you still as comfortable working next to him?
but the bicyclist or pedestrian that doesn't hear the car coming, Might dart out In front or turn in front of the vehicle more quickly than it can respond. Something they wouldn't have done if they knew a car was there.
Cairo was very similar when we visited in late 2010. For added excitement, not only do the drivers there honk nonstop, they also drive with their headlights off at night.
If my employees can receive a check for not working that is higher than what I am willing to pay them to work (or, probably even lower than, because who would work a full time job if you're only going to make a few bucks more than if you didn't work), what is my incentive to maintain my business at all?
Rather than pay my employees more so I can stay in business, but make less money myself, I too could simply not work and make a decent wage.
Your logic is horribly flawed.
I wouldn't really call this "natural selection." Social, cultural, political, and economic factors drive birth rates. It so happens that women in places with the highest birth rates tend to be shorter and heavier. It's not because they're more likely to be fertile and reproduce. It's just that they haven't figured out how not to get pregnant yet. (Or choose not to practice birth control despite it being available).
Maybe they're saying we should legalize it, because in most states possession of any amount of cocaine is a felony, and it appears that 90% of us who carry cash are guilty of it, even knowingly guilty of it, since we now know that there is a 90% chance that each bill in our wallet is tainted.
If you combined that with a divided attention test, it would be better at showing actual impairment.
Are you familiar with Dennis Kucinich?
For some reason, I figured Big Boy preferred submissions in milkshake and cheeseburger form.
vi
Whatever it is, I have a feeling it's not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90
Actually, attorneys are supposed to do what their clients want (for the "big picture" things), not what is necessarily in the clients "best interest." The only time we care about anyone's best interest is typically when children are involved, and they will typically get a special advocate appointed.
A real good attorney can convince their client that what the client thinks is the right thing to do is not, and in that way persuade them to do something that is in their best interest as opposed to what they really want to do, but at the end of the day, all of the big decisions are made by the client, and it's up to the attorney to make it happen. (Client decides the what, attorney decides the how).
If this guy's goal was to be a political statement, then maybe his attorney did the right thing. I would hope he tried to talk him out of it first and explain to him that working a reasonable settlement would be better for him in the long run financially, otherwise he did his client a disservice.
sell your debt to a junk debt buyer. This entity buys your debt for pennies on the dollar and then attempts to collect 200-400% of the original amount owed. They keep 100% of what they collect. The people from whom you actually borrowed the money don't see a dime.
You left out that the junk debt collectors will continue to call the phone number that you abandoned 5 years ago no matter how many times the new owner of that number explains to them they don't know who the hell Monica is. Or, when you finally get them to stop calling, they sell the account to someone else, and it starts all over again.
I don't recommend refusing. Your refusal to take the test can be used against you in court. (South Dakota v. Neville, if you don't believe me). Also, if it's not your first offense, many states have stiffer penalties for refusing.
Instead, if you know you're not under the influence, offer your blood if you don't trust the breath machine. Two advantages. A more accurate test, and, can be preserved for independent testing down the road.
Death penalty has been abolished for minors since 2005.
It actually doesn't stop anything. It's a non-binding resolution. It has as much weight as when the U.S. Congress passes a resolution declaring it Bob Smith Got a Hang Nail Today Day.
Trying to post anonymously on the Internet is like sending an anonymous letter with a return address label on it.
Cold Fusion is real
I believe the proper trademark is "ColdFusion," but we know what you mean.