Search And Consent Procedures

Question: Can an officer legally search my brothers car in the circumstances below.? I live in Michigan, and my brother was driving his car under completely legal circumstances with several other people. No one was intoxicated or under the influence of any drugs, and there were no illegal substances in the car. My brother is 16. A cop performed a "routine" stop, asked for license and registration, which was provided, and asked everyone their names. One of my brother's friends who was riding shotgun apparently had warrants for grand larceny and failure to appear in court, so when the cop ran his name through the system and came back, he arrested him and put him in the squad car. He then returned and said he had the legal right to search the car, and despite not being given consent from my brother, ordered everyone out and did so, finding nothing. Now, I've had the liaison officer at my school come talk to us about police issues including extensive search procedures multiple times in the past, and I don't recall hearing anything that would indicate this officer was able to search without consent in these circumstances, but granted that was a while ago, so I've done some searching on line, but the only thing I've found that resembles this situation is that if the driver is arrested they can search the car, however the driver was obviously not the one arrested. Basically the rest is just stuff about how they can search with reasonable suspicion that an illegal substance, firearm, etc. is in the car, but I think it's pretty obvious that any suspicion of that was not reasonable, as everyone was completely sober and alert and acting rationally. The only issue was the passenger's arrest. I would greatly appreciate if someone could fill me in on the details, and whether or not this was a legal search. Well as soon as I get to the bottom of this I will also be looking into our options as far as the supposedly "routine" nature of the stop. I'm quite confident that if the dashboard camera tape were to be dissected, there would be no evidence indicating he had any real reason to stop the car.

Answer: It doesn't sound legal but I'm sure the cop will make up a reason for the search when the case goes to court.

Question: Police often use a procedure called a “knock and talk” when they lack probable cause for a search warrant. In this procedure, they simply knock on a suspect’s door and ask for consent to search the suspect’s home. In what circumstances do you think the Fourth Amendment would prohibit such police behavior?

Answer: There must be some valid reason - something more then mere suspicion to knock on a citizen's door to engage in a communication in an effort to obtain a verbal consent to search a residence. To simply knock on a random door of a citizen without an existing cause or suspicion for the purposes of gaining entry into a home would I believe violate the fourth amendment right to privacy. In a "knock and talk" sometimes there is a strong suspicion to suggest that illegal activity is taking place in the residence, but the evidence obtained lacks enough information to obtain a search warrant. The knock and talk is a way to circumvent the warrant by personal communication with the suspects in the residence. This is an avenue I would not personally pursue as there so many others ways in which one can gather evidence to legally enter the residence with a warrant. Once the officer knocks and talks - the suspects know why you are there and if you fail to see plain view evidence and are denied entry into the home you have blown the investigation as the suspects know you are watching them.

Question: Help with proper seziure procedures with law enforcement? How does a police officer decide whose consent to seek when searching a place where there are multiple owners, like a husband and wife, parent and child, or landlord and tenant? Please explain to me and how it works?

Answer: They go by who has rights to a property. In the case of a husband and wife either one can consent, but if one refuses they can't go to the other one and get consent, there was a big court case over this. One party had refused to allow the police to search, they then went to the other party and received consent, the court threw the search out. With a landlord and tenant in almost all cases the landlord can not give consent. In the case of a parent and child, it's a little muddy, if the child rent's a room the parents might not have the right to allow a search of the child's room, but they can give consent to search any common areas. In that case there is a landlord tenant relationship, if the child doesn't pay rent then the parent can consent to the search. The payment doesn't have to be in cash the child may provide a service instead of cash.

Question: what is standard police procedure in searching an impounded vehicle without the ro's consent?

Answer: Remember no consent is required for simply performing a vehicle inventory prior to the vehicle being impounded. It is simply a service that we offer. We are required to do so by departmental policy. If there is some kind of violation that requires the vehicle to be impounded in my area we call one of a number of contract tow operators in our area who have been pre approved. The tow operator who is called may be based on proximity to the location (say like a crash on the interstate - where speed is important in getting traffic flowing) or a general rotation. Each tow operator has their impound lot and sets their own fees. Each tow operator is required to carry a vehicle unlocking kit in the event keys can't be located at the time of the vehicle being impounded. We must complete an inventory of the vehicle and trunk prior to turning the vehicle over to the tow operator. We have the tow operator and the police officer sign the form. The form contains a detailed inventory of the vehicle and it's contents. It also notates what damage is pre-existing on the vehicle. A copy of the inventory is also provided or mailed to the registered owner. The purpose of the inventory is to protect the registered owner from personal items coming up missing and protect the tow operator from frivolous claims about theft or additional damage. Reasons a vehicle might be impounded: Arrest of the driver Driver has no valid DL or proof of insurance Vehicle is involved in an accident Vehicle has been used to commit a crime Vehicle has some kind of safety or equipment defect that the officer feels is unsafe to continue driving. License plate is expired more than 90 days License plate or registration tabs are stolen or fictitious Ownership of the vehicle can not be determined at the scene Vehicle is left abandoned or in a hazardous location Vehicle is illegally parked Hope this answers your question

