Official 2009-2010 NHL Thread

[RockRaines]

Or.. don't mess with a lawyer wouldn't hurt.

[Soxbadger]

Rock,

 

Sorry, I thought out of consideration for everyone in this thread you could provide some support for your statements.

 

I just was curious as to what the law was.

 

 

[iamshack]

Rock,

 

Sorry, I thought out of consideration for everyone in this thread you could provide some support for your statements.

 

I just was curious as to what the law was.

Badger,

I am not an attorney like you, but I did graduate from law school (hah, that sounds like saying "But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!). I haven't reviewed case law, but my guess is, merchant or not, you can NEVER purposefully detain someone in your cab for refusing to pay. My feeling is the law would never encourage a situation which could easily turn into violence, as it did in this case. Again, this is just from my background knowledge, but it seems as though a reasonable court of law would not rule that anyone could be held against their will in a cab. Paying a fare, especially for the sums of money most likely to be involved, is never THAT important, and is an issue to be worked out between the cab company and the passenger at a later date.

 

Allowing some sort of merchant exception which allows a cab to detain a passenger for something as miniscule as paying a fare would seem to be a ridiculous measure for the law to allow.

 

Your thoughts?

[Dick Allen]

Last I saw, the Cabbie is going to be lucky if he doesnt face charges, I dont see any payoffs in his future. He locked the doors of the cab which is unlawful imprisonment which deems any acts of self defense legal. Second he didnt even have a valid drives license which makes it unlawful for him to drive a cab or operate as a licensed cab operator, therefore his asking for a fare in the first place was illegal.

I didn't know that, and my wife is a lawyer. I've been hammered in a lot of cabs in my day, and as soon as we get to my stop, I hear the locks click into place. I would never skip a fare or have an altercation over $.20, but if the story has gone from Patrick Kane with the choke hold while his cousin was beating him to Patrick Kane had nothing to do with it and alcohol was not involved, with a 20 and 21 year old out at 4 am, its pretty hard to believe there is no payment coming the driver's way. I don't know if anyone read the initial story in the Buffalo newspaper's on line edition, but the locals in Buffalo were not surprised at the charges. There was post after post how Kane and his "crew" which more than a couple of responses called them, have been causing trouble for quite a while. As usual, he's probably not the initial monster anyone would have concluded after the story first ran, and he's probably no where near as innocent as he's starting to sound right now.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Dick Allen]

Badger,

I am not an attorney like you, but I did graduate from law school (hah, that sounds like saying "But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!). I haven't reviewed case law, but my guess is, merchant or not, you can NEVER purposefully detain someone in your cab for refusing to pay. My feeling is the law would never encourage a situation which could easily turn into violence, as it did in this case. Again, this is just from my background knowledge, but it seems as though a reasonable court of law would not rule that anyone could be held against their will in a cab. Paying a fare, especially for the sums of money most likely to be involved, is never THAT important, and is an issue to be worked out between the cab company and the passenger at a later date.

 

Allowing some sort of merchant exception which allows a cab to detain a passenger for something as miniscule as paying a fare would seem to be a ridiculous measure for the law to allow.

 

Your thoughts?

I totally understand why they may lock the doors, but if you think about it, it really is asking for trouble. The reason most would skip the fare is because they don't have the money. Locking the door isn't going to make the money appear, then what do you do? If you want to drive them back to where they came or to a cop or something, there's a good chance something a lot worse than being stiffed a fare, is going to happen.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Soxbadger]

Iamshack,

 

I actually dont know, which is why I was posing the question.

 

There are a lot of different angles to look at it.

 

I do know there is a merchants exception for a store employee to detain some one for a "reasonable amount of time" so that they can ascertain whether or not merchandise was stolen. I do not believe that there is any requirement of value (ie if I steal a 5cent piece of candy I can be detained the same as if I stole a $1,000 piece of candy.), but Im not going through case law so I could be wrong there as well.

 

The problem with saying that its not that important, is that you can be arrested for failing to pay a fare. The problem is that most people who are going to knowingly skip a fare, do not give the right address, so when they get to the location they get out of the car and run. At that point the cab driver then needs to call the police and tell them that some one skipped a fare (robbery.)

 

Does it protect the cab driver to allow him to lock the doors and call the police if he believes that a passenger is going to skip a fare?

 

I think the answer may be yes.

 

Unlike the shopkeeper who is not sure whether or not the person stole (once they know they stole they can detain them while they call the police), the cab driver immediately knows whether or not the fare is going to be paid and as soon as the fare is paid the cab driver would no longer have any right whatsoever to hold the passenger.

