Can Idaho employers ask about dismissed criminal convictions? In California, if a person is convicted of a crime, then later has the conviction dismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4, then Labor Code section 432.7 makes it illegal for employers to ask about such a dismissed conviction. Therefore, if a person's only criminal conviction was dismissed per PC 1203.4, then on a non-government, non-law-enforcement employment application, when answering the question &quot;Have you ever been convicted of a crime?&quot;, it would be legal and truthful to answer &quot;No&quot;, since the question would itself be illegal if its intended scope included dismissals. Question: Is something like that also true in Idaho? Given (only) a California conviction and later dismissal (PC 1203.4), would a person now seeking employment in Idaho be required to answer &quot;Yes&quot; to the question &quot;Have you ever been convicted of a crime?&quot;? The searches I tried that found the answer for California did not turn up anything for Idaho.
I do not believe that Idaho has such a law. This is not the end of the analysis, however. It isn't clear that saying you do not have a conviction, when in fact, you have a conviction that was dismissed, is a permissible ground for an Idaho employer to, for example, justify the termination of your employment for an improper reasons (e.g. national origin) when the employer, after the fact, discovers that you have a conviction that you did not disclose because it was dismissed. An Idaho court could easily rule that the non-disclosure of a conviction which was dismissed was not a material fact upon which an Idaho employer could justify terminating your employment when it was discovered after the fact. Likewise, fraud prosecutions generally require a misrepresentation to be made regarding a &quot;material&quot; fact, and not just any fact. In the same vein, while misstating your middle name might be a misrepresentation, it might not be an actionable misrepresentation of a material fact.
Assuming you have a right of interlocutory appeal at all -- you usually don't -- you would file the appeal in the Courts of Appeal for whichever district. There are some types of cases that can be appealled directly to the California Supreme Court, or where you could petition the federal courts for an order to vacate the trial court's ruling, but these would be uncommon.
Voluntary Dismissal of a case in Maryland follows the Maryland Revise Civil Procedure District Court Rule 3-506 - Voluntary Dismissal: (a) By Notice of Dismissal or Stipulation. Except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute, a party who has filed a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim may dismiss all or part of the claim without leave of court by filing (1) a notice of dismissal at any time before the adverse party files a notice of intention to defend, or if the notice of dismissal specifies that it is with prejudice, at any time before judgment, or (2) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties to the claim being dismissed. (b) Dismissal Upon Stipulated Terms. If an action is settled upon written stipulated terms and dismissed, the action may be reopened at any time upon request of any party to the settlement to enforce the stipulated terms through the entry of judgment or other appropriate relief. (c) By Order of Court. Except as provided in section (a) of this Rule, a party who has filed a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim may dismiss the claim only by order of court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. (d) Effect on Claim. Unless otherwise specified in the notice of dismissal, stipulation, or order of court, a dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a party who has previously dismissed in any court of any state or in any court of the United States an action based on or including the same claim. (e) Effect on Counterclaim. If a counterclaim has been pleaded before the filing of a notice of dismissal or motion for voluntary dismissal, the dismissal of the action shall not affect the continued pendency of the counterclaim. (f) Costs. Unless otherwise provided by stipulation or order of court, the dismissing party is responsible for all costs of the action or the part dismissed. There is a form that explicitly refers to the 3-506 rule
Conducting an illegal search does not amount to a permanent get out of jail free card (&quot;does that invalidate all evidence against you&quot;. What is excluded is evidence derived from that illegal search, regardless of what crime they were searching for. It would include later evidence for an unrelated crime where the probable cause was uncovered by the illegal search. The doctrine is not absolute, so a grand jury can inquire about a matter brought to their attention via an illegal search (&quot;the exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons&quot;, US v. Calandra). Also, the doctrine excludes the product of a bad faith search without probable cause e.g. where the officer lies about the probable cause. There is also a &quot;social cost&quot; consideration, see Pennsylvania v. Scott. Utah v. Strief establishes three related doctrines. Unlawfully-obtained evidence independently acquired by officers from a source may be admittede. Evidence may be admitted if it would have been discovered without the unconstitutional source. Finally, since the poison fruit doctrine is intended to limit illegal police action, it may be admitted when there is a remote connection between illegal police conduct and gathering of evidence (e.g. the existence of an arrest warrant, discovered after the search). Nothing in your hypothetical points to an exception. The &quot;social costs&quot; consideration was specifically related to &quot;social costs of allowing convicted criminals who violate their parole to remain at large&quot;, but the potential for wider application is established (however, it is well-established that evidence of ordinary drug possession is excluded, from the myriad cases of such exclusions over the past century).
