Is it legal for a bartender to serve &quot;virgin&quot; drinks to an intoxicated patron without telling them? An occasional trope in media, or in real life, is to have someone who is obviously intoxicated handed another drink and, when someone calls the server on it, they say that they gave them water instead of vodka, or a Jack and Coke without the Jack, with the implication being that they're doing the right thing by not giving the person more alcohol, but also avoiding conflict by fooling the person into thinking they're getting alcohol when they're not. Leaving aside that the effects of alcohol are sometimes as much about thinking you're drinking, it also occurred to me that, in a business situation, it could be argued that the bartender is instituting a sort of fraud on the customer by doing an extreme version of &quot;watering the drinks&quot;. I assume that there'd be some degree of leniency if the bartender argues that they were trying to avoid harm by doing a reduced version of refusing service, and that a further method of avoiding trouble would be not charging at all for the substitute drinks (not even charging them for the soda you substituted, for example), but I could see a case still being made for a customer, or someone with them noticing the switch, claiming they are being defrauded. So, is it legal for a bartender to switch someone to non-alcoholic drinks without telling them in the United States?
Bartenders and their employers face stiff regulatory penalties (including fines and loss of a license to serve alcohol), and they also face potentially massive lawsuit liability for serving alcohol to someone is who too drunk if the patron later leaves and drives drunk or other harm results (such lawsuits are sometimes called &quot;dramshop actions&quot;). If a bartender serves a &quot;virgin&quot; drink when a regular one is ordered, without the customer's knowledge, this could result in liability for breach of contract (with the damages likely being either a nominal $1 or the difference between the cost of the regular drink and the virgin drink if the customer is charged the higher price). But affirmative defenses of illegality of the proposed contract (when the customers orders an alcoholic drink) might void liability. It could also result in liability for fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment. But again, unless the customer is up-charged for the alcoholic price while getting a less expensive drink, the damages would be nominal (unlikely to exceed $1) and affirmative defenses might apply.
Just below the section you quoted it says: (3) The victim’s prior sexual conduct is not a relevant issue in a prosecution under this section. There is no stated provision for the case you mention. I suspect that the law would apply. Whether the authorities would choose to prosecute in such a case is a very different question. There might be caselaw of this subject. I wouldn't know. If this is more than hypothetical, i would urge consulting a lawyer with local knowledge of criminal practice.
It depends on whether one honestly believes that the supermarket would consent to them eating a snack before paying for it. If there is no consent, either explicit or implied, then it is theft as no contract has been performed or fulfilled so ownership hasn't transferred, as follows: Theft is defined by section 1Theft Act 1968 as: (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. The two elements relevant here are &quot;dishonestly&quot; and &quot;intention of permanently depriving&quot;. Section 2 offers three defences to being dishonest, with this being the only one applicable here: (1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— ... (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it... The definition of intention to permanently deprive may be found at section 6: (1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights... See this article by News Shopper that explains it in a much better way than I could without me commiting plagiarism: Buying a product at the till is what transfers the ownership from the product belonging to the shopkeeper, to it belonging to you. And only when that sale is complete do you have the legal right to consume or use it. If you eat the chocolate before you legally own it, you are permanently depriving the owner of his right to the product – he can no longer refuse you the sale or take the item off the shelves.
