Disorderly Conduct

Disorderly conduct is a criminal charge in the United States. Typically, disorderly conduct makes it a crime to be drunk in public, to disturb the peace, or to loiter in certain areas. Many types of unruly conduct may fit the definition of disorderly conduct, as such statutes are often used as "catch-all" crimes. Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when people are behaving in a disruptive manner to themselves or others, but otherwise present no serious public danger. Disorderly conduct is typically classified as a violation or misdemeanor. The courts confronted with cases stemming from these arrests have from time to time had occasion to restrict the broad and vague definitions of the statute to make certain that freedom of speech and assembly and other forms of protected expression under the First Amendment were not affected. They also have had occasion to curb its scope to make certain that people were (or could have been) aware that their conduct was, in fact, within the prohibition of the statute, as required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, no court has struck down a disorderly conduct statute as being per se unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Courts have been willing to strike down vagrancy ordinances which are nearly as vague and do not give adequate warning. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor charge

1. Who solicits anyone to engage in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view.

2. Who solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages in any act of prostitution.

3. Who accosts other persons in any public place or in any place open to the public for this purpose of begging or soliciting alms.

4. Who loiters in or about any restroom open to the public for the purpose of engaging in or soliciting any lewd or lascivious or any unlawful act.

5. Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.

6. Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, or any combination of substances in a condition that they are unable to exercise care for their own safety or the safety of others, or interfering with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.

7. Who loiters, prowls, or wanders upon the private property of another, at any time, without visible or lawful business with the owner or occupant. As used in this subdivision, loiter means to delay or linger without a lawful purpose for being on the property and for the purpose of committing a crime as opportunity may be discovered.

8. Who, while loitering, prowling, or wandering upon the private property of another, at any time, peeks un the door or window of any uninhabited building or structure, without visible or lawful business with the owner or occupant.

9. Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, or camcorder, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside.

Weapons Possession

Weapon possession refers to a class of crime regarding the unlawful possession of a weapon by a citizen within an established society. Many societies have placed a restrictions on what kind of forms of weaponry private citizens are allowed to purchase, own, and carry in public. Such crimes are public order crimes and are considered mala prohibita, in that the possession of a weapon in and of itself is not evil. Rather, the potential for use in acts of unlawful violence creates a possible need to control them. Some restrictions are strict liability, whereas others require some element of intent to use the weapon for an illegal purpose. Some regulations allow a citizen to obtain a permit or other authorization to possess the weapon under certain circumstances. Lawful uses of weapons by civilians commonly include hunting, sport, collection, and self-preservation.

Criminal possession of a weapon generally falls into one of the following several categories.

Simple possession which is the strictest standards, some weapons are prohibited from any form of private ownership at all, even if it's kept in one's dwelling under secure conditions (such as a safe). Typically this covers dangerous military devices with almost no usefulness to civilians such as bombs, artillery, machine guns, nuclear devices, and chemical weapons.

Carry of a concealed weapon which is a restriction on carrying certain weapons on one's person in such a manner that it is hidden from view of others. This can sometimes include somewhere in the same vehicle or close to one's surroundings where the weapon is easily reachable. Carry in plain sight which is the opposite of carrying concealed. Some jurisdictions make it a crime to carry a weapon in plain view of others. Reasoning may include to prevent intimidation or menacing, or to possibly create a friendlier looking population by removing visual symbols of violence.

All weapons possession crimes follow some standard of intent though this standard varies. The most common is "strict liability", meaning that there is no requirement of intent whatsoever. Merely being caught by law enforcement with the weapon in question under the circumstances described in the law (possession, concealed or open) is a crime in and of itself, with almost no possible defense other than proving the item is not an illegal weapon with i the laws definition. Some laws allow the accused a defense to the charge that the item in question was going to be used for a specific set of lawful purposes, such as one's occupation (such as a set of knives being carried by a ine cook in route to his job, or tools carried by a construction worker). In this case, the burden of proof is often placed on the accused, requiring them to prove their lawful intent in court. Other laws require proof of specific intent to commit a criminal act by the accused, thereby placing the burden of proof on the state to produce evidence that the weapon was possessed with some unlawful purpose (such as an attempted homicide, robbery, or assault). The circumstances under which law enforcement discover the weapon often play a strong role in this.

Power of Attorney

A power of attorney, or letter of attorney, is a written authorization to represent or act on another's behalf in private affairs, business, or some other legal matter. The person authorizing the other to act is known as the principal or grantor and the one authorized to act on behalf of the other is the agent or attorney-in-fact. The term Attorney-in-fact is a term to make a distinction from the term attorney-at-law. An attorney-at-law would be someone licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The person creating the power of attorney can only do so when he or she has the requisite mental capacity. However, if the donor loses capacity to grant permission at any time after the power of attorney has been created, the document will probably stop being effective and enforceable unless the grantor specifically states in the power of attorney that he/she wishes the document to remain in effect even if they become incapacitated. This type of power of attorney, that stays in effect even if the grantor becomes incapacitated, is known as a durable power of attorney. In order for a power of attorney to be a legal document it must be signed and dated at a minimum by the principal. This alone, however, is not usually considered sufficient if the legality of the document is ever challenged by a third party. Having a witnesses and a notary public sign the document will increase the likelihood of withstanding such a challenge. A power of attorney can allow the agent to take legal action on your behalf, open or close bank records, invoke or waive contractual rights, or buy or sell stock on your behalf. When choosing a power of attorney make sure it is someone who you can trust to make life changing decisions for you. They will be acting on your behalf, so make sure your wishes are known to them and that they agree on how to act upon them.

