MAJOR PROBLEM (Legal) Please Help

[entity]

Sure they have jurisdiction. It's called trespassing.

Trespassing would be up to the property owner to decide unless they gave the police power. The cops can't arrest you if you own the place heh.

[Bubba1]

True. and I'm sure most kids driving stupidly in closed mall lots at night in riced up $1500 cars actually own the malls. And every mall owner is completely fine with allowing kids to drive recklessly and marking up their lots, and would happily risk fighting lawsuits if one those kids crashes and dies.

Of course it's trespassing.

[alkemyst]

The Air Force is unconstitutional.

The military is, yes, but only after you have agreed to be enlisted.

[C-Kwik]

The thing is about this case as it sounds now is that the officer did not question him and therefor does not have to marandise him...If he wants to spill his guts before he is arrested than that is his fault. but as soon as the cufs go on he cannot ask you questions reguarding that incident. If he asks you a question after you are arrested than pleading unlawful marandising could be a point. Some departments reserve the questions to a detective and not the patrolman...

My comments were not directly related to this case in particular. Just more of a background on the law. But the Miranda is not limited to questions asked of you, but even comments you make on your own accord. Of course, if the Mirnda rights are not read and you make any admission of guilt, it may be thrown out as evidence. That would ultimately be up to a judge to decide.

[C-Kwik]

Sure they have jurisdiction. It's called trespassing.

California has a vehicle code that specisfially prohibits driving dangerouslyin a parking lot, even in a private parking lot. I just packed my vehicle code book away yesterday so I can't pull it, but I have posted it in NICO before. I'd suspect other states may have similar laws.

[alkemyst]

If the parking lot is publicly accessable, usually the police can make at least citations especially if the activity could endanger vehicles passing by.

Even if you own a private lot, you cannot set up certain events within it that may endanger those around.

It becomes a matter of semantics though, however, chances are you get nailed screwing around in a parking lot...judge, jury, anyone else is going to want to see you cruxified .

I can relate to parking lot owners though especially those that remove concrete curbs, bust up the asphalt, scrape out speed bumps, repaint lines, and leave skid marks all over. How can you blame them?

Å

[C-Kwik]

IIRC, in the CA law, the technicality is if the private lot is opened to the public. But unless you own the lot, or the owner agrees to close it for you, the law can probably step in. Some autocrosses are held in parking lots. But a section is closed off to public access. I'm sure with the owner's consent.

[entity]

The military is, yes, but only after you have agreed to be enlisted.

No I'm saying techincally the creation of the Air Force was unconstitutional..

[s13ofdoom]

if you haven't gone to court yet try out my explination (i was to lazy to read all the posts ) say your tires where bald and that you slid around the turn and some how managed to no hit anything. that way you seem like you cant drive and be like i thought i could make the light. worth a shot haha

[240sxin]

[alkemyst]

No I'm saying techincally the creation of the Air Force was unconstitutional..

This is one of those arguments that most go on about but don't understand fully.

Our founding fathers could not have concieved that technology would develop in such a way that we would need an air force, even when planes were created no one imagined them ever being capable of air combat. The constitution only mentions the Army and the Navy, but in reality the other armed services easily fall under those definitions and the air force originated as a branch of the Army, as the Army Air Corps. When the Air Force became a separate service in the late 1940's how did this violate the constitution? They were already an 'entity' under the Army, but had specific needs and issues that would be better suited as a separate force (more than likely not having to 'share' tax moneys or bodies). The Constitution gave Congress adequate powers to provide for the common defense of the United States. However, some strict voices could say that the Air Force was unconstitutional because no provision in Constitution provided for its creation...however almost any legal professional will see that's not so...clear as day...the public on the other hand love to jump on semantics bandwagons and protest and harp on about inhumanities and unconstitutionalism.

Å

[NY94J30]

No I'm saying techincally the creation of the Air Force was unconstitutional..

By that logic, the EPA, DOT, Homeland Security...are unconstitutional as they are not mentioned explicitly in the constitution. The fact is that the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art I, sec 8, cl 18) allows Congress great latitude in implementing those powers granted to them in the Constitution. Though the first agencies mentioned were created under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, sec.8, cl. 12 gives Congress the power to raise "Armies."

[entity]

hm..do we have some law majors here..?

[drifts14x]

Just for some closure for everyone, My sentence was $163 in court costs, and a mandatory "alive at 25" driving course, the judge was very nice to me and commended me on my clean suit and the fact that I even had a drivers license(the 23 people before me were in for driving on suspended/revoked licenses)I thank you all for your input, even those of you who thought I should burn at the stake

[entity]

lol..sounds like you got off light. Alive @ 25 program? That sounds lame..heh.