meaning of "disposition of the offense"?
365898
it means "what happened after you were charged"\ne.g. \ndismissed,\n1 year probation,\n10 years to serve,\netc.
203229
You can go to Google and type Define: then the word you want explained. This one means:\nAn offense which disturbs the peace and tranquility of the community in general
792593
Most states are members of a compact and exchange conviction information. If the offense in state A is also an offense in state B where you have your license, state B will give you the points that the offense would merit under its laws.\n\nHere is the Penna. information sheet on that (PDF): http://www.dot10.state.pa.us/pdotforms/fact_sheets/fs-dlc.pdf
1022490
A probable cause affidavit or declaration are filed with the court any time law enforcement arrests someone without a warrant.\nIn other words, they catch a robber in the act.  The court nor the prosecution has not issued a warrant cuz they didn't even know it had happened.  The cop then files the affidavit/declaration, explaining what facts he or she relied upon in order to have probable cause to arrest (which means that it is likely a crime was committed and the person arrested is the one who did it - a judge reviews them to make sure that person was lawfully arrested).\n\nProsecutors can then in certain states file a complaint (what the document is called that charges a person with crimes) based solely on the probable cause affidavit (rather than reading a complete police report).  Since it is an affidavit and signed under penalty of perjury it is sufficient.\n(there are other ways a complaint can be filed as well, so that statement explains which procedure was used).\n\nBasically it means that a complaint has been filed with charges alleged.  The person charged, then will enter a plea of guilty or not guilty and the case proceeds.
594035
Can't give you a long essay, but I'm hoping this one helps. \n\nIn the criminal law of the United States of America, disorderly conduct is a name given to a rather misdeamenor crime. This offence is committed, in essence, whenever a person engages in activities that annoy police officers or similar officials, or come to their attention as a result of citizen complaints.\n\nA typical statutory definition of disorderly conduct (Indiana's) defines the offence in this way:\n\nA person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally: \n(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct; \n(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or \n(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons; \ncommits disorderly conduct. . .  \nIndiana's definition of "disorderly conduct" is modelled after the Model Penal Code's definition, and is typical, but not identical, to similar laws on the statute books of other U.S. states. It is obvious that it covers a large variety of potential acts in its prohibition; "fighting" is perhaps the clearest act within the scope of its prohibition. What is "tumultuous conduct," what constitutes "unreasonable noise", or what "disrupts a lawful assembly" are matters that are far harder to decide, and as such disorderly conduct statutes give police officers and other authorities fairly broad discretion to arrest people whose activities they find undesirable for a wide variety of reasons.\n\nThe courts confronted with cases stemming from these arrests have from time to time had occasion to restrict the broad and vague definitions of the statute to make certain that freedom of speech and assembly and other forms of protected expression under the First Amendment were not affected. They also have had occasion to curb its scope to make certain that people were aware that their conduct was, in fact, within the prohibition of the statute, as required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, no court has struck down a disorderly conduct statute as being per se unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
800204
Totalitarian police state. I recall that people could be punished for having bad thoughts, for planning crimes in their heads. It was a few steps beyond the Cheney 1% doctrine where the US will treat any threat that has a 1% probability of occuring as if it was a certainty. (One Percent Doctrine, by Ron Suskind), and a few steps beyond the Bush doctrine of preemptive war; that the US has the right to strike another country BEFORE it's an imminent threat to the US or one of our allies.
495260
A predicate offense is an offense that is necessarily included in charging another offense or establishing a punishment.  For example, under the federal RICO statutes (used to go after mobsters), you can be convicted og engaging in a "continuing criminal enterprise."  But in order to establish this, the government must first prove that there was a criminal act - this is the predicate offense.
261655
indictment\n\nif I understand your question
800461
Yes.  BUt what is the nature of this document? Just a written report by the officer saying you said this? When was it written? Did you sign it? A conviction solely on your alleged (I'm assuming unsigned) admission is pretty thin evidence.  What else will the cops have? Your presence at the scene of a crime? The co-defendant's testimony?\n\nThis is a felony, so you have a constitutional right to counsel, even if you cannot afford it. Get an attorney and prepare a defense if you're not guilty.
49761
Hard to say without knowing what context you've heard/seen it in.\n\nIn California, defendants who are charged with felonies are given a preliminary hearing before a judge to determine if there's sufficient information to indicate the defendant did what the government is alleging.  If there is, the defendant is "bound over" for trial in superior court.  Maybe this is a similar thing, but you really need to provide some additional details to get a solid answer.