Question: Are RCMP known to falsify their reports if they know they forgot to follow certain procedure? I was picked up for running a stop sign in alberta town. When the constable retured to the vehicle he asked if there was drugs in the vehicle. I replied no. He asked if he could search it. I said "What?" He asked, clearly second time, "Do you give me consent to search the vehicle. Not knowing if i could say no without obstructing justice, i replied "ya, i guess so, if you really want to." He said that he did want to. So to save time i just pulled out my bag of reefer and handed it over and in about half and hour in was on my way with a cute little possession charge. For the record my friend(were both adults) was in the vehicle for the entire conversation. Now i'm aware after talking to the prosecutor that he should have told me about my right to refuse a consented search. The charges are postponed until she gets a copy of his dialogue. If she verifies this i'm off. If not, is my friend enough of a witness to prove he falsified his report? or do i just do alt measures let me be clear that i was informed that RCMP have to inform you of your right to refuse a consented search BEFORE you answer the question otherwise it is a Section (8) violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. the officer neglected in whole to do this even though he asked me twice and had adequate time between questions to inform me. should his dialogue be truthful the prosecutor drops the charges(she came off as being rather ethical in this case, I'd imagine other prosecutors wouldn't be so helpful) Because he asked me i'm assuming that meant he had no probable cause and that he just pegged me by my appearance(long hair and a Trivium shirt).

Answer: Your right to refuse a consented search? You consented.....you said yes. Had you said "no",.... then the officer would have to tell you about your rights to "not consenting". You didn't ask him "What if I said No?" And it sounds like he didn't have to search the vehicle as you handed him the dope. In BC you would be SOL, and being as it is RCMP, rules are the same accross Canada. But did he falsify his report? You have no idea what is in the report. You are just assuming.

Question: Can a company forfeit shares of shareholders without their consent? I have been holding shares in Bharat Starch Products Ltd. which were alloted to me after the scheme of arrangement between English Indian Clays Ltd. & the company itself. After that the shareholders have been offered for the exit route by offering them Rs. 1000 per share as the company is going to be unlisted after the said scheme of arrangement. The offer remain valid for one year till mid of february during which I have not opted for the offer nor I wanted to opt for it in future. After that on one day of october I received a letter from the company enclosed with a cheque stating that "In terms of the resolution passed by the Shareholders of the Company in their Annual General Meering held on 9th June, 2009, reducing the Paid-up Equity Share Capital of the Company from Rs. 88,82, 620/- to Rs. 81,48,270/- by paying off 73435 Equity Shares of Rs. 10/- each @ Rs. 210/- per Equity Share based on valuation arrived at by reputed valuers, and such capital reduction having been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam vide its oreder dated 30th July, 2009, which oredr was registered by the Registrar of Companies on 9th September, 2009 under his hand, we are, accordingly, forwarding herewith the payment warrant @ Rs. 210/- per Equity Share against your holding of equity shares in the Company. Please, note that these shares will have no value and share certificate held by you is redundant after the date of this letter. Henceforth, you will not be a member of the Company." Also, when I searched for the case status (case no. CP 23/2009 BHARAT STARCH VS. NIL) of the petition filed by the company the status shows the case is still pending which was lastly updated on 31st August, 2009. Secondly, I have not been either informed nor I have opted for the reduction/cancellation of all my shares in the company and that too @ Rs. 210/- per share as against its previous offer of Rs. 1000/-. I would like to know is there any provision under the companies act, 1956 to forefeit the shares of the a member of the company without its consent. If not, what procedure shall I do to stop getting my shares cancelled/redundant? Please, show me all the legal actions I can take against the company & its management. If needed, for further clarifications on this matter/case I can send the required documents that I have, to make the case clarify to you better way.

Answer: In any commercial matters the concept of time is very crucial.You have said that the company said-Quote- After that the shareholders have been offered for the exit route by offering them Rs. 1000 per share as the company is going to be unlisted after the said scheme of arrangement- unquote. You should have taken cognisense of this announcement. You did-not. The company also said that the Share are going to be unlisted. leave aside your claim after the court judgement , even after the lapse of the time specified by the company to opt for the payment has no consideration the company is right on its part to compensate as it deemed fit. SESHADRI

Question: Curious about ca. procedure on making an arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled? Hi,I'm looking for straight up,objective info about ca procedure for making an arrest for driving inder the influence of a controlled substance. i got pulled over at 3am and the officer believed i was 'under the influence'. they had me do several exercises, took my pulse, and asked me questions like "whens the last time you did any illegal drugs tonight. I denied ever using anything and wouldn't consent to a search of my car and eventually they let me go. i got pulled over again and went through almost the same thing so I'm just wondering what the cops need in order to have a strong enough case to make an arrest

Answer: Why were you pulled over twice in one night?