So what relevance if any does standing have in criminal trials? E.g., are there any examples of criminal cases/charges dismissed for lack of standing, by which I mean that the court decided the government lacked standing? Let's restrict the discussion to federal proceedings, for the sake of not making this too broad. Almost none. Conceptually, this is because a violation of a sovereign's criminal laws is an injury-in-fact to a legally protected interest of a sovereign in not having its own criminal laws violated. The violation of the law itself is the injury. Where standing type considerations apply they are usually described as jurisdiction. A sovereign, be it a state or the federal government can enforce its own criminal laws, but not another sovereign's criminal laws except by extradition. For example, a state prosecutor can't enforce a federal immigration crime in state court, nor can a state prosecutor file federal or state charges in a federal court. Likewise, a federal prosecutor can't bring federal or state charges in a state court, and a federal prosecutor can't bring state criminal charges (unless adopted by reference as part of federal law) in federal court. Criminal justice in Indian territory which is handled by the federal courts by federal prosecutors in felony cases, are a special case conceptualized either as a &quot;contract service&quot; relationship or as evidence that Indian tribes are not fully sovereign. The extraterritorial application of criminal laws is likewise usually considered a question of jurisdiction rather than standing. Sometimes the federal government passes a law incorporating some state criminal laws by reference as federal criminal laws in federally controlled territory, but that is an issue of substantive law, not standing. A handful of states allow private criminal prosecutions for select minor offenses, rather than being exclusively brought by the government (mostly on the East Coast). In those cases, standing is an issue, just as it is in civil cases. Only victims can bring private criminal prosecutions, where they are allowed, and only in cases where they are the victim.
In reality, nothing will probably happen. There is no record of anybody being prosecuted for ignoring the census since 1970 (as of 2014, the article hasn't been updated since then). 13 U.S. Code § 221.Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers: (a)Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100. (b)Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500. (c)Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body. The entire 13 USC Chapter 7 deals with offenses and penalties related to the Census: 13 USC Chapter 7, you as a citizen would fall under sub-chapter 2 "Other Persons". If you don't submit your answers, the Census bureau will send out a person to collect your responses. How you behave with that person may be more of an issue with regards to your liability.
The EEOC states that national original discrimination in employment is illegal, which is supported by 28 CFR Part 44 (discriminate means &quot;the act of intentionally treating an individual differently from other individuals because of national origin or citizenship status, regardless of the explanation for the differential treatment, and regardless of whether such treatment is because of animus or hostility&quot;). See also Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. codified at 42 USC 2000e–2. The internet widely advises that asking such questions is illegal. The EEOC has a more nuanced view of the matter as articulated here: they say We recommend that you avoid asking applicants about personal characteristics that are protected by law, such as race, color, religion, sex, national origin or age. These types of questions may discourage some individuals from applying, may be viewed suspiciously by some applicants, and may be considered evidence of intent to discriminate by the EEOC. If you do not have this information when you decide who to hire, it may be easier for you to defend your business against a hiring discrimination complaint. Before reaching a conclusion, we should check what an employee is (42 USC § 2000e(f)), namely: an individual employed by an employer, except that the term “employee” shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer’s personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office. The exemption set forth in the preceding sentence shall not include employees subject to the civil service laws of a State government, governmental agency or political subdivision. With respect to employment in a foreign country, such term includes an individual who is a citizen of the United States. This just tells us that in writing the law, Congress left it somewhat open what an &quot;employee&quot; is. An Amazon seller is, on the face of it, not an employee of Amazon, instead, a seller is an independent contractor. Of course that is a legal question that can't just be decided superficially, see for example California's AB5 (but even under that law, a seller is not an employee). As articulated by SSA The common law control test is the basic test, using the common law rules, for determining whether a relationship exists between the worker and the person or firm that they work for. Under the common-law test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when, and where to do the job If the Dept. of Labor or the IRS determine that you are (would be) an employee, then this is illegal discrimination, otherwise it is not. Since you are not paid a wage, the prospects for being deemed an employee are extremely dim. The EEOC gives this guidance on the distinction, with a very long list of examples which in general support the position that a vendor is an independent contractor and not an employee.
No. You are a "person of interest" in a criminal investigation based upon a bona fide reasonable suspicion, even though they lack probable cause, and the government has not threatened to say anything that isn't true, so you have no cause of action against the government. You might have a claim against the school or your employer for wrongfully firing you (being a person of interest in an investigation isn't itself unlawful or even a meaningful mark of bad character), but you are probably an "employee at will" and thus may have no recourse against the employer other than to apply for unemployment benefits because you were fired without good cause. Your recourse against the school would depend upon the nature of that relationship.