Is a Restraining Order or an Injunction Dropped in a Medical or Other Emergency I was recently browsing through social media when I came across this image. (See below) As unlikely as it seems that this image is real, it did get me thinking, are Restraining Order or Injunction Rules dropped in a Medical Emergency or otherwise. Some sources that I found useful while researching were: https://www.darlingtons.com/blog/contempt-of-court-part-i-contempt-for-breach-of-an-injunction#:~:text=2.,is%20breach%20of%20an%20Injunction%3F&amp;text=If%20a%20person%20disobeys%20the,facts%20of%20the%20given%20case. Contempt of Court Act 1981 Restraining Orders - Section 5, Protection from Harassment Act 1997
In the third of your sources (Harassment act, section 5), near the end, it says: If the defendant breaches an order under section 5 or 5A of the PHA 1997 without reasonable excuse, she/he will be guilty of a criminal offence (section 5(5) PHA 1997). The penalty that may be imposed upon breach of the new section 5A restraining order is identical to that which can be imposed under section 5. (Emphasis added) In Item 2 of the first source (darlingtons.com) it says: If a person disobeys the terms of an Order of Court which carries a penal notice, he will have breached the Injunction. As to whether such a breach constitutes contempt, will be considered on a case-by case approach according to the particular facts of the given case. The seriousness of the breach, and the question as to whether such action undermined or ‘laughed in the face of the Court Order’ so as to be contemptuous, will be determined by the Court. In item three of this same source it says: If the Court considers that the breach was intended to impede or prejudice the administration of justice, the Court has power to commit a person to prison, and/or impose a fine. In short it appears that the court is expected to use judgement on a case-by-case basis. Violation of a restraining order because the person subject to the order had to provide emergency medical or fire or rescue services, or otherwise provide needed assistance in an emergency, with no improper motive, would, I should think, not lead to any penalty for contempt. US practice also expects a court to exercise judgement when sentencing for contempt.
The COVID restrictions are new enough that there are few court decisions on how to interpret them. There are frequent requests for court injunctions seeking temporary relief. Some pass, some are denied. The website might accuse locations listed there of breaking the restrictions. Making such an accusation in public sounds like a very bad idea, especially if there is no solid documentation. But the aggrieved party would be any location falsely listed. The site may or may not be hosted in Germany. If it is not, it becomes a really interesting question which law applies. You might inform the authorities, but beyond that, forget it.
In the United States (and probably any common law country) a judge may find a person in criminal or civil contempt of court. One is in contempt of court if they refuse to follow the orders of the court. If one thinks the orders are wrong or improper the proper remedy is to ask for a stay of the order or file an emergency appeal and hope for a stay there. If no stay is received comply with the order until the appeal is heard. If we assume one does not follow the orders of a civil court, then that person will most likely be found in contempt of court. Originally this person will most likely receive a civil contempt charge, which will result in fines every single day the person is not in compliance with the order of the court. The [BC Supreme Court rules at 22-7][1] defines the parameters for failure to comply with court orders. At rule 22-8, it states that a person may be apprehended if they are found in contempt: (4)A person who is guilty of an act or omission described in Rule 12-5 (25) or 22-7 (5), in addition to being subject to any consequences prescribed by those rules, is guilty of contempt of court and subject to the court's power to punish contempt of court. (5)If the court is of the opinion that a person may be guilty of contempt of court, it may order, by warrant in Form 115 directed to a sheriff or other officer of the court or to a peace officer, that the person be apprehended and brought before the court. As an alternative type of sanction for civil contempt, the court can also have the person jailed until they comply with the order. In the United States, there is generally no limit on how long you can be jailed for civil contempt (the record is 14 years), and you have substantially lower due process protections (for instance, you don't have a right to a jury); both of those are because you can free yourself at any time by simply complying with the order. The court can also impose criminal contempt sanctions. Civil contempt is to get you to obey the order; criminal contempt is to punish you for disobeying. Criminal contempt sanctions are unconditional; it's a crime like other crimes, and a criminal sentence looks like &quot;$50,000 fine&quot; or &quot;30 days in jail&quot; rather than &quot;$1,000 per day until you obey the order&quot; or &quot;jail until you obey the order.&quot; [1]: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20C%20--/Court%20Rules%20Act%20[RSBC%201996]%20c.%2080/05_Regulations/17_168_2009%20-%20Supreme%20Court%20Civil%20Rules/168_2009_03.xml#rule22-7 BC Supreme Court rules, rule 22-7
Medical PoAs in General A medical power of attorney (PoA) is only valid (at least in most US states, the rules vary a bit) when the principal (the person granting the power), is unconscious, unable to make a choice, or legally incompetent. A fear, even an irrational fear, will not suffice to make a person incompetent. Maryland To deal with a specific example, consider the law of maryland. According to the article on &quot;Powers of Attorney&quot; from The People's Law Library : Unless otherwise stated in the advance directive, the directive goes into effect when the person becomes too sick to make a decision about his care. If the patient is unconscious or not able to communicate, then the attending doctor may make the determination that the advance directive is in effect. Otherwise two doctors must certify that the patient is not capable of making an informed decision about care. More specifically to use a Maryland advance directive (healthcare PoA) for the purpose described in the question, a person would need to create a written Advance directive under code §5–602(a). It would need to include language waiving the right to revoke the directive. The person