Refusal is generally only a good idea if it's your first DUI. Most states have a separate DUI crime of refusing to take a breathalyzer test after you've previously been convicted of a DUI.
Unless of course this attorney is saying that they already know the accused are drunk, in which case the breathalyzer is redundant.
Most of the time you aren't given a breathalyzer test until you have already been arrested. If you've been arrested, that means the police have probable cause to believe that your under the influence of alcohol. Typically in a DUI case that probable cause is going to consist of several factors, including simple observations of your behavior, odors, your eyes, field sobriety tests (horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk and turn, one-leg stand, etc.) Based on those observation and tests, if the officer has reason to believe you are probably under the influence, he then arrests and takes you to the police station where you take the breathalyzer test to get an exact number.
A DUI prosecution can be easily proven if the officer has done his job well without needing the breathalyzer test. That said, the test is still done because it provides further evidence of guilt, and in states that provide increased penalties based on the BAC level, can bump up your punishment.
A defense attorney who will do "anything" to get his client off is not doing his job and should be disbarred. A defense attorney who will do "anything within the bounds of the law and legal ethics" to represent the "best interest" of his client is doing his job.
Sometimes the right thing for your client is not getting away with it.
Most states have what is known as "simple DUI," which is usually worded in the statute as "it is illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or other drug." That could mean one drop of alcohol that you had 50 minutes ago, if it can be proven that the alcohol has affected you in any way. It doesn't take much. Typically a simple DUI will carry the same penalty as a "low test" DUI, or something just over the legal limit.
On top of that, the states will also have certain "low test" or "high test" DUIs. These are typically worded as "it is illegal to drive with a BAC of.08 or higher" or "it is illegal to drive with a BAC of.17 or higher" and have various penalty levels based on the alcohol level in your blood. To prove those you do need a reliable test.
The case you cite has to do with sovereign immunity for political subdivisions in federal courts. Most of the time, the only way you're going to get a local government into federal court is if you have some constitutional violation.
There are also exceptions to sovereign immunity depending on your jurisdiction for situations where the government is involved in a proprietary rather than governmental function. Nonetheless, sovereign immunity does apply to ALL levels of government.
Also, look up things like the common law writs of prohibition and mandamus, which the entire purpose of their existence is to force or restrain a public official's hand as necessary.
The courts won't even hear a claim that a law is unconstitutional, except in the manners that the law allows them to do so.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Most state trial courts are courts of general jurisdiction. It makes a huge difference.
The lawsuit in this case was filed in County Court.
Sovereign immunity does not apply to things like suing to stop the government from doing something. It only applies to suing the government for damages.
Sovereign immunity applies to all political subdivisions. From the Feds all the way down to cities and townships.
It saves me from the prospect of being employed by a company who doesn't want its workers to actually have lives.
They don't care if you have a life, they just don't want you to embarass them in the process of having one. If you're the kind of person that posts pictures of yourself having a good time on the Internet, how can they be assured that you'll have enough discretion
Prospective employee's WORK PERFORMANCE should be the measure of employment, not that person's PERSONAL life.
Right. Because work and life never mix. They are completely separate at all times. In fact, should your personal life and your work ever meet, the universe may explode.
You're not two different people. You're one. Try all you want to live two separate lives, eventually the lines will become blurred.
Plus, finding an employee who is a good personality fit is just as important as finding an employee who is a good performer. If we have to spend 2,000 hours within 20 feet of you each year for the next 30 years, we want to know you're not going to drive us stark raving mad.
You get two captchas. One is your standard, let's find out if you're human captcha, where the program knows the answer. The other is the scanned text. It also presents the same scanned text to many people, and then uses the results to figure out which one is the most likely correct result.
You are one of the three people on slashdot that actually reads the articles (which I think is against the rules here).
Reading of articles is strictly prohibited. However, clicking on the link and loading the article is required. This is how the Slashdot effect and ignorance of content can co-exist.
You realize almost every news program does this, especially on the radio? NPR did an entire segment once explaining how they edit interviews to improve the flow and so that everyone doesn't sound like a bumbling idiot. You never notice it when they air the interviews because they tend to give the appearance that they are "live."
