what is the punishment for an outstanding warrant for second degree burglary of automobile?
98451
The actual punishment for the outstanding warrant is arrest and arraignment. The Burglary offense is outlined as a two to seven year sentenceable offence.
462774
I's illegal to use in a vehicle in the furtherence of a crime
727003
Humm... are you the burglar?  Did they finally catch up with you?  I doubt if the commission of a crime has ANY statute of limitations and even if they find you 20 years later you are still hooked.  A number of criminal cases have been solved decades after they were committed and the perpetrator got hauled off to jail.  The BTK killer was one recent example.
45685
Possession of less than one gram is a "\nstate jail felony," the lowest level of felony. This is punishable by 180 days to 2 years in prison and up to $10,000. It is a third degree felony if you have ever been convicted of a felony before, meaning that your punishment would be 2 to 10 years and a fine up to $10,000.
498974
Call up the court house and ask them whether there are any warrants outstanding against you. \n\nIf they say no, you're a free man. If they say yes, hire a lawyer and have him appear in court on your behalf.
480307
Burglary without any special circumstances is a class c felony, one of the lower classes. "A person who commits a Class C felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence being four (4) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000)."
255230
Don't know the maximum and in any event it will vary from country to country (so in some parts of the world it's probably life).  The minimum could be whatever the Judge decides.  A friend of mine was sentenced for not paying his car tax - his sentence was to wait in the courtroom until the Magistrates reconvened after lunch - about an hour (not technically a jail sentence tho).
135889
Do OCIS search on the internet.  You can also go to the Tulsa Police page and look up outstanding warrants.  I live in Tulsa and have used these with success.  Call me at 663-2461 if you need more help. I just looked it up and there are several entries.
1024777
well, the only traffic offense i can think of that would even be a felony, is driving under the influence, or grand theft auto.  \n\ncontact a lawyer.
294985
CHAPTER 40\nRobbery\n§40.10 1st Degree Robbery; Defined & Punished.\n§40.20 2nd Degree Robbery; Defined & Punished.\n§40.30 3rd Degree Robbery; Defined & Punished.\n§40.40 Definition of an Act.\n§40.50 No Defense of “Claim of Right”.\n§40.10. First Degree Robbery; Defined & Punished.\n(a) A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree if, in the\ncourse of committing a theft, he:\n(1) attempts to kill another; or\n(2) intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict\nserious bodily injury upon another.\n(b) Robbery in the first degree is a felony of the first\ndegree. In the case of robbery in the first degree, the court\nshall impose a sentence of imprisonment of a minimum\nterm of ten (10) years and may impose a maximum of up\nto twenty-five (25) years; the minimum term imposed shall\nnot be suspended nor probation be imposed in lieu of said\nminimum term nor shall parole, work release or\neducational programs outside the confines of prison be\ngranted before completion of the minimum term. The\nsentence shall include a special parole term of not less than\nthree (3) years in addition to such time of imprisonment.\nSOURCE: G.P.C. §§211-213; M.P.C. 222.1; Cal. §1016 (1971); Mass.\nch. 266, §16; N.J. 2C:19-1. Subsection (b) amended by P.L. 19-6:9; as\namended by P.L. 14-143.\nCROSS-REFERENCES: §§40.20 and 40.30 (2nd and 3rd\ndegree robbery); §16.10 (serious bodily injury).\nCOMMENT: Three (3) degrees of robbery are created by this\nSection, eliminating the former crimes of robbery and “armed\nrobbery.” Robbery consists of theft and actual or threatened injury.\nWhile the traditional kind of robbery includes the taking from the\n9 GCA - Crimes and Corrections\nCh. 40 - Robbery - 1996 - p.  PAGE 1\n“person or immediate presence,” this Chapter will also apply, for\nexample, where the offender threatens to shoot the victim in order to\ncompel him to telephone directions for the disposition of property\nelsewhere.\nThe degrees of robbery relate to the seriousness of the injury\nthreatened or inflicted upon the victim. Unlike the Model Code,\nbut consistent with former law, use of force or threatened\nimminent use of force constitutes robbery even though the\npersonal injury caused or threatened does not amount to “serious\nbodily injury.” See §16.10 (serious bodily injury defined); §40.30\n(third degree robbery). Armed robbery is no longer a separate\naggravating factor.