Question: Police Officers procedures...wrong? It was around 1:30am, and we suddenly got a craving for slurpees, so we drive out to 7-11 passing a cop that had someone pulled over already. I noticed he was eyeing us pretty badly, next thing I know he climbs into his car and pursues to follow me and finally flashes his lights to stop me. I wasn’t speeding, nor driving wrong or anything. He comes up to my window and tells me the reason he’s stopping me is because he ran my plates and it shows that the truck I was driving didn’t have insurance. Just my luck my mother happened to have the current insurance card with her in her purse, so I only had the "expired" card. Ether way I figured with the policy # and all he could check in his system for it, I explained to him that we had barely gotten the cards in the mail and mom hadn’t gotten a chance to put it in the car yet, but I was SURE it had insurance. He even said that he would check in his computer and if everything checked out I’d only get a warning for not carrying the current card with me. He leaves, takes about half an hour and comes back saying that in his computer it doesn’t show that it has any insurance at all!, not only that, but that DMV records showed that it had expired since April of this year. So he tells me he’s gonna have to tow the truck. He then asks me to step out, put my hands behind my head and body searches me, NEVER asking me if I consented to a body searched, he did ask tho if he could search the truck, now I could of been a ***** and said NO, since it wasn’t mine, but whatever, I had nothing to hide so I consented to the vehicle search. So now mom pissed that she had to pay over $300 to get the truck back from the towing company decided to talk to both her insurance company and DMV about the matter. Insurance company has all the paperwork that at the time, the truck WAS covered and insured and still is, they also argued that the officer has to have that info just by inputting the policy #, and DMV told us in person! that there’s no way that going thru their DMV system that a cop would be able to see if the vehicle has insurance or not. Now I don’t know if DMV is right or not, but that’s what they told us, and why would they say that if it wasn’t true. So now im stuck having to pay the $300 back from the towing plus $200 for the ticket, when all along the truck DID have insurance. Plus I’ve read online that a cop needs to ask for your permission to body search you and the cop failed to ask me. I also felt like his hand wondered to my crotch area when he didn’t need to, I reacted to that and I wouldn’t of reacted if his hand wasn’t placed there. Also I don’t feel there was necessary cause to body search me and my friends and the car for a simple uninsured car violation. I’ve also read that he had no right to go into my pockets or ask me to empty my pockets UNLESS I was under arrest, which I wasn’t. Im obviously gonna plea NOT GUILTY, but I want to know if his actions were right. I mean if the truck was indeed insured, who’s to blame(besides my mother for not having the card in the glove compartment) for it not appearing in the officers computer, and even if I had the current card, he was still gonna check it and cite me because in HIS system it said I didn’t have any insurance. Is there any way that the ticket can be dismissed, or will they only lower the amount? I have no money what so ever and im afraid I’ll have to do the time if I cant pay the fine. I feel the cops only intention that early morning was to stop us regardless, because if I wasn’t speeding prior, why did he come after me? Some say he was racial profiling, noticing the time of day, and a brand new 08' truck with a bunch of teens in baggy clothing was a good enough reason for him. Gudging a book by its cover. Do I have a good “not guilty” argument? this was in Oregon by the way.

Answer: Straight from the Oregon DMV: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid/… I wasn't there so I don't know what the Officer knew and you don't either. The simple fact is that if the Officer ran your tag and it came back that your vehicle was uninsured then he had a right to stop you for this violation. The simple fact is that you could not provide proof that the vehicle was insured and apparently according to the computers the vehicle was showing to be uninsured. The two items together means that the Officer would have probable cause to believe you were in violation and could issue you a citation. As noted on the link above the Officer has a right to tow your vehicle so he is also good to go there. Okay, as far as the search, I'm a little confused about what you said happened. First off the Officer may pat you down for weapons so he is fine there. That does not give him the right to cop a feel though. The Officer can ask you to empty your pockets and if you do it then you have no gripe so no complaint for you there. Now here is where I'm scratching my head, the Officer does not have to ask you for consent to search the vehicle in most cases. The courts have ruled that if it is department Policy to inventory a vehicle before towing it then an Officer may search the vehicl for purposes of a vehicle inventory and anything found during that search can be used in court. Maybe the Officer was just being nice or maybe he is kind of new on the job, who knows. If the vehicle was insured on the date of the citation then bring it to court and show the judge. Maybe the judge will have mercy on you. Oh, its not racial profiling just because there were some teens in baggy clothes driving a new car. I see plenty of kids driving mommy and daddy's new car all the time. Besides at 1:30 a.m. while looking into a moving motor vehicle the Officer probably couldn't tell if his own mom was driving the car.

Question: how long can the police wait to charge you after they arrest you (arrested for ecstasy)? Ok long story but here’s how it went. I am 18 and male if it matters. My best friend and I along with two female friends we were in a large city in Arizona on a Saturday night. Before we left the city at about 1; 30 we both dropped a hit of e, I had been rolling for hours but my friend was fresh faced. In about 45 minutes we were in a small town with a super Wal-Mart and it was open. We walked around in the store for a while looking for a creepy inbred girl that only appears in Wal-Mart late at night. We saw her giggled and then went back to the car. My friend took a beautiful bud of ak-47 and rolled a blunt with a mango blunt wrap. After the blunt was rolled the girls went to the bathroom before we left. While the girls were talking in the bathroom about us we went by the loading docks and smoked the blunt. Midway through the blunt we saw a cop roll up the parking lot, my friend tossed the blunt into the desert and then we walked all normal back to the car. The cop rolled up next to us and asked what we were doing. We said that we were urinating back there and he said that he didn't believe us because we reeked of marijuana. I consented to a search and the officer found a set of fitted brass knuckles and four hits of ecstasy in my front shirt pocket. The officer said what are these and I said that I didn't know but I suspected them to be ecstasy. He cuffed me then put me in the back of his cruiser and proceeded to question my friend. After questioning my friend they searched the vehicle and another officer searched the desert and found the blunt we chucked. In the vehicle they found a Ziploc bag with a spec of weed in it and another blunt wrap. They arrested my friend and luckily put him in the same cruiser as me because the other officer’s cruiser was covered with blood inside and out. We got our story straight and then made the short trip to the police station. When we got there they questioned my friend and put me in an empty room. They charged him with possession and paraphernalia and gave him a summons to appear. Then they questioned me and I told them what happened and the stories matched perfectly. They asked me what the pills were and I said that I didn’t know but I believed them to be ecstasy. I told them that two were given to me by a fried and I bought two (I also had another empty dime bag in my pocket). They printed me and took my picture and then I was released. I didn’t sign anything except my finger print forms and they gave me no information to take with me. We very courteous to the officers and shook their hands when we left. I thought a few things were odd about this experience, here they are as follows. We were rolling incredible hard when the cops were questioning us and they didn’t seem to notice at all, but they did know that we were incredibly stoned. The officers were chewing tobacco at a feverous rate and seemed very lethargic about the procedures that they were putting us through. I didn’t sign anything except my fingerprints then they gave me back my brass knuckles and wallet. Luckily I know how to talk to people and I got the cops laughing and telling stories, apparently the reason why the officer’s cruiser was full of blood was because he had to apprehend an armed felon that resisted so he got his head kicked in. I don’t remember the officer’s name that did this but I call him meat because he was five inches than me and had to be pushing at least 275 pounds. From arrest to release was less than two hours. My friend picked us up from the station then we went back to Wal-Mart to pick up the girls. They didn’t even tow the truck they just told us to come back tomorrow when we were sober. Ok now my question is it has been exactly a month now and no one has sent me anything from the courts or the police or anything. Did they just forget about it or something or is it normal to have to wait this long? Also is their statute of limitations for how long they can wait to charge me? Could I possible fight this in court if they did charge me? This was the first time I was ever arrested so I am quite confused. Thanks to anyone who reads my question/story.

