Help interpretting Florida Statute and specifically Jurisdiction on the waters of the state Florida Vessel Statutes state: 327.58 Jurisdiction.—The safety regulations included under this chapter shall apply to all vessels, except as specifically excluded, operating upon the waters of this state. The definition of Operate: 327.02 Definitions - (33) “Operate” means to be in charge of, in command of, or in actual physical control of a vessel upon the waters of this state, to exercise control over or to have responsibility for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the vessel is underway upon the waters of this state, or to control or steer a vessel being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state. Definition of "Underway": It seems to me, that they do not have jurisdiction, unless you are operating/underway and not while at anchor. If you are at anchor the jurisdiction would fall under the U.S. Coast Guard, as per: Am I missing something here? Or does the State of Florida not have jurisdiction, unless you are operating?
“... in charge of, in command of, or in actual physical control of a vessel ...” applies even if the vessel is stopped, at anchor or even if no one is on board (in which case it would be the last person in charge). Also, both Florida and the USA can have jurisdiction at the same time. Jurisdiction is not exclusive.
S88 Closing roads and public places: ...totally or partially prohibit or restrict public access, with or without vehicles, to any road or public place... S91(1)(a) Power to give directions: direct any person to stop any activity that may cause or substantially contribute to an emergency That is what "this Act otherwise provides"; S6 that you cited only works "unless": Unless this Act otherwise provides, this Act does not limit, is not in substitution for, and does not affect the functions, duties, or powers of any person under the provisions of any enactment or any rule of law. Also, from another angle, "functions, duties, or powers" are not the same thing as "rights": the Act does not limit the former (unless provides otherwise), but nowhere does it say it does not limit the latter.
The powers given to law enforcement professionals will be detailed in the relevant law that establishes them. I would suspect that the decision to cordon off an area would fall within the purview of the officer on the scene; the idea that a police officer would need to seek permission before cordoning off a motor vehicle accident or chemical spill is unworkable. I would also suspect that other emergency personnel (e.g. ambulance and fire-fighters) would have similar powers. However, such cordoning off would be a temporary measure and if it was maintained for an unreasonable period it would be open to challenge through an administrative or judicial process. If the police decided that a feature was a permanent hazard then they could seek a court order on the owner of the property to provide some measure to adequately protect the public, by either removing the hazard or providing some permanent barrier, under whatever laws seemed most appropriate.
You don't really "solve" a problem with IRAC. It is a rubric for summarizing cases and writing about how a legal issue was or should be resolved. As noted by @Putvi it stands for issue, rule, analysis and conclusion. It is common when writing a court opinion, or summarizing a case. For example, you first state the issue: Does the statute of frauds bar claims for promissory estoppel to establish who owns real property? Then to state the rule: Promissory estoppel can overcome the statute of frauds for many purposes, but not for purposes of lender liability or conveyances of real property. Then to provide analysis: Promissory estoppel has been used to substitute reliance for consideration and other formal requirements such as the requirement of a writing in many contexts, but the lender liability statute of frauds was enacted with a broader application than the traditional statute of frauds and the statute of frauds for conveyances of real property is definitional in nature since a conveyance of real property doesn't have a meaning in the absence of a deed or other instrument of conveyance. Since determining who owns real estate and not just who is obligated to transfer it in the future necessarily involves a conveyance, the exception to the promissory estoppel exception to the statute of frauds applies. Finally, you state the conclusion: Therefore, the statute of frauds bars claims for promissory estoppel to establish who owns real property. IRAC is a tool used for communicating legal concepts and conclusions, not for reaching those conclusions. Usually, the first stage of research is that you are presented with a fact pattern from which you have to "spot issues" and you may need to do legal research to use terminology that will be helpful and accurate to determine what the exact issue you want to resolve is and what the legal rule that applies to the case is. This often involves significant analysis prior to stating the rule or defining the issue. Also, it isn't uncommon in adversary practice to start with a conclusion, and see if you can find a way to describe the issue, rule and analysis that will lead to that conclusion. It would also be common to ask a junior attorney or law clerk to IRAC a large pile of cases to allow the senior attorney to focus in on which ones matter more quickly.
in japan operation of an unmanned airborne vehicle, aka UAV, aka Drone, inside a city might be legal, if a special license is obtained: Drones may not be flown in the following manners without special permission from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: 150 meters (492 feet) above ground level; near airports; above densely inhabited areas, as defined by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. This means in reverse, that you could have such a special license, but that license needs to be obtained for each operation 10 days prior, may only be done in daytime and within line of sight between drone and operator. However, city centers are densily inhabited areas, so the default is banned. However, in the countryside, flying a UAV does not require a special license, as long as the general other rules are followed (150 m above ground, 30 meters of any obstacle, daytime only, line of sight, etc). Among the requirements is also a total ban on alcohol at the control. As a result, the operation as depicted is not lawful under the ordinary laws as they operate in our world, unless the drone operator has special permit.
