The fourth amendment applies to states through the 14th amendment. Even if they claim its federal law, but state law, it doesn't mater as they are government actors. The 4th amendment only applies directly to federal actors, though the 14th amendment through state actors.
If you are the owner of one of the vehicles that had the feature disabled, then file a lawsuit against them. The car was advertised and sold as actually having the feature. They then disabled it, that is a pecuniary loss. Let them be exposed to discovery and explain exactly why they can't provide it?
However, there are some reasons it can't be provided:
It is too insecure and they depended on security by obscurity, which is not real security;
Doing so would would expose that they had violated patent(s) or copyright(s); or
Tinker is dead!
Look at JOHN DARIANO v. MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, 745 F.3d 354 (9th Cir.2014).
Wearing American Flags in School is not permitted because Mexican students might object to it and become violent.
The heckler's veto won.
Tinker is dead!
Look at JOHN DARIANO v. MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, 745 F.3d 354 (9th Cir.2014).
Wearing American Flags in School is not permitted because Mexican students might object to it and become violent.
The heckler's veto won.
The contract gives them permission. However, you may prevent them from doing this. They would then have to get a court order to permit them to do come on to your property.
15 USC 7707(c)"No effect on policies of providers of Internet access service
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to have any effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages."
This preempts Texas law.
The CDA also allows for the blocking of offensive content. The CDA will supersede state laws.
The giants are not being forced to take cases back to the Courtroom.
People figured out how to hoist them on their own petard, as the cost to bring thousands of arbitration actions turns out to be less than attorney fees .
Even if they get the money back, I don't see why people subject to these seizures bring an action under 42 USC 1983. Under this section, you can get punitive damages.
The reports I see is that the police departments have to return the money eventually, so if they lose, there is no real harm. If they are sued for this, they give the money back, then have to pay interest and punitive damages. Then maybe they would have to think about it as when they take the $5,000 from somebody, they may end up having to pay plaintiff's attorney fees and punitive damages.
I believe that Examsoft has the standard arbitration and waiver of all liability against them as part of the terms of use of the software.
Where this is required software for the bar exam, one could argue that it is a contract of adhesion and these provisions are not enforceable.
In light of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), how could anyone consider this a law that does not violate the 1st amendment through the 14th amendment?
How could the magistrate be so stupid? And don't take this question as a challenge on being more stupid.
I had a friend take in in person test, years ago, and her computer froze. The 'technicians' were even worse than the Geek Squad.
However, studying for the exam and taking the exam does cover some material not covered in the law school classes. The MBE covers a large area of law and are designed to trick you on some of the subtle exceptions. The essay questions actual make you identify the issues, know the rules, and apply reasoning to the rules. They also have a practice test where you are provided a closed library so you don't have to memorize all of the rules for it.
Most of the circuits have ruled that generally videotaping or recording the police in the performance of their duties is a first amendment right. How is that different from court proceedings open to the public?
I can see the issue in limited circumstances where there are threats made and photographs of witnesses used for those threats.
They found something. If there was nothing to find, they would not have raided the house. They found drugs, guns that had been stolen from the police evidence lockers, because 4 year olds will organize capers to steal from the police.
We know the police could never of planted anything or made a mistake.
It was one of those Muties that messed with his perception, yeah. that's the ticket. No. it was the vampire that attacked him, you can't see vampires on cameras, yeah, that''s it. No, it was a weeping angel.
Re: not because of federal law.
The fourth amendment applies to states through the 14th amendment. Even if they claim its federal law, but state law, it doesn't mater as they are government actors. The 4th amendment only applies directly to federal actors, though the 14th amendment through state actors.
Why not sue the car companies?
If you are the owner of one of the vehicles that had the feature disabled, then file a lawsuit against them. The car was advertised and sold as actually having the feature. They then disabled it, that is a pecuniary loss. Let them be exposed to discovery and explain exactly why they can't provide it?
However, there are some reasons it can't be provided:
It is too insecure and they depended on security by obscurity, which is not real security;
Doing so would would expose that they had violated patent(s) or copyright(s); or
All three would expose them to liability.
Students have no first amendment rights
Tinker is dead! Look at JOHN DARIANO v. MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 745 F.3d 354 (9th Cir.2014). Wearing American Flags in School is not permitted because Mexican students might object to it and become violent. The heckler's veto won.
Students have no first amendment rights
Tinker is dead! Look at JOHN DARIANO v. MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 745 F.3d 354 (9th Cir.2014). Wearing American Flags in School is not permitted because Mexican students might object to it and become violent. The heckler's veto won.
Re:Wrong, sort of.
The contract gives them permission. However, you may prevent them from doing this. They would then have to get a court order to permit them to do come on to your property.
What does this have to copyright?
A common confusion. It is solely a contract issue.
Did they understand?
I am not even sure that they would know about the Streisand effect.
Prempted
15 USC 7707(c)"No effect on policies of providers of Internet access service
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to have any effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages."
This preempts Texas law.
The CDA also allows for the blocking of offensive content. The CDA will supersede state laws.
They are not being forced.
The giants are not being forced to take cases back to the Courtroom.
People figured out how to hoist them on their own petard, as the cost to bring thousands of arbitration actions turns out to be less than attorney fees .
I don't see why they don't bring a 42 USC 1983 action.
Even if they get the money back, I don't see why people subject to these seizures bring an action under 42 USC 1983. Under this section, you can get punitive damages.
The reports I see is that the police departments have to return the money eventually, so if they lose, there is no real harm. If they are sued for this, they give the money back, then have to pay interest and punitive damages. Then maybe they would have to think about it as when they take the $5,000 from somebody, they may end up having to pay plaintiff's attorney fees and punitive damages.
Re:
I believe that Examsoft has the standard arbitration and waiver of all liability against them as part of the terms of use of the software. Where this is required software for the bar exam, one could argue that it is a contract of adhesion and these provisions are not enforceable.
Re: there was no backing off
There was no backing off here.
The law should not be have been written.
In light of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), how could anyone consider this a law that does not violate the 1st amendment through the 14th amendment?
How could the magistrate be so stupid? And don't take this question as a challenge on being more stupid.
The bar exam.
I had a friend take in in person test, years ago, and her computer froze. The 'technicians' were even worse than the Geek Squad.
However, studying for the exam and taking the exam does cover some material not covered in the law school classes. The MBE covers a large area of law and are designed to trick you on some of the subtle exceptions. The essay questions actual make you identify the issues, know the rules, and apply reasoning to the rules. They also have a practice test where you are provided a closed library so you don't have to memorize all of the rules for it.
There is one thing I don't understand.
I can't understand how he could have smelled the pot over the bullshit comming out of his mouth.
Re: Question
In the Los Angeles Superior Court, it is not a suggestion by the judge. It is posted on signs all over the courthouse.
Is it really illegal?
Most of the circuits have ruled that generally videotaping or recording the police in the performance of their duties is a first amendment right. How is that different from court proceedings open to the public?
I can see the issue in limited circumstances where there are threats made and photographs of witnesses used for those threats.
Found nothing?
They found something. If there was nothing to find, they would not have raided the house. They found drugs, guns that had been stolen from the police evidence lockers, because 4 year olds will organize capers to steal from the police. We know the police could never of planted anything or made a mistake.
It wasn't his fault!
It was one of those Muties that messed with his perception, yeah. that's the ticket. No. it was the vampire that attacked him, you can't see vampires on cameras, yeah, that''s it. No, it was a weeping angel.
Its not long gone.
They know exactly where the stuff is, the officers' homes.