Using handicapped plackards from one state when vehicle is registered in another I walk past a vehicle every day parked in a handicapped spot that doesn't look usable by anyone I would consider handicapped (a very lifted jeep). I don't want to sound like the arbiter of what is handicapped, but I also consider it very rude and inconsiderate to use handicapped parking when you are not disabled. I looked at the handicapped placard (on the dash of the jeep, not hanging from the mirror) and it is from Iowa and dosn't expire, but the jeep has Colorado tags. My question is, is that Iowa placard valid? Couldn't some unscrupulous person sell their dead grandparents "permanent" placard to someone out of state that allows them to park in the best spots all the time.
This seems to be the relevant code: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/2016/321L.pdf (8 pages). The permit is supposed to be returned to DMV if the person to whom it was issued dies or moves out of state (321L.3(1)(a) and (b)), but I see no requirement that the vehicle in which it is displayed must be tagged in Iowa. It is also plausible that the jeep owner is driving a handicapped person around, since a placard may be used by a passenger. On the other hand, the Colorado tags themselves may be illegal since people are supposed to register within 30 days of moving to Iowa (http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/vehicleregistration/register.htm). Iowa is a rather long commute from Colorado.
It is legal, unless it is a violation of the rental agreement. Generally, a property owner can have a vehicle towed from their property, although there may be a requirement in the state to post a towing notice. If the lease agreement says that cars must always be street-legal, that is the end of the discussion. If the agreement says that cars without tags or plates can be stored in a person's spot, towing it would be a violation of the agreement. If the agreement doesn't say anything, then the property owner's rights would be the default deciding factor. Since your roommate seeks to override the park owner's ordinary control over the surrounding spaces, there needs to be an explicit provision for that in the lease.
In addition to the general considerations of (1) who is allowed to use non-deadly physical force to maintain order in a shop (which I think that one could do if "deputized" by the property owner or to protect the property of another as well), and (2) the use of non-deadly physical force to make a citizen's arrest (which many of these scenarios would justify as the disorder would be a crime if committed by an adult), (3) I suspect that there is also some point at which a bystander may intervene to prevent harms associated with an unsupervised minor being at large and in need of supervision. Generally speaking, intervention with the minimum reasonable non-deadly physical force to prevent property damage, or an assault, or a threat, is going to be permissible. As to the third reason: for a mentally normal ten-year-old that might be a stretch; for a four-year-old or a clearly impaired older child it might not. One could approach the child, say, "where's your mom or dad", "do you have a babysitter or sibling around?", "what is your name?", or "are you lost?" and detain the child until a satisfactory answer is provided or a suitable authority arrives, to prevent the problem of a child being lost, abducted or hurt by the child's own actions. It would be quite hard for a parent, guardian or babysitter to complain about this kind of conduct when the child was unsupervised and is released as soon as you confirm that this really is a responsible adult or older minor who is responsible for the child. It would be important in doing so to not secret away or isolate the child, to try to determine the location of the child's caretaker, to refrain from doing anything that would harm the child, and to seek assistance from an authority within a reasonable time. Typically, if no caretaker appeared, a cop would come and the cop would oversee the situation until a social worker could come. For example, Colorado has the following statute that would apply once a cop arrived (omitting lengthy provisions that apply to newborn children): § 19-3-401. Taking children into custody (1) A child may be taken into temporary custody by a law enforcement officer without order of the court: (a) When the child is abandoned, lost, or seriously endangered in such child's surroundings or seriously endangers others and immediate removal appears to be necessary for such child's protection or the protection of others; (b) When there are reasonable grounds to believe that such child has run away or escaped from such child's parents, guardian, or legal custodian and the child's parents, guardian, or legal custodian has not made a report to a law enforcement agency that the child has run away from home; . . . (1.3) A child shall be taken into temporary custody by a law enforcement officer without order of the court when there are reasonable grounds to believe the child has run away from the child's parents, guardian, or legal custodian and the child's parents, guardian, or legal custodian has made a report to a law enforcement agency that the child has run away from home. (1.5) An emergency exists and a child is seriously endangered as described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section whenever the safety or well-being of a child is immediately at issue and there is no other reasonable way to protect the child without removing the child from the child's home. If such an emergency exists, a child shall be removed from such child's home and placed in protective custody regardless of whether reasonable efforts to preserve the family have been made. (2) The taking of a child into temporary custody under this section shall not be deemed an arrest, nor shall it constitute a police record. A child is considered neglected or dependent under circumstances including the following (provisions related to drug or alcohol abuse by parents omitted): § 19-3-102. Neglected or dependent child (1) A child is neglected or dependent if: (a) A parent, guardian, or legal custodian has abandoned the child or has subjected him or her to mistreatment or abuse or a parent, guardian, or legal custodian has suffered or allowed another to mistreat or abuse the child without taking lawful means to stop such mistreatment or abuse and prevent it from recurring; (b) The child lacks proper parental care through the actions or omissions of the parent, guardian, or legal custodian; (c) The child's environment is injurious to his or her welfare; (d) A parent, guardian, or legal custodian fails or refuses to provide the child with proper or necessary subsistence, education, medical care, or any other care necessary for his or her health, guidance, or well-being; (e) The child is homeless, without proper care, or not domiciled with his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian through no fault of such parent, guardian, or legal custodian; (f) The child has run away from home or is otherwise beyond the control of his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian; I don't have easily at hand legal authority authorizing a third-party who is not a law enforcement officer to take custody of a dependent or neglected child until a law enforcement officer arrives, but I strongly suspect from the context that this is allowed either under common law, or a statute that I have not located, or some legal fiction (e.g., that the citizen is implicitly deputized by the law enforcement officer after the fact), or simply as a matter of custom and ordinary practice not codified in any authoritative legal source.