 

I would say there is a good argument to be made that a cab driver should be able to hold a passenger who fails to pay a fare and so they can bring them to a police station so that they can be arrested. Whether or not this is supported by the law, I dont know. I dont try and guess or use logic, because it generally ends up being wrong.

 

Just from doing very brief research I cant really find anything, which is why Im curious.

 

[Dick Allen]

Iamshack,

 

I actually dont know, which is why I was posing the question.

 

There are a lot of different angles to look at it.

 

I do know there is a merchants exception for a store employee to detain some one for a "reasonable amount of time" so that they can ascertain whether or not merchandise was stolen. I do not believe that there is any requirement of value (ie if I steal a 5cent piece of candy I can be detained the same as if I stole a $1,000 piece of candy.), but Im not going through case law so I could be wrong there as well.

 

The problem with saying that its not that important, is that you can be arrested for failing to pay a fare. The problem is that most people who are going to knowingly skip a fare, do not give the right address, so when they get to the location they get out of the car and run. At that point the cab driver then needs to call the police and tell them that some one skipped a fare (robbery.)

 

Does it protect the cab driver to allow him to lock the doors and call the police if he believes that a passenger is going to skip a fare?

 

I think the answer may be yes.

 

Unlike the shopkeeper who is not sure whether or not the person stole (once they know they stole they can detain them while they call the police), the cab driver immediately knows whether or not the fare is going to be paid and as soon as the fare is paid the cab driver would no longer have any right whatsoever to hold the passenger.

 

I would say there is a good argument to be made that a cab driver should be able to hold a passenger who fails to pay a fare and so they can bring them to a police station so that they can be arrested. Whether or not this is supported by the law, I dont know. I dont try and guess or use logic, because it generally ends up being wrong.

 

Just from doing very brief research I cant really find anything, which is why Im curious.

 

The driver admitted he locked the door and maybe that is false imprisonment and maybe why his attorney appears to be backing off.

[Soxbadger]

Its hard to tell whats going on here.

 

I think the bigger concern (at least if I was his attorney) would be if he was operating a vehicle with out a valid drivers license or with out a valid taxi operator license. (whatever that may be called)

 

The false imprisonment stuff would be a lessor concern, because I think that its likely Kane or his cousin were intoxicated and therefore there are plenty of different explanations as to why he held them (and it would make them horrible witnesses.)

 

 

[iamshack]

Iamshack,

 

I actually dont know, which is why I was posing the question.

 

There are a lot of different angles to look at it.

 

I do know there is a merchants exception for a store employee to detain some one for a "reasonable amount of time" so that they can ascertain whether or not merchandise was stolen. I do not believe that there is any requirement of value (ie if I steal a 5cent piece of candy I can be detained the same as if I stole a $1,000 piece of candy.), but Im not going through case law so I could be wrong there as well.

 

The problem with saying that its not that important, is that you can be arrested for failing to pay a fare. The problem is that most people who are going to knowingly skip a fare, do not give the right address, so when they get to the location they get out of the car and run. At that point the cab driver then needs to call the police and tell them that some one skipped a fare (robbery.)

 

Does it protect the cab driver to allow him to lock the doors and call the police if he believes that a passenger is going to skip a fare?

 

I think the answer may be yes.

 

Unlike the shopkeeper who is not sure whether or not the person stole (once they know they stole they can detain them while they call the police), the cab driver immediately knows whether or not the fare is going to be paid and as soon as the fare is paid the cab driver would no longer have any right whatsoever to hold the passenger.

 

I would say there is a good argument to be made that a cab driver should be able to hold a passenger who fails to pay a fare and so they can bring them to a police station so that they can be arrested. Whether or not this is supported by the law, I dont know. I dont try and guess or use logic, because it generally ends up being wrong.

 

Just from doing very brief research I cant really find anything, which is why Im curious.

 

I'll take a look at it tonight.

I know the laws for retail theft allow a store owner to detain someone for a reasonable amount of time, but they also have to be very careful as to how they go about it. I'm fairly sure you're not allowed to use force to detain someone (i.e., they try to run and you tackle them or something). I believe there was a case that Victoria's Secret settled because they had a security guard use force to detain someone and injured the thief.

 

I think the courts are trying to usher the law out of the 19th century here because society has developed to the point where they don't view minor theft as reason enough to assault someone.

 

My feeling is if you detain someone in such a small enclosed space such as a vehicle, simply for failing to pay a fare, that the odds are good that something ugly is going to ensue. The courts usually recognize that and try to rule as such to avoid a high probability of violence occurring.