\n§40.20. Second Degree Robbery; Defined &\nPunished. (a) A person is guilty of robbery in the second\ndegree if, in the course of committing a theft, he:\n(1) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another; or\n(2) threatens another with or intentionally puts\nhim in fear of immediate serious bodily injury; or\n(3) is armed with or displays what appears to be\nexplosives or a deadly weapon. “Deadly Weapon” has\nthe meaning provided by §16.10.\n(b) Robbery in the second degree is a felony of the\nsecond degree. In the case of robbery of the second\ndegree as a felony of the second degree, the court shall\nimpose a sentence of imprisonment of a minimum\nterm of five (5) years and may impose a maximum\nterm of up to ten (10) years; the minimum term\nimposed shall not be suspended nor may probation be\nimposed in lieu of the minimum term nor shall parole\nor work release be granted before completion of the\nminimum term. The sentence shall include a special\nparole term of not less than three (3) years in addition\nto such term of imprisonment.\nSOURCE: See §40.10. Enacted 1977; Subsection (b) amended by\n9 GCA - Crimes and Corrections\nCh. 40 - Robbery - 1996 - p.  PAGE 1\nP.L. 14-143, eff. 10/01/78.\nCROSS-REFERENCES: See §40.10.\n§40.30. Third Degree Robbery; Defined &\nPunished. (a) A person is guilty of robbery in the\nthird degree if, in the course of committing a theft, he:\n(1) uses force against another with intent to\novercome his physical resistance or physical power of\nresistance; or\n(2) threatens another with or inten
788648
A warrant that can be expedited (sped up)
265074
Reckless driving resulting in an accident with property damage.
975843
Well first off, they are going to run a drug dog outside of your car. If the dog alerts on any contraband, then they will search it regardless. HOWEVER: and this is a VERY big one: IF you do not let them search the trunk, they cannot search it UNLESS the dog alerts on that area of your vehicle. ALSO: if your glove box is locked, it is off-limits. They need to acquire a search warrant to search that area ONLY if it is locked. And unless you have a bloody knife dripping out of the cracks, chances are, they wont get one. Other answer: If you have nothing to hide, why not let the morons search? :)
1166572
It would seem that double jeopardy would apply as stated in Black’s Law Dictionary, “Common-law and constitutional (Fifth Amendment) prohibition against a second prosecution after a first trial for the same offense.” (re: People v. Wheeler) “The evil sought to be avoided is double trial and double conviction, not necessarily double punishment.”  (re: Breed et al v. Jones) \n\nHowever, making such assumptions can sometimes result in an incorrect conclusion.  In part the Fifth Amendment states: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life of limb;”  The court’s interpretation(s) are interesting:\n\nBrantley v. Georgia [1910] “This clause also is a limitation upon the powers of the Federal Government, and is not a limitation on the States.”\n\nUnited States v. Oppenheimer [1916] “It was not intended to do away with the rule that judgment of acquittal on the ground of the bar of statute of limitations is a protection against a second trial.”\n\nThe cases most akin to the question asked are:\n\nBurton v. United State [1906] referring precedent to United States v. Randenbush [1834]; “A plea of former acquittal must be upon a prosecution for the same identical offense.”\n\nAnd,\n\nMorgan v. Devine [1915]; “The test of identity of offenses is whether the same evidence is required to sustain them; if not, then the fact that both charges relate to and grow out of the one transaction does not make a single offense where two are defined by statutes.”\n\nI suggest that the conviction for the first crime, although in error, was on presentment of different evidence than that for the second crime and therefore results in no “double jeopardy.”  I believe that the individual could be charged and legally convicted of the second killing simply because they are two different offenses.
254700
Call the police department and ask them, but do it from a payphone . . . and wear your running shoes!\nOh yeah, what did you do that you think they issued a warrant?  You naughty girl . . .
885922
Sorry, but I'm on the sheriff's side.  If you don't pay a fine, even for a seatbelt ticket, then a warrant's usually issued.  If you can't post bond, you go to jail.  The price for lack of responsibility is sometimes steep.  Along similar lines, here in Missouri if you bounce a check to the DMV and don't make good on it they'll enter a seize order into the computer & any police officer stopping you can remove your license plates & mail them back to the DMV.
741603
In Michigan it is a misdemeanor\n\nPenalty:\nNo more than 93 days imprisonment\nNo more than $500 fine\n\nMich. Comp. Law\n750.411a