As long as the idea conveyed by the individual is unaltered, I don't have a problem with the media "improving reality."
Go ahead, get rid of sovereign immunity. At the same time, ready that checkbook and pen, because it will cost taxpayers a fortune. Sovereign immunity doesn't just protect the big bad evil government. It protects all of us.
FERPA only applies to educational institutions. If an educational institution violates FERPA, they can lose federal funding (has not happened to a single school yet). I fail to see how this in any way at all violates FERPA.
For comparison, it'd be like you telling your friend you have a headache and then claiming a HIPAA violation when he tells your other friends.
The United States District Courts are the trial courts in the federal judicial system. The Circuit Courts of Appeal are, as the name suggest, the appellate courts.
So, it would be a district court judge doing the dismissal.
The Supreme Court of the United States has said more than once that their is no right to be licensed to practice law. They have also said more than once that the regulation of the practice of law is a matter entirely left to the states.
Such a lawsuit would be dismissed in about five seconds.
The bit about costs is separate from the rest of the recommendation. If the Supreme Court adopts the referee's recommendation, he'll be disbarred for life. That's pretty much standard language they probably include where you temporarily lose your license if you don't pay the costs of the proceedings against you. If the final punishment was simply a reprimand, then the failure to pay would become more important. The costs issue is a separate punishment from the disbarment.
In many states lawyers are suspended each year for failing to pay their bar dues. As soon as they pay them, they're reinstated.
I think he could have gotten away with it, when I first read it, my immediate assumption was that maybe he was doing some "investigating", as in seeing what exactly the material was, which I would see necissary, aslong as the material was the same material in question.
I would be very concerned if a judge decided to go conduct his own investigation of the facts in a case before him.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Someone compared copyright infringement to theft of personal property and got modded up around here? What happened to you, Slashdot?
Refusal is generally only a good idea if it's your first DUI. Most states have a separate DUI crime of refusing to take a breathalyzer test after you've previously been convicted of a DUI.
Unless of course this attorney is saying that they already know the accused are drunk, in which case the breathalyzer is redundant.
Most of the time you aren't given a breathalyzer test until you have already been arrested. If you've been arrested, that means the police have probable cause to believe that your under the influence of alcohol. Typically in a DUI case that probable cause is going to consist of several factors, including simple observations of your behavior, odors, your eyes, field sobriety tests (horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk and turn, one-leg stand, etc.) Based on those observation and tests, if the officer has reason to believe you are probably under the influence, he then arrests and takes you to the police station where you take the breathalyzer test to get an exact number.
A DUI prosecution can be easily proven if the officer has done his job well without needing the breathalyzer test. That said, the test is still done because it provides further evidence of guilt, and in states that provide increased penalties based on the BAC level, can bump up your punishment.
A defense attorney who will do "anything" to get his client off is not doing his job and should be disbarred. A defense attorney who will do "anything within the bounds of the law and legal ethics" to represent the "best interest" of his client is doing his job.
Sometimes the right thing for your client is not getting away with it.
Most states have what is known as "simple DUI," which is usually worded in the statute as "it is illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or other drug." That could mean one drop of alcohol that you had 50 minutes ago, if it can be proven that the alcohol has affected you in any way. It doesn't take much. Typically a simple DUI will carry the same penalty as a "low test" DUI, or something just over the legal limit.
On top of that, the states will also have certain "low test" or "high test" DUIs. These are typically worded as "it is illegal to drive with a BAC of .08 or higher" or "it is illegal to drive with a BAC of .17 or higher" and have various penalty levels based on the alcohol level in your blood. To prove those you do need a reliable test.
The case you cite has to do with sovereign immunity for political subdivisions in federal courts. Most of the time, the only way you're going to get a local government into federal court is if you have some constitutional violation.
There are also exceptions to sovereign immunity depending on your jurisdiction for situations where the government is involved in a proprietary rather than governmental function. Nonetheless, sovereign immunity does apply to ALL levels of government.
Also, look up things like the common law writs of prohibition and mandamus, which the entire purpose of their existence is to force or restrain a public official's hand as necessary.
The courts won't even hear a claim that a law is unconstitutional, except in the manners that the law allows them to do so.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Most state trial courts are courts of general jurisdiction. It makes a huge difference.
