Ask DrewDevil your legal questions

[DosXX]

If you've been pulled over after you've had a few beers. What are the ramifications of denying a sobriety test? What is the best course of action if you aren't sure you will pass?

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
If you've been pulled over after you've had a few beers. What are the ramifications of denying a sobriety test? What is the best course of action if you aren't sure you will pass?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is any possibility that you will fail the test, then you should refuse any and all sobriety tests and refuse to speak until your lawyer is present.

In most states, the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer test is a suspended driver's license, possibly for a year or more. This sucks, but it sucks far less than a DWI conviction. Refusing the tests makes it much harder to convict you on drunk driving charges, and you want to avoid a criminal conviction at all costs.

[DosXX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you've been pulled over after you've had a few beers. What are the ramifications of denying a sobriety test? What is the best course of action if you aren't sure you will pass?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is any possibility that you will fail the test, then you should refuse any and all sobriety tests and refuse to speak until your lawyer is present.

In most states, the penalty for refusing a breathalyzer test is a suspended driver's license, possibly for a year or more. This sucks, but it sucks far less than a DWI conviction. Refusing the tests makes it much harder to convict you on drunk driving charges, and you want to avoid a criminal conviction at all costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the quick reply. Good to know.

[WhoIam]

Suppose I wanted to build a house that was an exact replica of, say, a Frank Lloyd Wright house. What if I changed it slightly? What if I built it in SE Asia? Basically I'm asking how intellectual property applies to architecture.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I wanted to build a house that was an exact replica of, say, a Frank Lloyd Wright house. What if I changed it slightly? What if I built it in SE Asia? Basically I'm asking how intellectual property applies to architecture.

[/ QUOTE ]

U.S. Copyright Office sez:

Does copyright protect architecture?

Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works

So anything designed and built prior to 1990 would be fair game.

[YYZ]

great read thus far.
my friend is 20 years old and a few months ago he was pretty much set up by this girl and her mom. the girl turned out to be 13, but by god she looks atleast 17. he went over there and watched movies with them. the next day a sheriff shows up and arrests him for child molestation or some crap. he is in the paper the next day with it saying that he basically is a child rapist.
fast forward and his case is thrown out because the semen sample from the condom the aunt supplied the police does not match my friends DNA.

now his court-appointed attorney is telling him they can sue for unlawful arrest (since he did jail time for this) and suing the paper for libel. does it sound like he would win either of this suits? if so, is he going to get rich off of this? ...he has promised he will hook me up big time if he does, since i have helped him a ton in the past.

for what its worth, my friend has been in a lot of legal trouble in the past, one such thing being him accused of statuatory rape, but was found innocent. not sure if that has any play here

[sethypooh21]

If the facts are as you say, he's probably got a whole bunch of claims against the mom+daughter: false inprisonment, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.

Against the paper, unlikely. I imagine they reported he was both arrested and convicted, rather than that he did it. These facts are true, and truth is a complete defense to libel/slander/defamation.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
great read thus far.
my friend is 20 years old and a few months ago he was pretty much set up by this girl and her mom. the girl turned out to be 13, but by god she looks atleast 17. he went over there and watched movies with them. the next day a sheriff shows up and arrests him for child molestation or some crap. he is in the paper the next day with it saying that he basically is a child rapist.
fast forward and his case is thrown out because the semen sample from the condom the aunt supplied the police does not match my friends DNA.

now his court-appointed attorney is telling him they can sue for unlawful arrest (since he did jail time for this) and suing the paper for libel. does it sound like he would win either of this suits? if so, is he going to get rich off of this? ...he has promised he will hook me up big time if he does, since i have helped him a ton in the past.

for what its worth, my friend has been in a lot of legal trouble in the past, one such thing being him accused of statuatory rape, but was found innocent. not sure if that has any play here

[/ QUOTE ]

If the paper published something that was (1) untrue and (2) defamatory, he may have a libel action. Hard to say how much he could win... depends how much he was damaged and how egregious the newspaper's behavior was.

There are probably causes of action against the mother/aunt( ?) also, but those vary from state to state. Are the mother and aunt rich? That may be one of the key factors.

[Hey_Porter]

[ QUOTE ]

If you really want to get some money out of these business, have someone kill you in the parking lot, then your estate can sue the bar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you spoke in jest, but exactly what legal theory would you plan on using here?

[PokerintheI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While she understood that she had to pay for the original sign, the owner initiated and desired the remodel (probably to help fill some vacant locations) and removed her sign that she was completely satisfied to keep. She doesn't think she should have to pay for the new sign.

Does she have any legal ground to require them to pay for some/all of her new sign costs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on what you wrote, it sounds like the tenant has the option but not the duty to install a sign. Unless the lease requires the tenant to provide signage at the tenant's expense, then I don't see how the tenant has to pay for the new sign.

Also, where's the old sign? Tenant gets that back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize this is Drew's thread, but this question wandered into my arena.

Depending on property laws in your state the lessee often has no right to signage once installed. In many states, any physical improvements made to leased real property immediately become the property of the lessor (landlord). The purchase and installation of the sign is generally considered a "leasehold improvement", is considered part of the physical structure and as such becomes the property of the landlord.

It kind of sucks, but the lessee might well be out of luck.


*And just in case anyone might wonder what business I have weighing in here, I'm an Assessor (property tax) in Michigan.*