lets say a person was taken advantage of while being question by the police and sign papers under duress?
483490
can u prove it was signed under duress?
944983
It requires the defendant to show that, but for the actions of the authorities, he would not have broken the law.  \n\nFor example, say he is charged with receiving stolen goods.   The police set up a sting operation at a parking garage, and when he came to get his own car, they gave him one that appeared to be the one he had left with them earlier, but was in fact a stolen car.  That would be a definite case of entrapment, because it's a logical conclusion that if they had brought a different color, make, or model, he'd have known and refused delivery. \n\nJust because the police hired the fifteen year old to try to get into a bar with her own ID showing she was fifteen doesn't mean he was entrapped when he lets her in.   It's a logical inference that any other fifteen year old would have been admitted, and the fact that this particular one was already willing to be a witness doesn't alter the defendant's behavior. \n\nThey have to show that the police conduct was actually responsible for the crime.
1164731
Yeah depends on priors and you probably have to take a plea bargain by pleadind gulity to something
962983
A Bit more info needed ! How are they getting legal aid under false pretence ? I can tell you the legal aid board are very very thorough when they give legal aid ! if you can give more details of the situation i may be able to explain it .      \nWhatever happened to innocent till proven guilty ? you guy`s have already concluded that this person is a cheat without any proof what so ever ! Any body can get legal aid weather your working or not ! was`nt so long ago that a footballer who was on £50,000 a WEEK got awarded legal aid ! we need to see the proof that they are a cheat in the first place so a bit more info please !
1159262
It depends if they asked you questions.\n\nI believe it is illegal for the police to ask you questions about the arrest before they read you the rights. If they did ask you questions before reading your rights and you answered them .. then those statements would be thrown out in court.\n\nIt's called your Miranda Rights.
747378
Duress would be threatening to turn the landlord in for something she was required to report, such as building code inspectors do to builders, landlords and private homeowners. As a tenant she has no obligation to fulfill a duty that jeopardizes her own housing. HOWEVER if not legally leasable she has no legal requirement to pay the rent until it does meet code, so while not "duress" for threatening to report him, it is stupid to pay even if the rent was lowered. Unless she wrote out an extortion threat in  her own handwriting, then it might be admissable in a civil court of law, it really depends on the lawyers and judge, but the landlord is not going to win much in any case. Just the lawyers, which is how most business law cases turn out.
931485
This all depends if it is a civil or a criminal matter. If the property was jointly owned, or the person you are referring to is an ex -partner/wife, then this is probably a civil matter which unfortunately is not what the police are for. If that is the case, you need advice from your own solicitor.\n\nThe police will be able to help you with this matter if the property can be viewed as having been stolen (ie a criminal matter).\n\nIf a person is to be found guilty of stealing, it must be shown that the person dishonestly appropriated the property, that the property belonged to another (ie you) and that the person had the intention to permanently deprive you of that property. \n\nWhy not telephone your local police station - they will soon tell you if this is a civil or criminal matter. Good luck!
1124864
call the cops, what is a lawyer going to do?\n\nor are you one of those people just looking to "Get Paid"
1113615
You would have to present evidence that you were detained without probable cause in order to have a case. You don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, just a preponderence of the evidence as this is a civil matter. It's hard to tell precisely if you would have a case based on your details, but I would guess that you have an uphill climb if it boils down to your word versus theirs. It might be advisable to consult a lawyer about this, but only if you truly feel that this was a case of police abuse of power.
510123
At the very least you would be evicted.  You would never get the autograph you are seeking.  You may also go to jail.
774141
It depends on why and where you were arrested.\n\nWithout that information, nobody can tell you exactly why those things have not been returned to you.  It's possible they will be used as evidence but, again, you didn't supply enough information for anyone to speculate as to that.\n\nIf you have asked for that property to be returned, and they have refused, did you ask why they were refusing?  If you didn't, then you really need to call them back and ask that question.  If you are not satisfied with the answer, then you can always ask to speak with a supervisor for some clarification.  \n\nBut really - nobody here will absolutely have a 100% positive answer because nobody here knows all the circumstances.  Call the agency holding your property and ask them your question.
227271
Self-incrimination comes into play when you are in custody and subject to interrogation.  If you are in the back of a police car and are talking to yourself, it would be difficult to claim you were being interrogated.  \n\nIf you are in the back of a police car with a partner in crime, whatever the two of you talk about is fair game...again, you are not being interrogated by the police.\n\nIf you are in the back of a police car with a police informant who was put there just to listen to you talk (and did not question you), it's still all fair game because you're not being interrogated.\n\nLong story short: if you're blabbing to anyone (including yourself), without interrogation, you're almost certainly incriminating yourself and what you say is almost certainly going to be admissible at trial.\n\nDespite what others have said, just because you are arrested, handcuffed, and put into the back of a cop car, you may not have been "Mirandized"...I can't remember the last time I gave someone a Miranda admonishment just because I stuffed them into the back of my car after arresting them - and in my state, there is no requirement for me to do so.\n\nNote: some states have strange laws about who can record who and when.  While law enforcement might be guilty of violating one of those laws (though I can't imagine why they would), they are not about the Constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination.
936500
Unless someone put a hold on them, the tapes were probably reused within a few days.  If there was a police report filed, they may have taken the tapes as evidence and you can get a copy through them.
119422
Probably not, but your question made me think - what if the police arrest a deaf-mute? Do the Miranda rights then have to apply to anything he signs?\n\n[Edit: And then I spotted your other question. D'oh!!]
271811
Well, you will probably be arrested and spend some time in jail. Since you committed forgery for one. And since you admitted in here, they will have a good case against you.
477517
Don't worry, if you didn't do anything you won't be charged with anything. Some people are questioned sometimes, but that's just to see if a charge is viable. I costs a lot of money and takes a lot of paperwork to charge somebody, so officers don't lay charges casually.
361101
When a persons been arrested he is subject to search incident to that arrest. The search requires no warrant. Who did he ask for a lawyer? It's not the policeman's responsibility to provide the lawyer it's the court that does that. As far as having "grounds" he was under arrest, the officer doesn't need grounds! The search is justified because he is arrested. Whether anything was found has no bearing on whether or not the search was justified. This is the law, the Supreme Court has upheld it. We appreciate the service to our country but that has nothing do do with the crime he was arrested for.\nFurthermore since this person was arrested for filing a false report "lying" how much of his story should we actually believe?