Answer: I believe that they have a year to decide whether to charge you with something, My husband got into some trouble and no one was arrested until 6 months later and they decided to charge him with it. So don't hold your breath, it isn't the arresting officers decision to charge you with something it is the district attorneys decision, I believe, I could be wrong on that but I know its not the cops decision

Question: Can I contest my Ca Minor in Possession Infraction? I'm not 21. I was walking on frat row near my university campus with a brown bag with a bottle of alcohol in it. I was with a few friends; the pavement was crowded. I took a swig and then an unmarked car pulled up at the intersection in front of me and two undercovers got out. One approached me, flashed his badge, and took the bag with the bottle. He asked if I had ID. I said no. He asked me to spread my arms and frisked me. He pulled my wallet out of my pocket and thumbed through my cards. He found my driver's license and wrote me a citation for Minor in Possession of alcohol. It's an infraction, not a misdemeanor, but I still feel as if some fourth amendment rights were violated. I didn't consent to the search he performed, and there were no exigent circumstances. I think it definitely qualified as a seizure, since I was detained in an area of the street while I was being searched. But I am no expert. Did he violate my reasonable expectation of privacy by flipping through my wallet? What is the procedure for challenging this?

Answer: Your very best course is to do what you can to avoid a conviction, which can result in your drivers license being suspended for a year (even though no vehicle was involved). Find out if your court has some kind of diversion program. That will be a guaranteed dismissal at the end, and is your very best bet for a good resolution of this.

Question: If police do not follow procedure during traffic stop is the case a mistrial? So the question is, if an officer, without consent, searches the cabin of a pick-up truck with probable cause, and then searches the back of the truck with no consent/probable cause/warrant. (violates 4th amendment) as well as discard some important evidence, can the case be asked a mistrial, or does think mean that the officers are just incompetent and the evidence found in the back of the truck is inadmissible. Thanks! he had probable cause to search the CABIN of the truck, but not the back of the truck.(they are seperate) in the cabin he found some alcohol.

Answer: You're making a very big assumption that it was "without cause". First off, the officer is allowed to look in the vehicle for things in plain sight. Things in plain sight have already been declared to be admissible and they do not need your consent or a search warrant for a visual search of that nature. During that "search", if they see anything that gives them a reason to search further, they have probable cause to search your vehicle, with or without your consent. Plus, smells of any sort also serve as probable cause and the courts have already ruled that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to smells. That said, there are cases where evidence has been ruled inadmissible but you will definitely need an attorney to argue for that.

