What rights do inmates have during natural disasters? The water level behind Oroville Dam, CA, recently went way up due to heavy rain, and the rarely used "emergency spillway" was used for the first time in the dam's 50+ year life. It sustained significant damage and authorities tweeted out, “Auxiliary spillway at Oroville Dam predicted to fail within the next hour. Oroville residents evacuate northward.” Officials' fear of a catastrophic flood prompted the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people. Washington Post coverage concluded with a note that "Inmates at the Butte County Jail also had been moved to Alameda County, about 170 miles away." As of this writing, no such flood occurred, but for the sake of this question suppose one had, before the inmates were evacuated. Suppose that the guards saw (or were taken out by) some imminent danger and are out of the picture, though the inmates don't necessarily know why - they just notice water coming in and rising inside, relatively quickly. They don't know how high it will go; maybe nobody does. What rights do they have? If they try to escape, is that a crime (e.g. attempted/actual Escape) they'll be prosecuted for later? If they succeeded, but were traumatized by it being an extremely dangerous situation and no longer trust the state to take care of them and provide the protection from those kinds of dangers that they thought was part of their duty, are they still practically required to go back into that situation, with the State getting a free pass? If they get out, for how long can they remain free (and if the jail is severely damaged, to where would they be required to go?) At 20:14 in this Radiolab segment, an inmate who was first released due to prison overcrowding is described as having been "lost" during Hurricane Katrina, and the attorney general's office has no idea where that person is, end of story (?). There may be other, more direct answers based on actual situations of what happened after Katrina, or in some fires, etc.; it seems likely this sort of thing has actually happened when jailers faced a disaster without having or using sufficient advance notice. The question is focused on California, but answers/examples from other jurisdictions might be interesting too.
It is a felony to escape from a jail; see California Penal Code section 4532. (Escapes from a prison are covered in section 4530). However, California law recognizes a necessity defense when a crime is committed in order to avoid "significant bodily harm". (See the link for other important elements of the defense.) This defense would probably only be viable if after escaping, the inmate turned himself in as promptly as he reasonably could, once clear of the immediate danger of harm. He could go to any police station or law enforcement office; or he could call any police agency, explain the situation, and wait for them to come and arrest him. He would then presumably be taken to a different jail. If the inmate thinks the jail is unsafe, he can sue the state in either state or federal court (the latter as a civil rights case). It's unlikely that a court would order his release on this basis; more likely, they would order the state to improve conditions in some specific way, and they might award monetary damages to the inmate if he is injured. He also would probably not be able to stay out of jail during the suit. If the state arrests him, they'll put him in jail unless a court orders his release (or he's granted bail, or his case is otherwise resolved). If he hides to avoid arrest, then he's a fugitive. I seem to recall there's a general principle that fugitives don't have access to the courts.
The State of California is not responsible for injuries committed by private citizens Sorry to hear about your friend. Jamal may have a case (although the scope is narrow and timeframes are strict and tight) if someone employed by the state didn't do what they should have done. There is a whole raft of rules and regulations surrounding child welfare and Jamal would need to demonstrate exactly what they did that they shouldn't have done or what they should have done that they didn't do to have any basis for a claim. You will note that there is an obligation to make assessments -if they didn't make an assessment, they might be liable; if they made the wrong assessment, they aren't. Contested child welfare cases are difficult - caseworkers and social worlkers are presented with a lot of contradictory information and outright lies and the law accepts that if they make a good faith attempt to do their job, they haven't done anything wrong even if they make the wrong call. As for the court &quot;assuming&quot; anything, that is simply not true. The court would have heard the evidence (contested and contradictory no doubt) and made a judgement based on that evidence. It may have been the objectively wrong judgement but it was a perfectly legal one. In any event, you can't sue the court for a wrong judgement, you can only appeal it to a higher court subject to the time limits and your ability to pay. As a practical matter, child protection services are generally chronically underfunded, understaffed and overworked as are the courts that deal with such cases. A typical caseworker might have to deal with 50-100 cases similar to your friend every week - that gives them 5-15 minutes to (partially) read the file and try to decide what's best for the child. Sad to say, your friend is one of the lucky ones - came out the other end with a good relationship with one of his parents, isn't dead, isn't a drug addict and isn't homeless. And no, you can't sue the state for things being the way they are: that's what the voters want because if it isn't they'd elect politicians who would change it.
