Can the police arrest me for marrying an underage (17 year old) girl? I live in Mumbai, India, and am married to a 17 year old girl from Mumbai. Recently, we had to file a police case against a man who was misbehaving with my wife. After knowing my wife's age, the police was suggesting me not to file a case as even I might get arrested, if the case reaches court, because I am married to 17 year old girl. Though I have filled the case and the culprit is under arrest, and the court hearing is after a month. Can I even get arrested for marrying a 17 year (underage) girl?
The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 apparently sets no lower limit on marriage for Muslims. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 then defined a child as a female under 18 and a male under 21, and a child marriage is one where at least one party is a child. The law then says that "Every child marriage is voidable at the option of the contracting party who was child at the time of solemnization of marriage". The punishment (not at the discretion of the child) for a male offender is rigorous "imprisonment which may extend to two years" or a fine of 100,000 rupees (or both). While the political question of modifying the law to allow Sharia and Nikah to prevail for Muslims, the current law does not allow this. The crime is a cognizable offense (section 15), meaning that no court order is required for police to arrest without warrant, and bail is not available.
I am not a lawyer either, though I have been through Pennsylvania a few times. The relevant law is 18 Pa.C.S. 5703, which prohibits recording without consent of all parties (Penna is a "two-party consent" state, like Florida and Washington). Unfortunately, violation of that law is a third degree felony, which has a maximum of 7 year prison. A specific instance of someone getting in trouble for recording their boss is Commonwealth v. Smith (Smith used a cell phone to record his boss, then argued that a cell phone isn't a "device"; the court determined that it is, and that was Feb 16 2016 so who knows the final outcome). An attorney in Pennsylvania might be able to tell you how often people actually serve time for violating the law. You should call one.
I'll use Washington state as my source, but laws will be similar in other states. RCW 9A.76.020 outlaws obstructing a law enforcement officer, which this would be: it is a gross misdemeanor. In using lethal force, you would have committed first degree murder, under RCW 9A.32.030. There is a defense that can be used, per RCW 9A.16.050, that homicide is justified when: In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished. Law enforcement officers have access to justifiable homicide defenses as well under 9A.16.040, for example (b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty or (c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid: (i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony The outcome of the case would hinge in part on whether the officer's arrest and use of force was lawful. To take two extremes, if the guy on the ground had just killed a dozen people and was aiming to rack up another dozen kills, the officer's arrest would almost certainly be held to be legal and his degree of force justified. Your personal belief that the suspect was compliant and unarmed might be refuted by the facts. On the other hand, if the guy on the ground had slept with the officer's sister and the officer wanted to rid the world of this vermin, then the arrest and force would almost certainly be held to be not legal. It can be legal to use deadly force to resist unlawful arrest. See John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, where the court held that if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if, in the course of that resistance, the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter The court also said where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed. This ruling has been somewhat eroded, in US v. Simon: We recognize that law enforcement officers are frequently called on to make arrests without warrants and should not be held, so far as their personal security is concerned, to a nicety of distinctions between probable cause and lack of probable cause in differing situations of warrantless arrests. It is for this reason we believe that the force of John Bad Elk has been diminished The upshot of this is that (assuming no warrant), leeway is granted to officers in assessing probable cause (I'm not sure anybody really knows at a general conceptual level what constitutes "probable cause". The court seems to imply that the remote hearsay used as the basis for the arrest would not have been sufficient for a warrant, but it was "reasonable grounds" for believing accused had committed a crime). Your premise that the officer is about to shoot would have to be substantiated by some fact, such as a declaration "I'm gonna kill you". Otherwise, your belief that the officer was about to commit unjustified murder would itself be unjustified. With better fleshing out of the circumstances, you could manufacture a justified-homicide scenario.
Yes new-south-wales A non-exhaustive list: At common law, a police officer can arrest without warrant any person the officer reasonably suspects has committed a felony. A private citizen can arrest without warrant only where a felony has actually been committed. Both police officers and private citizens can arrest without a warrant a person who commits a breach of the peace, or where it is reasonably believed that the person is about to commit a breach of the peace. In NSW a police officer’s common law duty to take a person before a justice as soon as practicable after arrest has been replaced by a statutory scheme introduced by the Crimes Amendment (Detention After Arrest) Act 1997. Under Part 10A police may detain a person for investigation for 4 hours, or for a further period not exceeding 8 hours if a warrant to extend the investigation period is obtained. Police can detain people 'for their own good' - for example, an intoxicated or drug-affected person; private citizens can't. Police can stop and search a suspect before an arrest on reasonable grounds; private citizens can't. Police can give directions to the public (the 'move-along' power); private citizens can't. Police can demand a person's name and address; private citizens can't. Police can demand disclosure of the identity of a driver and passengers in a motor vehicle; private citizens can't. Police can stop and search vehicles (including the road block power); private citizens can't. Police can conduct forensic procedures; private citizens can't. Police can conduct customs inspections (as can customs officers); private citizens can't. Police can search for internally concealed drugs; private citizens can't. Police can execute search warrants; private citizens can't. etc.