674872
first offence? probably a caution mate which just means that you were up to something dodgy but they aint gonna take up jail space.\n\ndont worry too much
902129
It means its a dead certain penalty, no doubt about it\n\nAlthough what that has to do with an American Civil War General is completely beyond me.\n\n\n.
660307
Dear Friend,\n\nThe principal of legality applies as a defense to criminal prosecution.  Legality requires as necessary preconditions to criminal prosecution:  (1) that the act in question have been specifically prohibited by published criminal law, (2) that such prohibition was in effect before the alleged actions of the defendant, and (3) that the punishment sought was specifically provided for in that published prohibition.  If any of these preconditions are not met, the defendant cannot be prosecuted.  Due process requires that you at least have a chnace to know the laws with which you're supposed to comply.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
425810
"Applying Criminal Penalties to \nActions in Cyberspace"\n\nPreface: The messages below were posted in the Cybercrimes Seminar during September, 1998, as part of the class discussions.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nArticle No. 331: posted by Susan Brenner on Mon, Sep. 14, 1998, 13:29\nSubject: Blank scenario: the Student #9 statute\n\nArticle No. 274: [Branch from no. 273] posted by Student #9 on Sat, Sep. 12, 1998, 23:19\n\nThe following is a quick and dirty first draft of a proposed statute to criminalize any action producing the type of injury involved in the Blank case. It draws from CA Penal Code sections 288.2(b) and 647.6(a). I did not have a copy of a criminal statute that provides for additional civil remedies, handy...so I winged it.\n\nMy belief is that this rough draft contains enough flaws to inspire an evolutionary discussion process, ultimately, leading to the production of a sample model statute. Might be good practice...if enough of us join in. So go ahead and propose: a)why we should trash it, altogether [but, don't forget to include your alternative!]; b)how the draft should be revised; etc.\n\nMPC section 1.01:\n\n(a) Every person who knowingly distributes, sends, causes to be sent, exhibits, or offers to distribute or exhibit by electronic mail, the Internet, as defined in Section 17538 of the Business and Professions Code, or a commercial online service, any false or legally protected matter about another person, and with the intent, or for the purpose of causing said person embarrassment, or economic, professional or social harm shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine or imprisonment. \n\n(b)Every person who (cut and paste from above up to)...or social harm, resulting in injury to said person shall be subject to civil liability of not less than ten thousand dollars and not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nArticle No. 334: [Branch from no. 331] posted by Student #9 on Mon, Sep. 14, 1998, 14:44\nSubject: re: Blank scenario: the Student #9 statute\n\nI do not favor the forfeiture approach--Internet Service Providers sometimes require user acceptance of the terms of a specific agreement that addresses user liability for such activity with corresponding prohibitive language towards same(e.g., Yahoo email agreement).\n\nRe: the statute\n\nIf we define "person" to include both individuals and organizations, the fine and civil remedies seem a bit low. Perhaps setting the fines at "not less than $5,000 for each independent publication [as identified by ISP records]...what upper limit would be appropriate?\n\nHypo: If McDonald's Corporation discovered that Wendy's hired an agent to spread internet rumors that McDonald's used red earth worms to increase the protein content of their burgers, the cap on civil remedies seems almost an invitation to cyber-mischief. How should we set civil remedies as provided by this statute to serve as an adequate deterrent? \n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nArticle No. 335: [Branch from no. 334] posted by Student #9 on Mon, Sep. 14, 1998, 14:56\nSubject: re: Blank scenario: the Student #9 statute\n\nClarification--I do favor civil remedies provided by the criminal statute, as reflected in its drafting. I would prefer that Internet Service Providers be immune from either criminal sanctions or civil liabilities. Persons--either individuals or organizations--should be subject to both criminal sanctions and civil liabilities reasonably calculated to both deter the commission of the object crime and provide remedies for the victims of same.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nArticle No. 340: [Branch from no. 334] posted by Student #10 on Mon, Sep. 14, 1998, 17:46\nSubject: r
448573
WH I am not sure of.  However, the ADJ means adjudicated I would imagine guilty since a sentence was rendered, and the susp ent sent, means that the disposition was a suspended sentence.
505446
Don't get excited by a new word.\n\nWhat caused the crime?\n Environment?\n Mental impairment?\n Motivations of revenge?\n Passion? (blinded by love or infatuations)\n Learned behavior?\n\nThe list goes on and on. The arguments can be appreciated by both sides in the interest of justice and corrections.
111050
Whatever court of law has jurisdiction where the offense took place!