 

As I said, I will take a look at it this evening.

[Soxbadger]

My guess is that the law states you can use "reasonable force" to detain. Which would be determined by the circumstances.

 

I think the courts are trying to usher the law out of the 19th century here because society has developed to the point where they don't view minor theft as reason enough to assault someone.

 

This is interesting, I dont really know that to be true, but its an interesting opinion.

 

I personally think businesses should have the right to protect themselves from theft, and that once you have committed theft the store can use reasonable force to detain you.

 

I dont like to guess on this stuff, cause its not always logical.

[iamshack]

My guess is that the law states you can use "reasonable force" to detain. Which would be determined by the circumstances.

 

 

 

This is interesting, I dont really know that to be true, but its an interesting opinion.

 

I personally think businesses should have the right to protect themselves from theft, and that once you have committed theft the store can use reasonable force to detain you.

 

I dont like to guess on this stuff, cause its not always logical.

 

Not that this has anything to do with Patrick Kane, but here is what a quick search pulled up from google regarding store theft:

 

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/stor...ity-part-2.aspx

 

Once the merchant has grounds to search you, then the merchant may conduct a search in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable amount of time. What constitutes a reasonable search or a reasonable time depends heavily on the facts of the situation. For example, a court in Louisiana held that a merchant acted reasonably when it detained a customer for 25 minutes in a back room and emptied her purse and pockets of her jacket after an antitheft alarm went off. By contrast, a court in Mississippi held that a store acted unreasonably where an assistant store manager grabbed a customer whom he suspected of shoplifting by the arm, and demanded that she pay for the deodorant that she had hidden in a paper bag that she was carrying, all of this occurring on some steps inside the store front and in front of all the sales people and customers in the store. The court emphasized that, although controlling theft was important to the store, that this kind of rude and embarrassing conduct would not be tolerated.

 

 

 

 

[iamshack]

Wow, this is tough.

Can't really find anything on passengers being detained in a taxi.

As Badger has stated, a reasonably analogous situation would be a shopkeeper's right to detain someone based on suspicion of theft.

 

It seems as though by locking the doors in the cab, prior to any reasonable suspicion that the passengers were not going to pay their fare, the cab driver is subjecting the passengers to a false imprisonment. Since the common practice amongst passengers in a taxi is to pay once the destination has been arrived at, there was no reason for the driver to suspect the passengers of seeking to avoid paying their fare, or stealing his services. Then, after the passengers did pay their fare, there is clear proof that the passengers did not steal from the driver.

 

If the driver refused to unlock the doors then, it would seem as though he was subjecting the passengers to false imprisonment.

 

I guess this also depends on the sequence and chronology of the events as they occurred.

 

It doesn't appear as though the Kane's became violent because they were being held against their will, but rather because the driver did not have exact change. Therefore, they were not reacting to being subjected to false imprisonment, but rather, because they felt they were being cheated out of money owed to them.

 

Probably best that this is being handled privately, as opposed to proceeding to a court.

 

And I am glad this fact pattern was not a question on my torts law exam.

 

[G&T]

Having just taken the New York bar exam, I'll throw this in.

The "shopkeeper exception" to unlawful imprisonment is very narrow. As I understand it, the owner of a store can detain a shoplifter and await arrival of the police. NY does not like anyone taking self help in most situations, which is why we have the "retreat" rule for self defense.

 

Remember though, one of the elements of false imprisonment is that there is no "reasonable means to escape." In a cab, even if the driver locks the door, the patrons can unlock the door and get out. Although, he must have had child locks on. This is all I've found on that "He did not assault the cabdriver. Did not rob the cabdriver. Did not cheat him out of his fee. None of those things. He tried to get out of a locked cab from a cabdriver who was not permitting either one of them to get out of a locked cab."

 

I have not heard of a "taxi" exception to false imprisonment, and I think that is important. This is the type of situation which should arise fairly frequently, but appears that it does not.

Edited August 12, 2009 by G&T

[G&T]

Last I saw, the Cabbie is going to be lucky if he doesnt face charges, I dont see any payoffs in his future. He locked the doors of the cab which is unlawful imprisonment which deems any acts of self defense legal. Second he didnt even have a valid drives license which makes it unlawful for him to drive a cab or operate as a licensed cab operator, therefore his asking for a fare in the first place was illegal.

 

I doubt this was "unlawful imprisonment." That is a criminal act in NY and requires knowledge that the restraint is illegal. If the cabbie reasonably believed that the imprisonment was legal, then he did not break the law. That does not mean that he didn't commit a tort (false imprisonment).