An officer is allowed to pull you over for speeding and then decline to give you a ticket for speeding. So the lack of a ticket has nothing to do with it (unless you actually weren't speeding, not even 1 MPH over.) Simply having past felonies, however, is not a reason for an officer to be able to search the car. Without a warrant, he'd need probable cause, consent, or some other exception to the warrant requirement. It's impossible for me to say what happened here. Maybe your husband had an outstanding arrest warrant? Maybe the officer saw the gun from outside the car? Maybe one of you said "OK" when he asked to search the car? Or maybe the search was illegal after all?
Informal common-law marriages are recognised in a number of common-law jurisdiction, though not in Ireland, and not in Alabama (which recently un-recognized them), or Washington. In Montana, you would be married (which still doesn't resolve the bigamy question). In Texas, you might be. There are three relevant elements to legal marriages at least in the US: a solemnization (ceremony), a license (or document like the Declaration of Informal Marriage document signed in Texas), and filing the license. You claim that the marriage is not legal in the place you got married or where you are now, but that conclusion might be wrong (I assume that opinion is based on your understanding of local laws, but that understanding might be in error. If your lawyer told you so, then I don't know why you're asking here, so I assume you didn't ask a lawyer). The main issue of concern would be over whether that country requires a license of registration for a marriage to be valid, or does a church ceremony along suffice. Unregistered marriages are not legally recognized in Kenya, so it could matter what country this happened in. Assuming that you did not cross the threshold for "common law marriage" wherever you were when you "got married", then you are not married now. As pointed out by ohwilleke, an issue could arise if you visited one of the 10 US states that recognizes common law marriage, and accidentally satisfied the requirements for a common law marriage (without ceremony). Texas would not be a problem even if you were there and introduced yourselves as man and wife, because there is also a cohabitation requirement (FAM § 2.401: "the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married"), but such a requirement might not exist in all states. Assuming also that you are currently in the US (hence subject to jurisdiction of some state), it is pretty much guaranteed that you have not committed bigamy. Bigamy laws can differ somewhat from state to state, but picking the Washington law as an example, one would have committed bigamy if one "intentionally marries or purports to marry another person when either person has a living spouse". However one can defend oneself against that charge if "the actor reasonably believed that he or she was legally eligible to marry". I cannot find a statutory definition of "spouse" in the relevant chapter of RCW, in which case the term takes its ordinary meaning (which means there considerable wiggle room if the matter hasn't been decided by some court). At any rate, bigamy charges in Washington are extremely unlikely. If your "ex" lived in a country which has a very expansive definition of bigamy (presumably by having a very expansive definition of marriage), then you might be subject to charges if you were ever in that country. But you could not be extradited from the US to that country for prosecution.
Yes. Although there are numerous child-protection laws, there is nothing specific for (beggar) children in this scenario so it would fall within Criminal Force, an offence contrary to section 350 Indian Penal Code: Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent ... or intending ... or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other. The punishment for which may be found at section 352 Whoever ... uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment ... for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. For completeness &quot;Force&quot; is described by section 349 as: A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling... [A substance could be, for example, a broom handle or a pan of water] Also, for completeness there's the alternative of Assault under section 351 if no force is used.
A law enforcement officer not telling you they are a law enforcement officer is not entrapment; it's just undercover police work. Entrapment involves the law enforcement officer inducing the perpetrator to commit a crime that they otherwise would not. Will you be able to avoid future charges initiated with this contact because they were not honest? Of course not, there is no obligation on a law enforcement officer to be honest if being dishonest is in accordance with their job requirements at the time. For example, it is perfectly legal for a male 45-year-old police officer to pretend to be a 14-year-old female on the web in an attempt to catch pedophiles. If the officer induced the perpetrator to request a meeting for the purposes of sex or to request child abuse material then that would be entrapment; if they simply play the role and respond without crossing that line that is OK.