In case there is no way of knowing, thus no way to sue, would this seem like a loophole that practically abolishes the 4th amendment ? The 4th amendment only means that the officer needs a probable cause/reasonable suspicion to detain you. It absolutely does not mean that he has to tell you what that is. In fact, not telling you what the probable cause is is often a part of the officer's job because, if you are indeed a perpetrator, letting you know what the suspicions are could make you do things that would allow you to escape justice. There is certainly always a way to sue i.e. file a lawsuit, for which you do not need to know what the probable cause was. Instead, you contend that there was not any. And from this point the officer has to tell the court what it was, if any. If he fails to provide one, you win and get redressed for harassment — this is how your 4th amendment rights work. If he does provide a good probable cause, you lose because in this case you either: actually did something suspicious and knew there was a probable cause; OR jumped to the conclusion that the officer harassed you when he was simply doing his job.
united-states First of all, I would not say that any police organization &quot;rules over&quot;: any area, unless serious corruption is being implied. The usual term is &quot;has jurisdiction&quot; meaning that they may enforce the law, make arrests, and generally act as police. The rules are going to vary by state, and not all states even have all of these types of law enforcement organizations. But here are some ways in which they often work: A Sheriff is generally a county official, and may have jurisdiction anywhere in the county. If so, so will all the officers under the sheriff, who my all or mostly be Deputy Sheriffs. (This term is very old, going back to &quot;shire reeve&quot;, the chief administrative officer or bailiff for a shire, or county, in England, prior to the year 1000, and on through to the modern era.) In many states the Sheriff has authority except in incorporated cities within the county. The Sheriff often supplies court officials or bailiffs, and also runs the county jail. This post tends to be more important in the western part of the US. City police generally have jurisdiction within the boundaries of a city. They may be a tiny or huge organization, depending on the size of the city. State level law enforcement may or may not be able to supersede them, county level often cannot. The state police, often known as &quot;state troopers&quot; have jurisdiction through the state. In some states they mostly do highway patrol and traffic enforcement on state highways. In some states they provide primary law enforcement for all areas not part of a municipality with its own police. They may provide backup and resources for small police departments not equipped to handle major crimes, particularly villages and towns that do not have the status of cities. Or that may be handled by the Sheriff's office. Many states have a Division of Investigation, sort of a state-level version of the FBI. This is sometimes administratively part of the State Police, sometimes not, but even when it is it is in practice a separate organization. It can and does investigate serious crimes anywhere in the sate, and often handles matters where the conduct of the local police is or might be in question. It may be called by different names in different states. This organization can and does take over cases from local police and sheriff's offices. They may also run central crime labs with facilities more advances than local police departments have, to whcih evidence may be sent for testing from local departments or sheriff's offices.
You are asking a different question The title to the earlier question -- &quot;Do the police have a civil duty to do their job&quot; -- is slightly misleading. The question is not whether the policy have an abstract &quot;civil&quot; duty to enforce the law, but whether they have a specific &quot;constitutional&quot; duty to do so. If they do have such a specific duty, then, as they OP says, they could &quot;be sued for not doing their job.&quot; As ohwilleke explains thoroughly, the answer to this question is &quot;no.&quot; The Supreme Court has consistently held there is no constitutional right to police enforcement of the law. In particular, the SCt has held that police aren't violating the 14th Amendment when they don't &quot;do their job.&quot; According to the Court, someone who is hurt when the police don't enforce the law, is not deprived of &quot;life, liberty or property without due process of law.&quot; This in turn means that the people who are hurt can't sue the police under §1983, which allows people to sue state or local officials who violate their constitutional rights. As you point out, the Nevada statute clearly requires officers to make an arrest in some cases. However, this requirement is not absolute; the statute also creates an exception to the requirement: a peace officer shall, unless mitigating circumstances exist, arrest a person when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has...committed a battery upon his or her spouse.. The statute goes on to explicitly exempt the officer and her department from liability if she decides not to make an arrest: Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability upon a peace officer or his or her employer for a determination made in good faith by the peace officer not to arrest a person pursuant to this section. Thus, the statute sends mixed signals to police officers. On the one hand, it requires them to make arrests in some domestic violence cases; on the other hand, it says they are not liable if they ignore this requirement. Taken together, the Nevada statute and the SCt's decisions mean people who are hurt if police don't make an arrest under 171.137 cannot sue the police under either state or federal law.