Question: Help me get started please!!!! Does probable cause or reasonable suspicion exist? Help me explain.? Does probable cause or reasonable suspicion exist? Help me explain. Do the levels of proof justify a stop and frisk or an arrest? Help me explain. Determine if Miranda warnings were properly given and why. Did a proper vehicle inverntory search occur? How do you know? Did the officer follow proper procedures for seizure of person/things? Help me explain. Which doctrine applies: Plain view, open fields, or abandonment? Help me Explain. Determine the jurisdiction and the venue. Should a DNA inquiry be used in this case? Explain. Identify elements from the fact pattern. On Friday, August 26, 2005, Officer Todd Melbourne of the Phoenix Police Department drove his cruiser behind a red Honda Civic heading northbound on Hayden Road. The Civic had a crack in the windshield, one headlight was out, and traveled 5 mph under the speed limit. Officer Melbourne also noticed the vehicle tags were two months past due. He turned his cruiser’s lights on, and the Civic pulled over to the right. Officer Melbourne called the license plate into dispatch and found the registered owner of the vehicle, Jacob Tierney, had an arrest warrant for missing a mandatory probationary hearing three weeks back. He called for backup and exited the police cruiser. As the officer walked toward the Civic, the driver hit the gas, spun the back tires, and continued down Hayden Road. Officer Melbourne got back into his car, advised dispatch he was involved in a police chase, and drove after the Civic. Just 100 yards from the start of the chase, the Civic stopped along the side of the road. Officer Melbourne pulled behind the vehicle as two men exited, and ran in opposite directions. The officer chased after the man heading east through a park. After a series of bushes, fences, and backyards, however, Melbourne was unable to bring the man into custody; both of the vehicle’s occupants had escaped. Officer Kevin Sedwick had arrived by the time Officer Melbourne returned to the abandoned cars. Sedwick advised Melbourne that a rape had occurred only a few miles away from their location; the suspects were identified as two males, in their late twenties, wearing dark clothes. Officer Melbourne described the male he had chased as wearing dark clothes. Both of the Civic’s doors were left open, and officers Melbourne and Sedwick searched the contents of the vehicle. Officer Sedwick found an Arizona driver license on the floor near the gas pedal, issued to a Bruce Moreno. Officer Melbourne found a black, hooded sweatshirt on the backseat and a pair of jogging socks on the floor. The officers impounded the vehicle and drove back to the stationhouse. Two detectives, Patrick Jones and James Morales, were assigned to work the case. They were given the details of the crime, the suspects, and the location of the victim. Jones and Morales went to question the victim, who was in the hospital receiving treatment and a forensic exam. During questioning, the victim identified Moreno from the driver license picture and Tierney from a mug shot, both of which were grouped with five other photos. She told the detectives that her light blue shirt was ripped from her during the attack, while the suspects forced off her socks and Adidas® running shoes just before leaving the scene. The victim also indicated that she overheard the suspects planning to take a trip somewhere. The detectives called for backup and went to Tierney’s residence, where the Civic was registered. Jones and Morales arrived at the Tierney residence, where, through the window and the half-opened drapes, they could see a woman with a cut across her face, crying on a couch. The detectives knocked down the front door and entered the house, without a warrant or consent from the residents. Four people were sitting on the couch, two unidentified women—one crying–with Moreno and Tierney. Drug paraphernalia, a semi-automatic gun, a knife, and a blue, ripped shirt rested on the coffee table. The house was cleared and secured. No other evidence was collected. The four individuals were handcuffed and placed under arrest. Moreno and Tierney were taken outside, where they were read Miranda rights. The detectives then questioned the two men about the ripped shirt and the alleged rape. The women were questioned about the drugs and weapons on the table, which they confessed to having in their possession. Once the women appeared before the magistrate, they were also informed of their Miranda rights. All parties were taken to the Maricopa County Jail for processing. Tierney and Moreno were charged with rape and possession of narcotics. The women were also charged with possession of narcotics. Their trials are pending in Arizona Superior Court.

Answer: Yes.

Question: What is the best political joke you've heard lately? Sorry, but I am tired of all the drama and I need a laugh, so please give me some good political jokes, here's mine...... The new Bill of Rights Nearly everything has changed in the United States since the Bill of Rights was written and adopted. We still see the original words when we read those first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, yet the meaning is vastly different now. And no wonder. We've gone from a country of a few million to a few hundred million. The nation's desire to band together was replaced by revulsion of togetherness. We exchanged a birthright of justice for a magic bullet, and replaced the Pioneer Spirit with the Pioneer Stereo. We're not the people who founded this country and our Bill of Rights should reflect this. As we approach the 21st Century, it's time to bring the wording up to date showing what we are and who we are. AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law establishing religion, but shall act as if it did; and shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, unless such speech can be construed as "commercial speech" or "irresponsible speech" or "offensive speech;" or shall abridge the right of the people to peaceably assemble where and when permitted; or shall abridge the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, under proper procedures. It shall be unlawful to cry "Fire!" in a theatre occupied by three or more persons, unless such persons shall belong to a class declared Protected by one or more divisions of Federal, State or Local government, in which case the number of persons shall be one or more. AMENDMENT II A well-regulated military force shall be maintained under control of the President, and no political entity within the United States shall maintain a military force beyond Presidential control. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be determined by the Congress and the States and the Cities and the Counties and the Towns (and someone named Fred.) AMENDMENT III No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, unless such house is believed to have been used, or believed may be used, for some purpose contrary to law or public policy. AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures may not be suspended except to protect public welfare. Any place or conveyance shall be subject to search by law enforcement forces of any political entity, and any such places or conveyances, or any property within them, may be confiscated without judicial proceeding if believed to be used in a manner contrary to law. AMENDMENT V Any person may be held to answer for a crime of any kind upon any suspicion whatever; and may be put in jeopardy of life or liberty by the state courts, by the federal judiciary, and while incarcerated; and may be compelled to be a witness against himself by the forced submission of his body or any portion thereof, and by testimony in proceedings excluding actual trial. Private property forfeited under judicial process shall become the exclusive property of the judicial authority and shall be immune from seizure by injured parties. AMENDMENT VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to avoid prosecution by exhausting the legal process and its practitioners. Failure to succeed shall result in speedy plea-bargaining resulting in lesser charges. Convicted persons shall be entitled to appeal until sentence is completed. It shall be unlawful to bar or deter an incompetent person from service on a jury. AMENDMENT VII In civil suits, where a contesting party is a person whose private life may interest the public, the right of trial in the Press shall not be abridged. AMENDMENT VIII Sufficient bail may be required to ensure that dangerous persons remain in custody pending trial. There shall be no right of the public to be afforded protection from dangerous persons, and such protection shall be dependent upon incarceration facilities available. AMENDMENT IX The enumeration in The Constitution of rights shall be construed to deny or discourage others which may from time to time be extended by the branches of Federal, State or Local government, unless such rights shall themselves become enacted by Amendment. AMENDMENT X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution shall be deemed to be powers residing in persons holding appointment therein through the Civil Service, and may be delegated to the States and local Governments as determined by the public interest. The public interest shall be determined by the Civil Service.