There is a slim chance that it is truish, depending on whose law you are asking about, and also depending on the facts (if the drug was in a baggie, it's unclear; it is was mixed with the soda, it's clear and it's true). As far as I know, the "baggie in can" theory has not been put to the appellate test (perhaps that is evidence that the can does not count). However, in the case Chapman v. US, 500 U.S. 453, defendant was convicted of the sale of LSD-laced blotter paper, and was sentenced accosting to the 5.7 gram weight of the blotter paper, not the 50 milligram weight of the LSD that it contained. SCOTUS upheld the sentencing based on the higher weight, holding that "The statute requires the weight of the carrier medium to be included when determining the appropriate sentencing for trafficking in LSD", because the statute is stated in terms of a "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount" (here, 21 USC 841, are some of the current laws, which repeated use the formula "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of"). The question that would arise is whether a can containing a bag of something is a "substance" or "mixture". The ordinary meaning of "mixture" precludes that interpretation, but of course you also have to look at the legislative history to determine what Congress's intent was in writing these laws. Saying that a can with a bag is a "substance" is also counter-intuitive, but not as plainly unreasonable as calling a can and a bag a "mixture". In Chapman, the court observed that "Congress clearly intended the dilutant, cutting agent, or carrier medium to be included in the weight of those drugs for sentencing purposes", but again you might interpret "carrier medium" as referring to something other than "the means of carrying the drug" – "carrier medium" is not statutorily defined, and its "plain meaning" is broad (but also note that the statute doesn't mention "carrier medium"). In its ruling, the court appeals to "the history of Congress's attempts to control illegal drug distribution", and a careful study of all of the pertinent documents for this case might definitively rule in vs. out an interpretation that the weight of the container is to be included. An obvious ludicrous consequence of including container weight is that if you are arrested for possession of a trace amount of a drug, found in your car, the weight of the car is to be considered and you get life in prison. It is plausible that the officer has a vague acquaintance with the Chapman-type ruling, and has misapplied the law, thus he has a good-faith belief that his claim is legally correct (thus he did not lie, he was simply wrong). Perhaps some DA has pursued the "drug plus can-weight" theory, but I doubt that has happened.
Yes and No Selling your own body for sex is legal. Buying sex is illegal. Therefore the transaction as a whole is legal on the part of the seller and illegal on the part of the buyer. See Prostitution in Canada and Prostitution law in Canada. If you think this is odd, you are not alone '... one judge referring to the laws as "Alice-in-Wonderland" and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court referred to the situation as "bizarre"'. In the circumstances, although I know of no case law on this, it would appear that any contract for prostitution would be void for illegality. Presumably, to enforce payment for services rendered the service provider would need to pursue a quantum meruit claim in equity.
The bouncer is employed (or (sub)contracted) by the owner/lessee of premises - someone with the right to evict persons from their private property per the common law rights to exclusive use of one's property. When the bouncer evicts you, they are exercising this right on behalf of and as the agent for the owner, who could do it, but instead has assigned limited agency to the bouncer to do that for them. Entrance to (and remaining on) a property may be authorised and revoked at any time - at the time that consent is not given or is withdrawn, you become a trespasser and the police may be called upon to forcibly remove you from the premises. For example, I can have a party at my house, but if I don't like someone, I'm entitled to ask them to leave. I could also ask a friend to ask that person to leave, if I didn't want to do it myself. Note that bouncers aren't empowered to physically evict anyone except for the general right to use reasonable and proportionate force. For instance, someone that was just standing around in the nightclub probably couldn't be physically thrown out, but someone who was causing harm to themselves or others could be restrained or repelled as appropriate (and if restrained, you'd need to be very careful to do so in the course of effecting a citizen's arrest, otherwise you'd probably be committing false imprisonment). There may be statutory provisions that bestow additional rights and responsibilities upon bouncers, but this is the basic premise. I'm fairly certain that this would apply in all Australian jurisdictions; probably in all common law jurisdictions.
It depends. If the tip is that there are pictures proving that a minor consumed alcohol 10 years ago, probably not. If the tip is that there's a kidnapped child being tortured inside, more likely. In either event, they would probably seek to build up some independently obtained evidence to enable them to obtain a warrant based on probable cause. An anonymous tip might be enough, depending on how detailed it was and whether there were any objective indicators of reliability, but it's not a sure thing.
Is there anything I can do so that the authorities investigate and revoke his privilege of driving a car? Yes. Next time he drinks and gets behind the wheel, call the police and tell them that you are witnessing an intoxicated person about to drive. If the police witness him behind the wheel while intoxicated, he'll be issued a DUI, perhaps face jail time, and will have his license revoked. I would suggest visiting your local chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous. They experience situations like this all the time and can work with you to help this individual.