 

Also, NY is pretty strict about the amount of force that can be used to defend yourself. Punching and choking may have been reasonable under the circumstances, but "any acts" is certainly incorrect.

[Kyyle23]

Isnt it unlawful detainment if the Kanes gave him the money? They paid him, the dispute started with the change.

[iamshack]

Isnt it unlawful detainment if the Kanes gave him the money? They paid him, the dispute started with the change.

Well, it doesn't appear as though the issue was false imprisonment. I don't know exactly how things occurred (I am not sure anyone does except those involved), but it doesn't seem as though they were demanding to be let out of the cab, and after not being allowed to, they attacked the driver. It seems as though they attacked the driver because he would not give them correct change. However, the fact that we have become aware that the driver "may have locked the doors" seems to imply as though the Kanes' did try to exit the vehicle and could not.

 

The whole situation is a mess.

 

One would need to know the exact chronology of events in order to really work out any legal theory.

 

Did they try and exit the cab after paying their fare, but prior to committing battery on the driver? Did they demand to be let out of the vehicle? Or did they simply attack the driver because he did not have correct change?

 

Who the heck knows.

[nitetrain8601]

Jumping away from Kaner, JR has reached an agreement to buy the Coyotes.

[RockRaines]

Well, it doesn't appear as though the issue was false imprisonment. I don't know exactly how things occurred (I am not sure anyone does except those involved), but it doesn't seem as though they were demanding to be let out of the cab, and after not being allowed to, they attacked the driver. It seems as though they attacked the driver because he would not give them correct change. However, the fact that we have become aware that the driver "may have locked the doors" seems to imply as though the Kanes' did try to exit the vehicle and could not.

 

The whole situation is a mess.

 

One would need to know the exact chronology of events in order to really work out any legal theory.

 

Did they try and exit the cab after paying their fare, but prior to committing battery on the driver? Did they demand to be let out of the vehicle? Or did they simply attack the driver because he did not have correct change?

 

Who the heck knows.

From my perspective, I dont trust a THING this cab driver says. He's already been proven to be a liar and a shady individual as are alot of the cab drivers I have personally come into contact with. I've seen friends assaulted, killed, and in danger of rape from some of these lowlifes (not all of them mind you).

 

Personally, I've punched a cab driver square in his f***ing face, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. I have a scar on my arm when I cut myself on his divider as I popped his stupid mouth. Granted he was endagering mine and my friend's lives as he was driving intoxicated and trying to harm us, but I can see where some times some of those f***ers arent any more than an asshole driving a yellow car.

 

/rant

[G&T]

Well, it doesn't appear as though the issue was false imprisonment. I don't know exactly how things occurred (I am not sure anyone does except those involved), but it doesn't seem as though they were demanding to be let out of the cab, and after not being allowed to, they attacked the driver. It seems as though they attacked the driver because he would not give them correct change. However, the fact that we have become aware that the driver "may have locked the doors" seems to imply as though the Kanes' did try to exit the vehicle and could not.

 

The whole situation is a mess.

 

One would need to know the exact chronology of events in order to really work out any legal theory.

 

Did they try and exit the cab after paying their fare, but prior to committing battery on the driver? Did they demand to be let out of the vehicle? Or did they simply attack the driver because he did not have correct change?

 

Who the heck knows.

 

Yeah this is what I guess I was trying to say in my previous posts. We don't have enough facts to know what happened. And I'll wager that the settlement agreement with the driver will require that he does not testify.

[The Critic]

Yeah this is what I guess I was trying to say in my previous posts. We don't have enough facts to know what happened. And I'll wager that the settlement agreement with the driver will require that he does not testify.

Can that happen if Buffalo authorities independently decide to file charges?

[G&T]

Can that happen if Buffalo authorities independently decide to file charges?

 

Honestly, I question whether it's ethical to put in a settlement agreement. But there isn't much you can do to force someone to testify if he doesn't want to.

[EvilJester99]

Sounds to me like they will pin this all on the cousin...with Patrick footing the cash to the cabbie.

[illinilaw08]

Can that happen if Buffalo authorities independently decide to file charges?

 

If Buffalo authorities decide to file charges, and then subpoena the cab driver, he will be required to testify. If he doesn't show up, a warrant could be issued for his arrest (that doesn't usually happen, but the law allows the prosecutor to request the warrant).

[SockMe]

Hawks tix on sale tomorrow, might hav to pick me up some

[Mr. Showtime]

Hawks tix on sale tomorrow, might hav to pick me up some

 

Bring the credit card, prices are up.