would then need to be formally declared &quot;incapable of making an informed decision&quot; about injections by two physicians. Then, and only then, would anyone acting under the PoA be justified in restraining the principal and forcibly administering an injection. I suspect one would find many health care facilities very apprehensive of malpractice suits and other possible legal complications in such a situation, and thus very reluctant to undertake care in such circumstances. Specific Maryland Laws Maryland code section 5–602 reads, in relevant part: (a) (1) Any competent individual may, at any time, make a written or electronic advance directive regarding the provision of health care to that individual, or the withholding or withdrawal of health care from that individual. (a) (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the absence of a validly executed or witnessed advance directive, any authentic expression made by an individual while competent of the individual’s wishes regarding health care for the individual shall be considered. ... (e) (1) Unless otherwise provided in the document, an advance directive shall become effective when the declarant’s attending physician and a second physician certify in writing that the patient is incapable of making an informed decision. (e) (2) If a patient is unconscious, or unable to communicate by any means, the certification of a second physician is not required under paragraph (1) of this subsection. §5–601 reads: (f) “Competent individual” means a person who is at least 18 years of age or who under § 20–102(a) of this article has the same capacity as an adult to consent to medical treatment and who has not been determined to be incapable of making an informed decision. ... (m) (1) “Incapable of making an informed decision” means the inability of an adult patient to make an informed decision about the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of a specific medical treatment or course of treatment because the patient is unable to understand the nature, extent, or probable consequences of the proposed treatment or course of treatment, is unable to make a rational evaluation of the burdens, risks, and benefits of the treatment or course of treatment, or is unable to communicate a decision. §5–604 reads: (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, an advance directive may be revoked at any time by a declarant by a signed and dated written or electronic document, by physical cancellation or destruction, by an oral statement to a health care practitioner or by the execution of a subsequent directive. (a) (2) A declarant, knowingly and voluntarily, may elect in an advance directive to waive the right under paragraph (1) of this subsection to revoke any part or all of the advance directive, including the appointment of an agent, during a period in which the declarant has been certified incapable of making an informed decision under § 5–602(e) of this subtitle. (b) If a declarant revokes an advance directive by an oral statement to a health care practitioner, the practitioner and a witness to the oral revocation shall document the substance of the oral revocation in the declarant’s medical record. Alternate Procedure In many cases it is possible to treat and mitigate irrational fears. The process is not instant, but it is often effective, I understand. The hypothetical patient might be wise to undertake such treatment. It is possible to render a person unconscious without using an injection, although this has significant risks. That is not a legal issue, but a person could consent to such a procedure, and then be injected while unconscious. Whether a doctor would be willing to undertake this I cannot say. Some medications normally taken by injection can be administered by other routes, but I gather that some cannot, so this might or might not be a useful solution.
In 50/50 custody you have the right to stand your ground to ensure the safety and well being of your children. You do not need to involve police unless it is an emergency. &quot;911 Operator, what is the emergency&quot;. Only call them when you feel your children are in grave danger. For example, you know for sure that the other parent is drunk and driving, or the other parent is drunk and on the ground unable to move and the child is in danger, etc. If you involve the police over your partner excessive drinking than, and they find that she was not excessively drinking, you will face false accusation charges and her lawyer will try to make you look like the bad guy trying to take away her children. how drunk does my ex have to be for me to deny a drop-off? Is it entirely based upon outward signs or blood-alcohol level? You should not search for drugs or alcohol, or administer tests, as to avoid the accusation of an illegal search. You can, however, based on your judgment of common sense assess the situation and see how drunk (s)he is and make your decision based on that circumstances. Make a 1-page log to document the date, time, situation description (3-5 sentences of what you see and why you make that decision.) It would be wise to have a witness around, so write down the person name as well for reference, (NOT MANY PEOPLE LIKE TO BE WITNESSES, But you can write down the people names that you know were around that incident.) Don't tell your partner that you are making the log. Suprise them in the court when you have a full page of incidents due to drinking. Am I correct in assuming that in order to protect myself from being accused of denying visitation, that (in the future) I need to involve the police if I suspect her of being intoxicated? *Always protect yourself! Be Your Own Advocate. * Don't involve the police unless its am emergency, read the first comment above. If I involve the police, do I need to be sure that she is extremely intoxicated in order to avoid a &quot;false alarm&quot;? (Obviously, this scares me as I'd prefer she didn't drink at all) This drinking incident is alarming itself. However, you should consult with your family law attorney. I would say that document five issues if it exceeds 5 in one month than filing a motion with the court to adjust the drinking problem, and that you request the child to be with you 60/40 custody. You must be able to demonstrate that you have the time, commitment and resources to take over the 60/40 custody. What options do I have, if any, if she drinks around him in her own home? Is she within her legal right as long as she doesn't get in a car, doesn't pass out or does something blatantly abusive? File a motion to adjust the custody, speak with your family law attorney.
