Basic legal things everyone should know

[z28dreams]

[ QUOTE ]


I spoke with a WA state lawyer who told me that it was my right to refuse a breathalyser and instead demand a blood test in a local hospital. Generally it takes 2-3 hours to get the blood test organized and executed, hopefully enough time for you to properly sober up.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but they can extrapolate the numbers back to estimate what your blood alcohol level was 2-3 hours ago.

[housenuts]

If you are taken to the drunk tank, or are held by the police for any other reason, you must identify yourself to the police. You cannot withhold your name.

If you do this you will be charged with Obstruction of a Peace Officer

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I spoke with a WA state lawyer who told me that it was my right to refuse a breathalyser and instead demand a blood test in a local hospital. Generally it takes 2-3 hours to get the blood test organized and executed, hopefully enough time for you to properly sober up.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but they can extrapolate the numbers back to estimate what your blood alcohol level was 2-3 hours ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do they do this?

[Hey_Porter]

I don't really consider all of this IP law shtuff to fall under the category of "basic legal things everyone should know." It would be nice if this thread got a little bit more back on track.

Since this comes up in a lot of threads (at least in OOT), employment at will deserves a mention. Unless you have an actual contract for a definite period of time, the majority of the states are employment at will states. That means, in essence, that you can get fired OR QUIT, for no reason at all, or even a bad reason. If the boss doesn't like you, he can fire you, and it might not be fair, but fair doesn't matter.

Of course, there are exceptions based on federal and/or state law. Federal statutes prohibit discrimination (including, obviously, termination) based on such things as race, sex, disability, etc. State exceptions are often couched in terms of "wrongful termination in violation of public policy" and may or may not include stuff like termination for filing for workers comp, reporting a crime (whistle blower statutes exist for this as well), jury duty, etc.

[Riverman]

Pretty much everything Drew Devil has written is correct.

[PocketNinjas]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are taken to the drunk tank, or are held by the police for any other reason, you must identify yourself to the police. You cannot withhold your name.

If you do this you will be charged with Obstruction of a Peace Officer

[/ QUOTE ]

I mostly lurk, but I was under the impression that unless you were being arrested that you did not have to reveal your identity to the police if they are merely detaining you i.e. they saw you on the street and started talking to you.

[Riverman]

For once and for all,

If you get pulled over and there is any chance you will blow over a .05, refuse everything and don't talk.

This is true in pretty much every state...the license suspension will include allowances for necessary driving.

[schaef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I say I will give you half if you buy my dinner tonight, then there was bargain and consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

a court would likely not enforce this if the disparity between items exchanged is this great. here, this seems to be a "token" consideration (giving tens of thousands of dollars in equity for a dinner).

[/ QUOTE ]

an acorn is sufficient for consideration. in this example the dinner could be much larger than half his wsop winnings if the dude goes busto so the dinner could be the much better deal. if this wasn't the case than no sports book would ever have to pay off people who put $1 on a longshot as the disparity would be so great.

[/ QUOTE ]

An acorn, or whatever, can be consideration, but intent of the parties is relevant. Though a court can't pass judgment on the value someone attaches to something, consideration can be deemed "nominal." In practice, an acorn for $1000 or whatever would never be valid consideration.

The comment on promissory estoppel is good, though there's a little more to it. For example, reliance must be reasonable forseeable.

[Backstabr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS, Someone said above that you should refuse a breathalizer if you're drunk and get pulled over. Is this true? Why is this better than submitting to a breathalizer? What happens to you when you refuse to take a breathalizer versus what happens when you fail one?

[/ QUOTE ]

It differs from state to state, but in many states the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer test is an automatic suspension of the driver's license.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that this is in addition to DUI charges. My girlfriend is prosecuting such a case. Guy refused breathalyzer, got automatic license suspension, and is now being prosecuted for a DUI based on the testimony of police officers (odor of alcohol, field sobriety tests).

According to the gf, it's generally smarter just take the breathalyzer. (Except maybe if you can afford to hire a great lawyer and dodge the DUI? I dunno.)

[Hey_Porter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I say I will give you half if you buy my dinner tonight, then there was bargain and consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

a court would likely not enforce this if the disparity between items exchanged is this great. here, this seems to be a "token" consideration (giving tens of thousands of dollars in equity for a dinner).

[/ QUOTE ]

an acorn is sufficient for consideration. in this example the dinner could be much larger than half his wsop winnings if the dude goes busto so the dinner could be the much better deal. if this wasn't the case than no sports book would ever have to pay off people who put $1 on a longshot as the disparity would be so great.

[/ QUOTE ]

An acorn, or whatever, can be consideration, but intent of the parties is relevant. Though a court can't pass judgment on the value someone attaches to something, consideration can be deemed "nominal." In practice, an acorn for $1000 or whatever would never be valid consideration.

The comment on promissory estoppel is good, though there's a little more to it. For example, reliance must be reasonable forseeable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think y'all are trying to reference the classic "mere peppercorn" consideration quote. Acorn, peppercorn, what have ya.