Because you indicate that you're from New Mexico, I'm assuming that you're asking about the rules governing curbside mailboxes used by the United States Postal Service. If that's the case, there are constraints on the design of signal flags, but they are far more focused on function and ergonomics than on aesthetics, and they can be found at USPS STD 7C, which says: The flag must be mounted on the right side when facing the mailbox from the front. The flag must not require a lift of more than 2 pounds of force to retract. Additionally, when actuated (signaling outgoing mail), the flag must remain in position until retracted by the carrier. The color of the flag must be in accordance with the requirements described in 3.9. The operating mechanism of the flag must not require lubrication and must continue to operate properly and positively (without binding or excessive free play) after being subjected to the test described in Section 4. Optionally, the flag may incorporate a self-lowering feature that causes it to automatically retract when the carrier service door is opened provided no additional effort is required of the carrier. The self-lowering feature cannot present protrusions or attachments and must not interfere with delivery operations in any manner or present hazardous features as specified in 3.1. The regulations provide &quot;preferred&quot; designs -- generally the rectangle you're likely used to -- but say that other designs may be permitted if they meet the other requirements. As I read it, this means USPS doesn't care if you use a circle or a square or a triangle or a swallowtail, as long as at isn't too heavy to lift, too flimsy to stand up on its own, etc.
The published statues pertaining to Vermont vehicle registrations reference operation by a person &quot;on any highway.&quot; This specific statute applies to a motor vehicle or trailer. A person shall not operate a motor vehicle nor draw a trailer or semi-trailer on any highway unless such vehicle is registered as provided in this chapter. There are no references I could find regarding private property within the statutes. It's common to consider that any vehicle operated exclusively on private property can be done so without registration and therefore without the inspection.
It may be legal, depending on surrounding circumstances. Under MCL 257.904b(1) When a person is convicted of an offense punishable under section 904(1)(b) or (c) or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 904(1)(b) or (c) for operating a motor vehicle while his or her license to operate a motor vehicle is suspended, revoked, or denied, the court shall order the motor vehicle, if it is owned in whole or in part or leased by that person, impounded for not less than a period the court orders but not more than 120 days from the date of judgment Under the assumption that there was a violation of the law, a conviction and license suspension (for the relevant crime), then the vehicle shall be impounded. It would not be legal for the police to spontaneously decide to impound the vehicle without a court order (which the court must issue). The statute does require that the vehicle be owned or leased at least in part by the person who violated the law. You might then argue that this does not allow impoundment for a vehicle borrowed with permission, and if the judge rejects that argument you could try to argue it up to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Very few terms have a single "legal" definition or meaning that applies to all laws, and can be looked up as if in a dictionary. Rather, when a specific meaning is needed in connection with a particular law, that law will include a definition. But that definition will often not apply to the use of the same term in other laws or other contexts. Here I suspect that the OP has found the definition section of a US Federal law regulating commercial transport in interstate commerce. Obviously in such a law, those terms would be defined in the context of commercial transport. That does not mean that the same meanings will be applied in other laws. Driver's licenses and other traffic and motor vehicle regulations are largely matters of state law in the US. Definitions from a federal law, or indeed any law but that state's Motor Vehicle Code (or whatever a given state calls such a body of law) will simply not be relevant. The argument sketched in the question simply does not follow.
You have to start with the pertinent ADA regulations, 28 CFR Part 36, and esp. subpart B which gets to the prohibition. Under §36.201(a), No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any private entity who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. After that under activities, it is stated that A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation. and also A public accommodation shall not afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. moreover &quot;separate but equal&quot; is not allowed. The sign does not articulate any denial of opportunity, so that should be the end of the discussion. OTOH I suspect that a sign saying &quot;Please do not enter this store if you are white&quot; would be held to be discriminatory, as an indirect denial of permission to enter based on race. §36.208 introduces two important exceptions. First, This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. That means that (irrespective of the fact that covid is not a legal disability) it is legal to exclude direct threats to the health of others. And furthermore, In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: The nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk. Based on reasonable medical judgment and innumerable official government proclamations, it is reasonable to believe that a person with covid symptoms pose a threat to public health. The law doesn't require you to be omniscient and actually know that customer A has covid and customer B has asthma. §36.301 then says more about possible screening requirements. It is generally expected that everybody knows the law and will follow the law: ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor is it a cause for a discrimination claim. It would not be legal to exclude a person from a public accommodation when they pose no threat to public health. The customer with asthma is expected to know this law, and is expected to not infer incorrectly that the sign implies that he is being illegally excluded. The customer with covid is also expected to know this law, and is expected to know that it refers to him – as is allowed under the law. Potentially illegal discrimination enters the picture once actual exclusion happens, getting you back to &quot;individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment&quot;. A rule that &quot;anybody who coughs gets thrown out&quot; is most likely to not pass muster as a reasonable health-based criterion. Including a temperature scan is likely to put the practice within the realm of the reasonable.