kevinds t1_j713z7i wrote

Can he claim that the police made him put on the clothes that contained the drugs, then they searched him and found drugs in the clothes, claim the clothes the police ordered him to put on, were not his?


kevinds t1_j70i9aj wrote

>It may be possible to argue double jeopardy if he had received the ticket and then a few miles down the road while in route to a place that he can bring himself into compliance he received the same tickets but that isn't what happened.

>Double jeopardy is for the EXACT SAME crime - as in the same charges from the same incident that happened at the same time.

He was stopped twice, given tickets twice, but has four tickets for driving more than 8 hours without a break.

>What happened is he broke the law.

>7 hours later he broke the law again

And got 4 tickets for driving without an 8 hour break, the EXACT SAME CRIME.

That is why I said "pretty sure only two of those are valid". One from each time he was pulled over, totalling two.


kevinds t1_j6w5mtm wrote

>AKA: an inaccurate guess that disagrees with the law.


>The purpose of section 11(h) is to protect against double jeopardy (Whaling, supra at paragraph 33). Generally, the principle against double jeopardy prevents double punishment for the same acts, as well as the unwarranted harassment of an accused by multiple prosecutions.

Charging a driver for being over-hours 4 different ways is still one act of being over hours.

>(i) Being tried again for the same offence

>This aspect of section 11(h) “is directed at preventing the State from making repeated attempts to convict an individual” (Shubley, supra at 15). In other words, it precludes both (a) trying a person again for an offence that he or she has already been acquitted of, and (b) trying a person again for an offence that he or she has already been found guilty and punished for (Whaling, supra at paragraphs 54, 56).

>(ii) Two offences the same

>The two offences with which the accused is charged or punished must be the same. They must contain the same elements and constitute one and the same offence arising out of the same set of circumstances (R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; Van Rassel, supra).

Based on the law above, I am pretty sure.


kevinds t1_j6uu7no wrote

> Failing to take 10 hours off in a day

> Exceeding 13 hours driving time without eight hours off

> Driving after 14 hours on duty without eight hours off

> Driving after 16 hours since last break without eight hours off

Being that he was pulled over twice, and given tickets both times, I'm pretty sure only two of these are valid.

Amung some of the other ones that are duplicates.


kevinds t1_j621pl3 wrote

>Garvin also brought up concerns by an unsheltered woman who claims she was scooped up by a bulldozer and put in the dumpster.

>"They scooped you up, and they threw you in the dumpster?" Garvin is heard asking in the video. "Yeah and then I'm literally screaming but I was in the tent and I couldn't open it," the woman replied.

No.. If that happened, you wouldn't be walking afterwards..

If they didn't know you were there, using a loader, they would just continue to pile stuff in the dumpster, you would be crushed and/or impaled by other stuff being added to the dumpster.

If it has been a bulldozer, you would have been crushed against other stuff and perphaps run over, but not put in a dumpster. Bulldozers only push/scape. They don't lift.


kevinds t1_j5k09k2 wrote

>Back when WoW came out my rather large guild would all mail hams to the same person. Hundreds of hams a day for months that they'd have to clear out to get their real mail.

extreme doubt

As for if it actually happened, I suppose if it was wintertime, they might actually keep.. I wouldn't complain, being sent good food..