Answer: ROFL.. Loved it.

Question: Canada law on shoplifting? I am an attorney in the United States. I have been posting answers to shoplifting questions on the US version of this site. From time to time I am asked about the laws of Canada on this subject. To further my own education, I am interested if any serious, informed readers out there can answer all or any of the following questions as they pertain to Canadian law. I recognize that the answers may vary by province and any further information along those lines would also be appreciated. 1. Can merchants use reasonable force to detain shoplifters if they reasonably believe that the suspect probably committed the crime of theft? (If there is some other standard which permits detention I would appreciate information about that as well.) 2. Does reasonable force include the use of restraints, such as handcuffs? If so, is it permitted to handcuff someone to an immovable object (such as a bench fastened to a floor) and/or to handcuff the suspect with her or his hands behind the back? (Both of these are fairly standard procedures in the US for suspects who are not completely cooperative and in some stores, as a matter of policy, handcuff everyone they detain, even when they cooperate.) 3. Is a brief "pat down" weapons search by store personnel permitted as a matter of routine? 4. Is a search of the person or her or his bags, purse, etc. by store personnel permitted? 5. If someone is detained, must the police be called in all cases? If so, is there a gray area where a suspect may be deemed to be "consenting" to an investigation, but not involuntarily "detained", and the decision to call the police is made after the investigation is completed? 6. Is the mere fact that an exit alarm sounds when someone leaves a store, without more, considered reasonable grounds to detain someone? 7. Do the Canadian courts have non-criminal options available to shoplifters, such as "diversion" or other reeducation programs? 8. Is there a procedure for "expunging" criminal convictions. In the US this means that, if the requirements for expungement are met, the records are changed so that the prior conviction no longer shows up on a criminal records check. Thanks to anyone who can help. Sincerely, Semblance, Esq.

Answer: As I have been in the retail business for 5 years and security for 10+, I have experience in these questions. Here are the answers as these are some of the common questions asked. 1. Not really. In Canada, a person can be "detained" for shoplifting only if the person witnessed the act. This is covered in the Citizen's Arrest section of the Criminal Code of Canada. The accusation of a possible theft is no grounds for holding a person, however, this can grant the person to ask the person to depart the store. 2. The use of handcuffs is a grey area at best. The reason that it is a grey area is due to the liability issue and unjust confinement. Usually, there are courses for persons that are in law enforcement to take to show how to use handcuffs. In many cases, the use of handcuffs needs to be justified. In the cases that I had used them, the person being cuffed was unruly and struggled with authority. The act of the person attempting to cause harm to himself, security, or the public is always taken into consideration. If the person continued to be unruly after being cuffed behind his back, we used the "panic bars" in our holding area. We used a second set of cuffs on the set of cuffs and to the bar. If the person cooperated and did not cause a scene, there was no cuffs needed. 3. No, pat downs are not permitted without just cause. This is a easy way for the accussed to call sexual harrassment. The only time that pat downs are allowed is if the accussed is in possession of a weapon which can be easily found as, in many cases that we have done, we just simply asked. Many of them admitted that they had a "weapon" being from a pocket knife to brass knuckles. This granted us a pat down. 4. The search of personal items such as hand bags and backpacks can not be permitted without a warrent or if you see/know that the stolen item(s) are in such location. We had a shoplifter that has stolen three pairs of shoes (two put in a baby stroller and the third in his backpack). The store owner witnessed the thift and when he was broght in, we checked the two items for the stolen goods. We found more stolen items due to that. 5. The justification for police assistance was only used for shoplifters if the owner of the store was pressing charges or if the accussed was under age. In most cases, the person was barred from the property without police assistance as the store owner did not want to press charges. 6. Having an exit alarm sound is not a good reason for detaining someone as there are many reasons for such alarm being activated. In many cases, you can stop the person and inquire to why the alarm went off (another perchase from another store, items that were bought but not properly deactivated, etc.) and attempt to solve that issue. If the person makes a false acusation, this can lead to false confinement lawsuit. 7. I have personally not heard of one but there might be a program for young offenders. 8. The prossess of "expunging" a criminal record in Canada is known as getting a Pardon. This will "seal" the record of a convicted person for any crime committed. However, the "sealed record" still may be brought up in a court of law if it is to assist with criminal behavour patterns along the same charges.