The district court judge, as reported in this news story has held that there was probable cause to arrest Daniel Robbins in this case, and that his rights were not violated. If this ruling stands, officers acted legally, although they might still be required to return the phone with the images. Whether there is probable cause for an arrest (or a search) is always a very fact-based issue. I have not found the judge's actual decision, only a news summary of it, which can often be misleading. Specific facts about exactly what Robbins did or said may be important in determining whether there was in fact probable cause. It appears that Robbins intends to appeal this decision. If he does there may be an opinion from a Circuit Court of Appeals expanding on whether there was probable cause or any violation of rights, and why. Previous cases have established that normally there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for acts performed in public; that one my photograph or video record such public acts legally from anywhere that one may legally be; that there is a right photograph or record police officers engaged in official actions or the use of police powers; and that laws attempting to forbid such recording are unconstitutional when so applied. However, it seems from the news story that here the police officers were off-duty and not engaging in any official acts or use of police powers. That might change the ruling. I rather expect the district court's decision to be overturned, but there is no case exact;ly on point that i know of, and one can never be absolutely sure what a court will do in a particular case. I can see why police officers may have felt threatened, and why the Judge may have been inclined to sympathize with them, although I think the decision was incorrect. But a Judge of the Appeals Court might possibly feel the same way. Until the Appeals Court rules, one cannot be sure what the law in this matter will finally be. (It is possibly, but statistically a bit unlikely, there there will eventually be a ruling from the US Supreme Court on this case.) This article from Nolo Press discusses the issue of recording police, primarily in the context of police who are performing their official duties. It says: Almost every court to consider the issue has determined that the First Amendment gives you the right to record (pictures, video, and audio) police officers in public while they are performing their duties. But that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to record if you’re doing so surreptitiously (secretly), interfering with the officer, or otherwise breaking the law. The courts' primary rationale for allowing police officer recording is that the First Amendment includes the right to freely discuss our government, and the right of freedom of the press and public access to information. Given the prevalence of personal filming devices, more and more “news” is being gathered and disseminated by members of the public. The courts have found that freedom of the press applies to citizen journalists and documentarians just as it does to formal members of the press. (See, for example, Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).) The Nolo article goes on to discuss whether a Section 1983 Federal suit against police officers who arrest someone recording their actions will succeed, indicating that this will depend on the specific facts of the case. The Nolo article mentions that one is not allowed to interfere with an officer during process of recording. What exactly constitutes &quot;interference&quot; is not fully clear, and will depend on the facts of a specific case. The Nolo article mentions other circumstances when recording an officer may not be legal.
Indirectly, no the wording of the caution is "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." It is illegal to question someone if they have asked for legal advice. so if you ask for a solicitor they are not allowed to question you, and you cannot (by definition) fail to answer their questions if they're not allowed to ask them. Reference from https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/legal-advice-at-the-police-station "Once you’ve asked for legal advice, the police can’t question you until you’ve got it - with some exceptions."
There is a state law that requires you to obey the police: ORC 2917.13, which says you may not Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind. If you do, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the first degree. You also cannot Hamper the lawful operations of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person, engaged in the person's duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind "Hamper" is not defined statutorily, but the plain meaning of "hamper" is not the same as "fail to assist". We have not established that the order is lawful, however, which is crucial. The police cannot just freely search a residence without permission. If they have permission from the occupant, they can search and seize. If they have probable cause to believe that a crime exists and the circumstances make a warrant impractical, they can search and seize. I don't know what you mean by "wellness check", but that seems plainly to be unlawful entry. However, if the resident calls 911 and reports that he is having an issue, that is sufficient consent for entry. In the case of a fire alarm, the fire code authorizes a fire department official in charge of an actual emergency response incident to order the evacuation of a building, and occupants are required to comply. If we suppose that the smoke detector in a room has gone off, the fire department is authorized to inspect for fire, and there is a provision under the law about failure to obey a lawful command (to open the door so that they can look for fire). Problem: you cannot know whether the order is lawful. The officer doesn't decide what is lawful, the courts do (after the fact), and typically a command is found to be lawful unless it is clearly unlawful. The order from your supervisor is not "enforceable" in the sense that you cannot be arrested, imprisoned, or fined for disobeying your boss. However, there is a potential club they can use against you, namely firing you for disobeying the order. Normally, you can be fired for wearing the wrong shirt. But there are laws about employers doing illegal things, such as ORC 4113.52, which provides recourse when the employee reasonably believes that the violation is a criminal offense that is likely to cause an imminent risk of physical harm to persons or a hazard to public health or safety etc. In which case you report this to the supervisor, they have 24 hours after getting the report to correct the situation, and after that you would report the situation to the county prosecutor. (Read all of the details in the linked law, don't just skip steps: this is an executive summary). Having done this, you are protected from being fired, demoted. reassigned etc. The employer will be strongly motivated to not incur the penalties for violating the whistle blower statute. Additionally, you can sue the employer if they fire you for refusing to violate the law (termination in violation of public policy).