The lawsuit in this case was filed in County Court.
Sovereign immunity does not apply to things like suing to stop the government from doing something. It only applies to suing the government for damages.
Sovereign immunity applies to all political subdivisions. From the Feds all the way down to cities and townships.
It saves me from the prospect of being employed by a company who doesn't want its workers to actually have lives.
They don't care if you have a life, they just don't want you to embarass them in the process of having one. If you're the kind of person that posts pictures of yourself having a good time on the Internet, how can they be assured that you'll have enough discretion
Sexual orientation discrimination is still legal in most states.
Prospective employee's WORK PERFORMANCE should be the measure of employment, not that person's PERSONAL life.
Right. Because work and life never mix. They are completely separate at all times. In fact, should your personal life and your work ever meet, the universe may explode.
You're not two different people. You're one. Try all you want to live two separate lives, eventually the lines will become blurred.
Plus, finding an employee who is a good personality fit is just as important as finding an employee who is a good performer. If we have to spend 2,000 hours within 20 feet of you each year for the next 30 years, we want to know you're not going to drive us stark raving mad.
A uid of 581786 has been reading slashdot for years? Crap, wonder how long it's been for me.
RTFA.
You get two captchas. One is your standard, let's find out if you're human captcha, where the program knows the answer. The other is the scanned text. It also presents the same scanned text to many people, and then uses the results to figure out which one is the most likely correct result.
You are one of the three people on slashdot that actually reads the articles (which I think is against the rules here).
Reading of articles is strictly prohibited. However, clicking on the link and loading the article is required. This is how the Slashdot effect and ignorance of content can co-exist.
You realize almost every news program does this, especially on the radio? NPR did an entire segment once explaining how they edit interviews to improve the flow and so that everyone doesn't sound like a bumbling idiot. You never notice it when they air the interviews because they tend to give the appearance that they are "live."
As long as the idea conveyed by the individual is unaltered, I don't have a problem with the media "improving reality."
Conklin is a fraud. I was going to bother to prove so to you, but it's not worth my efforts.
Go ahead and actually read the cases he cites as proof that he is right. Then research the subsequent history of those cases.
Next you'll tell me that Ohio is not really a state and that paying income tax is optional.
I think some people wear mercury-lined tin-foil hats.
Funny, I always thought it was the Dogpatch.
The definition of "person" found in the U.S. Code applies to the rest of the U.S. Code, not the Constitution.
Go ahead, get rid of sovereign immunity. At the same time, ready that checkbook and pen, because it will cost taxpayers a fortune. Sovereign immunity doesn't just protect the big bad evil government. It protects all of us.
FERPA only applies to educational institutions. If an educational institution violates FERPA, they can lose federal funding (has not happened to a single school yet). I fail to see how this in any way at all violates FERPA.
For comparison, it'd be like you telling your friend you have a headache and then claiming a HIPAA violation when he tells your other friends.
The United States District Courts are the trial courts in the federal judicial system. The Circuit Courts of Appeal are, as the name suggest, the appellate courts.
So, it would be a district court judge doing the dismissal.
Exactly how many employees who are required to carry a blackberry and perform work on it are also "non-exempt"?
The Supreme Court of the United States has said more than once that their is no right to be licensed to practice law. They have also said more than once that the regulation of the practice of law is a matter entirely left to the states.
Such a lawsuit would be dismissed in about five seconds.
Congratulations, you can read the last page.
The bit about costs is separate from the rest of the recommendation. If the Supreme Court adopts the referee's recommendation, he'll be disbarred for life. That's pretty much standard language they probably include where you temporarily lose your license if you don't pay the costs of the proceedings against you. If the final punishment was simply a reprimand, then the failure to pay would become more important. The costs issue is a separate punishment from the disbarment.
In many states lawyers are suspended each year for failing to pay their bar dues. As soon as they pay them, they're reinstated.
I think he could have gotten away with it, when I first read it, my immediate assumption was that maybe he was doing some "investigating", as in seeing what exactly the material was, which I would see necissary, aslong as the material was the same material in question.
I would be very concerned if a judge decided to go conduct his own investigation of the facts in a case before him.