Question: When arrested, can the cops drive your vehicle to the police station? A friend of mine was set up on a sting and was led to a place to be arrested. When there, he was arrested on the spot. Two of the cops went thru his truck, without his consent or warrant, and then they drove his truck to the police station, without his consent again. Is this legal or is this a procedural error???? I have always heard the cops could search anything in plain sight, but not actually go thru the truck without a warrant. I have never heard of a cop driving their truck to the station instead of calling a towing company. The cops did have the towing company come get his truck to take but after they drove it already. The cops or towing company did not make an inventory either. So anyone out there have any police procedure information? Thanks so much Extra details to this situation. He was "stung" on the internet. No drugs or anything like that. It was a internet child stalking, however there was no child AND the cops initiated the conversation with him!!! They were the ones who brought up him coming to see "her." Also they mentioned sex, condoms and bringing a digital camera with him. They enticed so long (5 days!) that he went up to meet a woman that they sent him in a picture. There is one mention about her being a teen, but if my friend was a predator, it wouldn't have taken 5 days for him to go see her. I have seen the picture of the 'girl' and she is not a teen!!!! The cops baited him and led him down a one way road to arrest him. This is in Arkansas. My friend is in jail at the present time awaiting trial. I know he is not this at all. How do you go about proving outrageous conduct or police procedure errors?? I want to help my friend but am limited on the knowledge. I hope this helps to give some details about this issue!

Answer: FYI - the search was legal. It's called a seach incident to arrest. If he was with the car when he was arrested, the search is perfectly lawful. They can either search it where it sits or have it taken to an impound lot. The other ways to have a legal search are with consent, a warrant, or probable cause with plain view or a police dog's indication of contraband. Lastly, a search can be done immediately on a car of a subject who is in custody because a car presents inherently exigent circumstances. Also, Depending on departmental procedure, they will probably tow it. I don't know many jurisdictions that will permit their officers to drive the vehicles; rather, the vehicles are towed by a commercial company at the owner's expense. This would simply be a procedural violation, NOT a legal violation. There will be an inventory taken at the impound lot. If there isn't, then your friend may be able to make a complaint. However, he will certainly not get any charges dropped due to an error like that. If there is an error, there will be administrative disciplinary action that can be carried out on the erring officers, and none of them will affect your friend's case in any way. I hope you're not planning on this to be a loophole to have any charges dropped.

Question: Underage drinking and possession of marijuana in PA? On 12/31/08, I left my house around 9:00 PM to attend a get together at a nearby friend’s house. I drove my vehicle to this gathering and parked it down the road from his house. Many friends of mine were in attendance at said house. However, I did not know everyone there. After falling asleep, I woke up in the morning, and everything appeared to be fine. My keys were on the ground next to me where I was sleeping. I had assumed that they had fallen out of my pocket during the night. When I left to go to my car, I was completely baffled as to where my car was. It was not in the same spot that I had parked it in. Immediately, in a near panic, I woke up two of my good friends to see if they could help me find it. We drove to the nearby gas stations, thinking it may have gotten towed for some reason. However, it was no where to be found. We checked the parking lots of churches and shopping centers. At this point, I was considering calling the police to report my car missing. I asked my friend if he could drive me home so that I could talk to my parents about the situation. On our way to my house, I spotted two police vehicles and a third vehicle parked in the middle of the road. My friend stopped his car to let me out, as the vehicle parked in the street was mine! I walked up to one of the officers, who I recognized was an officer from the D.A.R.E. program. I said the vehicle was mine, still in complete amazement as to how it got there. He questioned me as to if I had any marijuana on me. I assertively said no that I didn’t and was searched. However, I was put in hand-cuffs as the officer found marijuana sitting in the center console, next to the emergency break, in plain view. The marijuana found in the vehicle was not mine, and the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was in fact mine. I would consider my car in this case stolen. It was borrowed without my consent or knowledge. If a stolen car is found and has illegal substances in it that do not belong to the owner of the vehicle, the owner should not be held responsible. My car doors were left unlocked. I am very protective of my vehicle and am sure to lock it when parked, even if I plan on only being a few minutes. The officer said he smelled alcohol, and I was told to blow into a PBT. I was not aware of my right to refuse this test at the time of the situation, as I was still in a frenzy. I was not operating a motor vehicle or acting in a manner that would suggest intoxication, so I had the right to say no. Given the totality of the circumstances, the officer was manipulative in obtaining my compliance. My consent to blow (evidenced by the actual act) was merely a submission to the officer’s authority rather than a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of my rights. (Can the evidence be suppressed-results of a PBT cannot be submitted into evidence) While sitting in the back of the police vehicle, I blew into the PBT once, which the officer said registered a .14. I did not see this reading. At this BAC level, the officer would have noticed effects of intoxication while I was interacting with him. However, I was never administered any field sobriety tests. The PBT result was not in accord with my manner. There was no probable cause to even administer a PBT. It could have been a false positive reading, as I had rinsed my mouth with Listerine mouthwash earlier (since I had slept over my friend’s house, I did not have a toothbrush and used mouthwash in the morning of the incident). Furthermore, is the PBT calibrated (within the past 30 days of 1/1/09), did the officer follow the proper procedures for using said device, and is the officer certified to use the device? I understand that a PBT reading can be used as a probable cause for an arrest, but further testing would need to be done to confirm this. I was never given another test, so the allegation regarding underage drinking should not stand. A PBT is not a qualifying chemical test on breath to charge me of underage drinking. Additionally, a PBT reading is inadmissible evidence in court, evidenced by Commonwealth v. Stanley and Commonwealth v. Myretus. At this point, the officer asked if anyone could drive my car back to my house. I said “yes,” and the officer gave my car keys to my other friend. They were going to meet me back at the police station so I could be released. I was arrested, as I was put in hand-cuffs, put in the back of the police car, put in a temporary cement holding cell, fingerprinted, and photographed. However, I was never read any rights, violating my Miranda rights and lacking O’Connell warning. Also, I want it noted that the officer tried calling my house phone numerous times to speak with my parents, even though I am over the age of 18. This does not make sense to me and violates my right to privacy. I would like the court to know that in this whole incident, I was very polite and cooperative with the officers. Please leave any feedb

