×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Court Rules You Have the Right To Google a Lawyer

timothy posted about a year ago | from the here-it's-one-phone-call-and-a-brandy dept.

Canada 105

An anonymous reader writes "Hollywood crime dramas are infamous for the scene when an accused is taken to a local police station and permitted a single phone call to contact a relative or lawyer. While the storyline is myth — there is no limit on the number of phone calls available to an accused or detainee — Michael Geist reports on a recent Canadian case establishing a new, real requirement for law enforcement. After a 19-year old struggled to find a lawyer using the telephone, the court ruled that police must provide an accused with Internet access in order to exercise their right to counsel."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

105 comments

GOGGLE THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944183)

Up yours Slashdot !!

Lawyer Googling (2)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#42944657)

Sounds painful.

Re:Lawyer Googling (2)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#42946053)

It would be, if you're in custody and you're trying to find a lawyer immediately and then find out if they're any good. My lawyer's on speed dial. Is yours?

In Canada, anything you say, EVEN AFTER YOU ASK FOR A LAWYER, is admissible in court. The only thing to say is "I have nothing to say. My lawyer's name is [fill in name]." Repeat as required.

Re:Lawyer Googling (1)

hazem (472289) | about a year ago | (#42946737)

In the US, speed-dial will probably not be of much help. When my friend was arrested, they took her phone and stored it with her personal property and did not allow her to access it, even to get a needed phone number.

Re:Lawyer Googling (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#42949117)

Well, I do know enough people that if I did get a call, I'd still be able to get my lawyer to the PHQ in a hurry.

Or not a hurry, I'd just sit back and play some minecraft on my ph... oh.

Yellow Pages ??? (1)

gagol (583737) | about a year ago | (#42945221)

If you are too stupid to use the yellow pages, how can you operate a computer?

Re:Yellow Pages ??? (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#42946041)

Because rather than just having the name and how much they spent on an ad in the yellow pages to go on it would be nice when making what could quite possibly be the most important decision in your life to be able to do at least the research you would do before choosing which restaurant to have lunch at.

Re:Yellow Pages ??? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#42947327)

The ones with the ability to plan ahead in a reasonable fashion are much less likely to be put in the position of needing a lawyer.

Re: Yellow Pages ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42946447)

They still print those? Now outlawed in many places.

Google is the new phone book (5, Interesting)

concealment (2447304) | about a year ago | (#42944247)

It seems to me obvious that this should be the case; Google has for most people replaced those annoying phone books.

The only caveat is that they should make sure they lock down the machine well...

Re:Google is the new phone book (2)

reimero (194707) | about a year ago | (#42944275)

Locking down a machine isn't that hard, and setting the homepage to default to an appropriate search is also fairly trivial. You don't need the latest, greatest, most powerful computer, either. This could be done at relatively low cost with relatively few resources.

ObFanboi (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year ago | (#42944375)

You don't need the latest, greatest, most powerful computer, either.

You could use an iPad!

Re:ObFanboi (1)

bdwebb (985489) | about a year ago | (#42946109)

Not to Apple-hate (even though I do hate Apple), but I think police depts would be better served by a cheap as hell 7" off-brand Android tablet than the budget-breaking iPad...there are a plethora of apps that can provide the same type of lockdown and I'm certain that if this were a standard budgeted item there would be several companies created to provide police-grade lockdown capabilities.

Ultimately you have to think that some detainees are going to literally throw the thing on the ground to piss off their jailers and replacing a $120 Android vs a $330 iPad Mini is much more feasible. Granted, either way the detainee is going to be responsible for damaging police property but many people simply serve their time instead of paying and I would much rather the tax $$ that goes to police be spent on other things like more officers and things that are, y'know, important.

Re:Google is the new phone book (4, Insightful)

Miseph (979059) | about a year ago | (#42944393)

I'm not seeing any particular reason that the time spent searching could not be supervised; no privileged information is going to be shared with the attorney before contacting them. Electronic supervision would be the obvious choice, but frankly I would rather see an officer putting physical eyes on suspects: it gives a more immediate means of challenging questionable use and it avoids any illusion on the suspect's part that they are not being watched.