Not legally. Private prisons are operated under a government mandate (typically via a contract with the government). That said, depending on jurisdiction, there are plenty of scenarios where a prisoner is legally permitted to leave a prison. This can include work release programs, work details controlled by the prison, to visit sick or ill relatives, as part of a rehabilitation program (e.g., to attend an education program), etc. How much of these forms of release can be manipulated by a private prison likely varies by jurisdiction. Of course, some of the relevant decision makers may have a preference for keeping the prison owner happy, even if the owner has no direct influence. Mind you, it is probably difficult to get into such a position. I suspect a prison operator would not be sent to their own prison (and would not want to be; prisoners might attack them). Similarly, the government would probably block a jailed felon from taking ownership of their own prison.
So for your first question, yelling "Stop Thief" loudly at the thief is perfectly legal (Like Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, it's legal if the theater is infact, on fire... the quote implied that it was a prankster who drew amusement from the reaction of the people who took him seriously). This may alert store employees, who have a specific kind of Citizens Arrest Power known as "Shopkeeper's Privilege" and is a reduced liability compared to Citizens Arrest. This is also pretty basic self defense agains people who are not engaged in any physical action against you but are starting to scare you. Suddenly shouting draws attention to you and discourages them from their behavior "I SAID DON'T TOUCH ME" being suddenly shouted in a Wal Mart is going to get notices from the immediate crowd drawn to you, and by poximate location, the person who is making you uneasy. For your second question, maybe, it depends... since the cop is clearly chasing the guy, you meet the qualification to use non-deadly force in stopping the criminal (i.e. you are witnessing a person committing a crime, in this case, resisting arrest or persuit) and it would certainly be reasonably non-deadly force if you were to trip, grab, or push the fleeing suspect. Citizens Arrest doesn't specify a minimum time to qualify, so if the officer is seconds behind, and you detain the criminal in this action until the gap is closed, it still counts.
In the United States, you can always choose to (try to) flee police. If the police subsequently assert that they tried to detain you, then they can choose to charge you with a number of crimes (which vary by jurisdiction). The assertion that you did not (or could not) in fact hear or perceive a lawful order to stop is a defense that you could raise in response to such charges. It is up to the triers of fact to determine whether, given the specifics of the case, they accept that defense.
Is this interpretation correct? YES Encounters such as this should normally fall within the non-statutory stop &amp; account which covers police-initiated conversations with members of the public to ask general questions about their activities when there are no reasonable grounds to suspect an offence. The terminology varies from Force to Force, but can be summarised as: What are you doing? Why are you in the area? Where are you going? What are you carrying? There is no legal requirement or obligation to answer any of these questions, and the police cannot lawfully detain anyone to ask them - unlike the statutory powers under Stop &amp; Search and Arrest covered by the OP.
I assume this took place in Washington state. There are a number of self-defense provisions in Washington law. The first, RCW 9A.16.110, is primarily about reimbursements for prosecutions of acts of self-defense, but includes an applicable limit on prosecution: No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030. This provision is relevant, since executing a prisoner on death row is not a crime (the state Supreme Court recently struck down the death penalty, so I assume this took place before that ruling). RCW 9A.16.020 states the more classic law on justified use of force, saying The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:...(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary; Statutory law does not define offense against his or her person. Grabbing a person and strapping them down for some harmful purpose would normally constitute battery under the common law, but in this instance it is privileged, so it is not an offense against the person). RCW 9A.16.030 says that Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, without criminal negligence, or without any unlawful intent. The person is under court order to be executed, and it is not lawful to resist that order. The guard, however, RCW 9A.16.040, may use deadly force pursuant to the legal mandate to carry out the court orde ((1)(b)"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").
The holding of the Miranda decision says: (d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him The body of the opinion also says The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. although also He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law When SCOTUS says do this, that is the law. Since SCOTUS say can, will, and can and will, the only safe course of action is to say can and will. This page has some interesting discussion about the problem of the meaning of modals in a legal context. The Miranda warning does not constitute a contractual promise between the arresting officer and the arrestee, so "will" cannot be construed as a binding promise to prosecute and use the evidence in court. "Will" can only be construed as a prediction, as do "may" and "might". If the warning said "can, and mightmay be used against you", that choice or wording would suggest that the probability of statements being used against you is low – that would be totally misleading. The strongest modal should be used, because the probability is high that some statement will indeed be used against the person. Simply saying "can" suggests that it's a mere possibility, as opposed to a probability. "Can and will" is thus the appropriate construction for conveying the probability that your confession will be used against you. "Shall" shall not be used (it is confusing since it doesn't mean what the legal profession sometimes thinks it means); "must" is just plain wrong (it's legally meaningless to say "anything you say must be used against you", when many things that a person says would be inadmissible).