Answer: Fight this Sh*t to the very end and Good Luck. Some Cops tend to be Pricks especially in PA. They really hate teenagers up here in PA and they will try to bust you for any little thing or technicality that they can get there hands on. Now don't get me wrong not all cops are bad and some do tend to give some people a break but your story sounds fishy and messed up. If you weren't even read your rights you definitely can fight this. Good Luck and fight for what you feel is right. By the way it would help to have some type of lawyer or friend/ family member who knows the law by your side because the sad truth is most govt. and authority people will believe the cop over you. Good Luck and Best Wishes!!

Question: What right does the government have to disallow private contracts if pervert gov rules are not followed? ...such as a contract between mutual consenting groups of people--a private airline and a group of passengers--who are ALL perfectly okay with non-perverted, less invasive security screening? Why can't the government thugs let the CONSUMER choose whether they want to fly AirPerv, dealing with ridiculous privacy invasions, or alternative airline-dictated security procedures? If all passengers on a plane are comfortable NOT groping and patting down grandma before she boards the plane, why don't the TSA nazis mind their own business? This whole security screening thing could be easily resolved by the market (CONSUMERS) if the gov would simply allow airlines to select what type of screenings they want, instead of mandating random butt crack searches for all flights.

Answer: We're witnessing a take-over by an openly out of control gov't. Ans: They have no right. BTW: even though the Patriot Act was implemented after 9/11 it was written in 1995; author Joe Biden.

Question: Procedure When Being Arrested? Hypothetically, if you were a minor and you were arrested, and the following things happened to you, what would be the repercussions? 1) You were not read your rights upon being arrested 2) You were questioned without the presence and consent of a parent or guardian 3) You were not given your phone call until the morning after your arrest 4) You were made to sign a number of documents even though you are a minor 5) You were strip searched down to your underwear Any help on the specifics and legalities behind each of those situations would be greatly appreciated. Don't ask me to ask a lawyer or ask me why I care, all I want to know is whatever information you have on this situation. Nothing more. Thanks.

Answer: 1) That is an issue, it can easily become a problem when the lawyer tells the judge that the juvie was never Mirandized. 2) Yet another problem for the juvie. It isn't illegal for them to do this, just unethical. 3) Once again, unethical, but not illegal. 4) That could be a legal problem for the dept, esp. if the juvie stated they were under duress while doing so. 5) Totally legal, no issues there.

Question: How to prevent a catheter being placed while under anesthesia? Ok, I searched previous questions and couldnt find the answer. I may have to go for surgery down below. I do not want a catheter period, for any reason ever. It simply will never be consented to. Question is, even after I refuse the catheter while awake, how do i prevent it from happening while under anesthesia? Is there a device i can get or so "tamper proof" or "tamper evident" tape ? ..... I have read up on the reasons for a cath, the risks of it (possible side effects) and the risks of Not having one. I am fully informed and do not want it so please no answers of me being a baby and it being "no big deal" . If the doctor does NOT agree to the "no cath procedure" the surgery will NOT happen. I will just stay on the pain meds indefinatly. (yes, the refusing the cath IS that important to me.) I would like to hear the Surgical RN's Or Surgical Tech's opinion on this, Is the patients refusal respected or do you just straight cath or foley cath while they are under and remove it before they wake up (this knowing they refused prior). Again i would like to know how to prevent them from being able to cath period. BTW I am Male 3 good answers and then the 4th was by a UNINFORMED patient. SP didnt u read my question ? I read all the RISKS, Benifits, and possible results of not having it. I am informed of the catheters and I as an informed patient refuse one. Simple. And If you are being cathed every 4 hours i say OUCH! if you need to be cathed like that why (since u agree to having one) dont they use a long term foley cath? I need to know how to PREVENT them from BEING ABLE to place one once I am under. SP- grow up there are risks go look em up, since you cant feel, you cant tell if it is hurting you or not. I can. I also am adult enough to SEARCH online. not just throw out opinion as fact. others gave reasonable answers to my question. you did not

Answer: Not every surgery of the abdomen or genitals requires a catheter but one is necessary if a consequence of the surgery is a loss of bladder control, whether permanently or temporarily. You firstly have to directly ask your doctor during the pre-op consultation if it would be normal to use a catheter during/after the operation you are about to undergo. Secondly, when signing the consent form you can mark it as 'permission is not granted to catheterise me in any way'. If a catheter were then to be used the doctors would be guilty of gross professional misconduct and probably also of criminal assault. There is no physical thing you can do to prevent catheterisation as you still need to be able to urinate and thus cannot close the meatus in any way.

Question: Police often use a procedure called a “knock and talk” when they lack probable cause for a search warrant. In this procedure, they simply knock on a suspect’s door and ask for consent to search the suspect’s home. In what circumstances do you think the Fourth Amendment would prohibit such police behavior?

Answer: It doesn't, Once a home owner actually lets a Police Officer into their home, with the given (consent) to search their home there's no excuses. Oh, by the way for all the dumbass pricks on here that give all of us thumbs down for giving the right answer, Go to Hell!!!!