That said, the access itself should probably be fairly open. The detained would be well-advised to do at least minimal research on whoever will potentially represent them in court, and an overly broad block on access might restrict them from pertinent information.

Re:Google is the new phone book (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945071)

"I'm not seeing any particular reason that the time spent searching could not be supervised; no privileged information is going to be shared with the attorney before contacting them."

Besides, everybody knows the address in the US.:
http://www.bettercallsaul.com/ [bettercallsaul.com]

Re:Google is the new phone book (4, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#42945133)

I'm not seeing any particular reason that the time spent searching could not be supervised

I'm not seeing any particular reason it would need to be supervised. The phone calls aren't. The last time I was arrested, I spent about four hours in a holding cell, and there was a row of phones along the wall. There were no restrictions on who we could call, or how long we could talk. There was no indication that the phone calls were being monitored, and it is illegal to record calls without notification.

Re:Google is the new phone book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945559)

You were likely fooled beyond belief. Inside of a jail you have zero expectation of privacy and as such they were likely monitoring your calls. They may not even have to notify you that they're doing so, or could have done so on a sign that you passed on the way inside the cell. I've never known a jail not to monitor calls.

Re:Google is the new phone book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945795)

In some places it is illegal to monitor or record conversations between the person and their lawyer. If they don't give some notice of monitoring, there could be potential problems with phone conversations. This may not be as big of an issue on internet access if the internet is only being used to find a lawyer instead of conversing with them. Likewise, they could warn people the phones are being monitored and are only to let tell the lawyer to meet you in person.

Re:Google is the new phone book (2)

compro01 (777531) | about a year ago | (#42946729)

"Some places" includes Canada. Solicitor-client privilege is all but absolute.

To quote Bacon v. Surrey Pretrial Services Centre

This Court declares the respondent is obliged to provide the petitioner with a telephone system for solicitor-client telephone calls that is not vulnerable to breaches of solicitor-client privilege, intentional or accidental.

Re:Google is the new phone book (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#42945823)

I'm not seeing any particular reason that the time spent searching could not be supervised

I'm not seeing any particular reason it would need to be supervised. The phone calls aren't. The last time I was arrested, I spent about four hours in a holding cell, and there was a row of phones along the wall. There were no restrictions on who we could call, or how long we could talk. There was no indication that the phone calls were being monitored, and it is illegal to record calls without notification.

Well, the thing is, a phone on the wall will likely be used for priviledged conversation - they are legally not allowed to monitor that. And it's possibly legally dodgy to monitor them and disconnect the monitor when priviledged conversation is detected.

OTOH, if you're using Google to find a lawyer, chances are you're going to have to call them up to begin with, so the "looking up" part isn't really priviledged at all. Monitoring is necessary just to ensure that it's being used to lookup counsel and not just to hang out on Facebook. (And it's not wise to engage in priviledged conversations anyhow - even if law enforcement isn't monitoring, someone else might be).

Re:Google is the new phone book (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#42946063)

Monitoring is necessary just to ensure that it's being used to lookup counsel and not just to hang out on Facebook.

Why is this "necessary"? There is nothing illegal about "hanging out on facebook." If that is what a detainee wants to do with his time, so what?

When I was in the holding cell, there were no restrictions whatsoever on who I could call, or what I could say. I was there for four hours, but other than that there were no limits on how long I could talk. Most guys were using the phones to call their GFs and apologizing for getting drunk and beating them up. How would it be any different if they did that on Facebook?

Re:Google is the new phone book (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#42950721)

I'm not seeing any particular reason that the time spent searching could not be supervised

I'm not seeing any particular reason it would need to be supervised. The phone calls aren't. The last time I was arrested, I spent about four hours in a holding cell, and there was a row of phones along the wall. There were no restrictions on who we could call, or how long we could talk. There was no indication that the phone calls were being monitored, and it is illegal to record calls without notification.