Mediation

Mediation is used in law as a form of alternate resolution. A way of resolving disputes between two or more parties. A third party, mediator, assists the parties to negotiate their own settlement. In some cases, mediators may express a view on what might be fair or reasonable settlement, generally where all the parties agree that the mediator may do so. Mediation has a structure, timetable and dynamics that ordinary negotiation lacks. The process is private and confidential. The presence of a mediator is the key distinguishing feature of the process. There may be no obligation to go to mediation, but in some cases any settlement agreement signed by the parties to a dispute will be binding them. The mediator must be wholly impartial. Mediators use various techniques to open, or improve, dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement on the disputed matter. Much depends on the mediators skill and training. Disputants may use mediation in a variety of disputes, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters. So why choose mediation? There are several reasons for choosing to take part in mediation. It can often be a less expensive route to follow for dispute resolution. While a mediator may charge a fee comparable to that of an attorney, the mediation process generally takes a much less time than moving a case through standards legal channels. Mediation offers a confidential process. While court hearings may happen in public, whatever happens in mediation remains strictly confidential. No one but the parties to the dispute and the mediator know what has gone on in the mediation forum. Mediation offers multiple and flexible possibilities for resolving a dispute and for the control the parties have over the resolution. Also, the mediation process consists of a mutual endeavor. Unlike in negotiations, parties to a mediation usually seek out mediation because they are ready to work toward a resolution to their dispute. The mere fact that parties are willing to mediate in most circumstances means that they are ready to move their positions. Since both parties are willing to work toward resolving the case, they are more likely to work with one another rather than against one another. Finally, a mediator is trained in conflict resolution and in working with difficult situations. A good mediator is likely to work as much with the emotional aspects and relationship aspects of a case as he or she is to work on the topical issues of the matter. The mediator, as a neutral, gives no legal advice, but guides the parties through the problem solving process. The mediator may or may not suggest alternative solutions to the dispute, thus enable the parties to find the avenue to dispute resolution that suits them best.

Self Defense

Self-defense is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property or the well-being of another from physical harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely. To be acquitted of any kind of physical harm-related crime (such as assault and battery and homicide) using the self-defense justification, one must prove legal provocation, meaning that one must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injury. The threat of damage or loss of property alone is not enough.

The right of self-defense is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force. In most jurisdictions, defense of self or of others is an affirmative defense to criminal charges for an act of violence. It acts to provide complete justification. Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all. The defense of justification affirmatively permits the use of force under certain circumstances. The defense does not operate to "excuse" a criminal act, nor does it negate a particular element of a crime. Rather, by recognizing the use of force to be privileged under certain circumstances, it renders such conduct entirely lawful. In this regard, the current statutory defense reflects the common-law "right" of an individual to repel a threat to life or limb. Defense deemed a natural, inalienable right at common law. (People v. McManus, 67 N.Y. 2d 541, 496 N.E. 2d 202, 505 N.Y.S 2d 43, 1986). The defense of justification would fail, for example, if a defendant killed a petty thief who did not commit robbery and who did not appear to be a physical threat. However, the owner or lawful possessor of the property has a privilege to use any degree of non-deadly force necessary to protect his possession or recover his property, regardless of the no physical threat to his person. The rules are the same when force is used to protect another from danger. Generally the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the third party is in a position where they would have the right of self-defense.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is the burden of providing sufficient evidence to shift a conclusion from an oppositional opinion. Whoever does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption. Whoever bears the burden of proof must present sufficient evidence to move the conclusion to their own position. The burden of proof must be fufilled by both establishing positive and negating oppositional evidence. There are two primary burden of proof considerations: 1. The question of whom the burden rests. 2. The question of the degree of certitude the proof must support. This depends on both the quantity and quality of evidence and the nature of the point under contention. Some common degrees of certitude include the most propbable event, reasonable doubt, and beyond the shadow of a doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard used as the burden of proof and typically only applies in criminal proceedings. It has been described as, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a reasonable doubt based upon reason an dcommon sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case then the level of proof has not been met. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is the strickest standard of proof. Widely considered an impossible standard, a situation stemming from the nature of knowledge itself, it is valuable to mention only as a comment on the fact that evidence in a court never need, nor can, reach this level. This phrase has nonetheless come to be associated with the law in popular culture.

Duress

In duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat, or other pressure against the person. The definition is defined as "any unlawful threat or coercion used to induce another to act (or not act) in a manner they otherwise would not (or would). Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that they normally would not perform. Duress has two aspects; One that it negates the person's consent to an act (such as a sexual activity or entering into a contract) or secondly, as a possible legal defense or justification to an otherwise unlawful act. As a defense, a defendant is arguing that he or she should not be held liable because, even though the act broke the law, it was only performed because of extreme unlawful pressure. For duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:
-The threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
-The threatened harm must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
-The threat must be immediate and inescapable
-The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own.
With the defense of duress it is actually attaching some degree of culpability to the defendant for what was done. The basis of the defense is that the duress actually overwhelmed the defendants will and would also have overwhelmed the will of a person of ordinary courage, thus rendering the entire behavior involuntary; therefore the liability should be reduced or discharged. The extent to which this defense should be allowed, if at all, is a matter of public policy. A state may say that no threat should force a person to deliberately break the law, particularly if this breach will cause significant loss or damage to a third person. Alternatively, a state may take the view that even though people may have ordinary levels of courage, they may nevertheless be coerced into agreeing to break the law and this human weakness should have some recognition in the law.