Does householder have authority to confiscate guest&#39;s legal property? I visited a teetotaler relative, I'm completely aware of his personal views and stayed over in his house. A local store stocked exotic alcoholic beverages for a reasonable price and I purchased some bottles (I'm over legal drinking age). Some days later I got caught and all alcohol I had with me was taken away without my knowledge, I found empty liquor store bag later. Compensation of any kind was refused and I haven't got my belongings back. Drinks are potentially poured down the drain and it's possible he benefited financially from the crime (bottle deposit is 0,10€ for empty glass bottles and 0,15€ for cans) We have talked about the event, the relative believes he has "full rights" to do so. Does the owner of the house have authority to govern what (legal) items I'm allowed to carry with me?
There is no legal theory of which I'm aware which would allow a host to confiscate a guest's property without consent and consideration. Even if the host intends to return the property and both parties know this, the host still can't keep it even temporarily after the owner demands its return. File a police report, press charges and sue for damages. Take Indiana as a perhaps representative example of what you could expect in the US. See http://www.myindianadefenselawyer.com/criminal-charges/theft-shoplifting/ . Theft is knowingly depriving a person of their property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. Conversion is knowingly depriving a person of their property without an intent to permanently deprive them of it. Both are crimes, though the former is a felony and the latter is a misdemeanor.
The pawn shop has the "use of property" of their own premises. The pawn shop has obviously the right to examine the gun to determine its value, for example, or to clean it if it needs cleaning to avoid damage, or to show it to a potential customer. And the pawn shop is allowed to let the police onto their own premises, even without a search warrant.
How far can one go to defend him/herself from an unreasonable search and seizures, in the same sense of one defending him/herself from an unlawful arrest? Not very far. Basically all you can do is try to talk the officer out of it. He thinks he sees evidence in sight... If the police officer reasonably believes that there is evidence of a crime in plain view, then the officer can proceed to seize the evidence. If the property owner tries to use force to prevent the seizure, then the officer can arrest the property owner. ... the property owner ... highly believes there is no possible way he could have seen the evidence from outside his property. It doesn't matter what the owner believes (unless the owner can somehow convince the officer before the search). What matters is what the court believes. But the owner cannot bring the matter to court before the officer enters the shed. If the officer insists on entering the shed and the owner can establish in court that the officer couldn't see the evidence and that there was no other lawful basis for a warrantless search or seizure, then the evidence will be inadmissible. The owner might also be able to prevail in a civil suit for the violation of civil rights, but the bar for such a suit is very high, so the likelihood is very small.
Generally, you would have to bring an eviction action just as you would for an ordinary landlord-tenant relationship. This means given written notice served as required by MA law of a deadline to leave, and then if the child did not leave, filing an eviction lawsuit and serving the papers on the child, and then attending an eviction hearing, and then, if you prevailed in that hearing as you probably would (probably with horrible TV and newspaper publicity that might go viral in social media), and then, arrangements would be made to remove him and his stuff from the house on an appointed day with law enforcement and movers and you would change the locks. It would probably take a few weeks start to finish. It is not something that a non-lawyer should try to do themselves. A lawyer would probably charge you a few thousand dollars for this proceeding. The main exception would be that generally a parent has a duty to support an adult disabled child who cannot provide for himself. You probably do not have the legal right to simply kick out your child without an eviction action, although few adult children would choose to push their legal rights not to be removed in that manner if they were. The fact that a child would likely end up homeless in some circumstances if you did this is something that most parents would not be at peace with and would regret later even if they felt good about the decision at the time, but that is a parenting decision and not a legal one.
british-columbia I am not aware of any judicial consideration of this issue. The Liquor Control and Licensing Act, s. 78(1) says: A minor must not, except as provided under this Act or unless the minor does so with other lawful excuse, ... consume liquor. (One of those exceptions are when the alcohol is supplied by the minor's parents, spouse or guardian in a residence for consumption in the residence. There are other exceptions, too. But I'll assume you're asking about a circumstance where no exception applies.) The Liquor Control and Licensing Act defines a &quot;minor&quot; to be a person under the age of majority established by the Age of Majority Act, which is age 19 today. The Liquor Control and Licensing Act, s. 57 makes it an offence to contravene s. 78(1). The Interpretation Act, s. 25.1 states that &quot;A person reaches a particular age expressed in years at the beginning of the relevant anniversary of the person's birth date.&quot; The Interpretation Act also clarifies that the reference to time &quot;is a reference to Pacific Standard Time&quot; (or Pacific Daylight Saving Time, when it is in effect). Thus, a person is a minor until &quot;the beginning [in Pacific time] of the relevant anniversary of the person's birth date.&quot; It is most clear in relation to the identification requirements when selling to a minor, but the Regulations (s. 158) refer to the date of birth as displayed on the person's identification card. This all suggests that when consuming alcohol in the greater Vancouver area, a person just about to reach the age of majority must wait until the date in the Pacific time zone is that which is displayed on their identification. Or barring any identification, until the date in the Pacific time zone is the date that is the person's birth date.
Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels, and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone else. Both sides are pushing hard into unexplored areas of law so we await the judgement with interest. Then we’ll know.
Owners can't be evicted from their own property. That's one of the fundamental rights of real estate ownership. You may have a contractual basis for a lawsuit that either leads to payment or provides for forfeiture of their share, but that relies on the details of your specific case and will require specific legal advice from your own lawyer.
No The criteria for adverse possession is that you have to be in possession without permission. A tenant, even one that pays no rent (or stops paying rent), has permission.