Having been arrest too many times, I can attest that the local jail is(was) set up like that. First room you have a bunch of free phones. Unfortunately, I have never been in that room longer then 10 mins. And I'm talking at least 20 visits to the room (I used to be a bad boy). After that room, you get put into rooms where you have to call collect to make phone calls. And you can spend 8 hours in that room.

I haven't been to jail for about a decade (good boy now), so I don't know how they have changed it since then.

Going to point out I remember when that jail had all free phones in it. Up in the cells (like 20 peeps to a cell), it would have one of those cheap phones that plugs into the wall. At least till some idiot tried to use it to beat someone down, then they took them out and put in the solid phones against the wall, call collect to make calls.

Now in the day of Cell phones, who remembers phone numbers? I don't. The only phone numbers i remember is my own (and only my google voice number, have no idea what my cell phone number is), the phone from where I lived growing up, and oddly enough, one of my weed dealers who I have known for over 20 years. Anyways, they don't let you take the cell phone into jail with you (not where I live), so you don't have your numbers, unless you can convince the officer that takes that stuff to let you grab phone numbers off it. Chances are, you aren't thinking of that.

Anyways, this is for when you get taken down to the jail, and most people I've ever noticed don't call lawyers, they call family and tell the family to get a hold of a lawyer or bail bonds person.

I've never been rich enough to afford a lawyer, but thinking about it, jail doesn't seem to make it easy to call them, unless they accept collect calls...

 

Re:Google is the new phone book (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about a year ago | (#42945347)

They might not want to lock down the search though. Reason: top hit might get all the business so they would be preconditioning the market share of local lawyers. Better to let the suspect pick the search engine and search query so there is at least some amount of spread in the business.

Internet access is not necessary (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#42944371)

They could easily have a list of lawyers on a piece of paper or computer to provide to people. Lawyers themselves could ask to be added to the list. If the sole purpose of internet access is to provide solely contact information, it seems a bit overkill, especially with "the decision may have resource implications, since providing Internet access will be more costly and cumbersome than pointing to a nearby telephone."

Re:Internet access is not necessary (5, Insightful)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#42944461)

The right to freely choose a lawyer might be affected by such a pre-selection by the police.

Re:Internet access is not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944625)

The lawyers themselves could make the list and put it up in jail by the phones. It could be made a crime for Police to remove or deface it.

Re:Internet access is not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945287)

The lawyers themselves could make the list and put it up in jail by the phones. It could be made a crime for Police to remove or deface it.

Oh, yeah. That'll stop it.

Who you gonna report the crime to?

Re:Internet access is not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945497)

The po- oh, I get it.

Re:Internet access is not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42946441)

You have overlooked key practical issues:

1) The size of the list will make it bulky and hard to use.
2) The list will not provide any information about historical cases, reviews, etc., which are material to the decision.
3) The list will be perpetually out of date, and the costs of even attempting to keep it up do date will be prohibitive.
4) Laws against tampering with the list will be nearly impossible to enforce.

I will add that you seem to be one of those terribly annoying people who oversimplify everything, to the detriment of everyone else. The phrase "the devil is in the details" exists for a reason.

Re:Internet access is not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945279)

Put a basket next to the phone, with a sign saying:

Business Cards Only
Lawyers: please leave a few
Convicts: take your pick

Re:Internet access is not necessary (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#42945335)

And that can't be done by blocking internet access to certain lawyers as well?

Re:Internet access is not necessary (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#42948217)

And that can't be done by blocking internet access to certain lawyers as well?

Technically it can, legally it can't of course. In Canada we have a standard called Bringing the Justice system into Disrepute. That would be one of those instance, it's actually pretty serious. It's one of the very few charges that when laid will not only see you stripped of service, but can have you disbarred, or removed from the bench with remand to custody.

Never minding that up here it would also be a charter violation(the equivalent to a constitutional violation). There's a lot of case law covering both, needless to say that the SCC take an exceptionally dim view on cases where they see that.

Re:Internet access is not necessary (1)

kqs (1038910) | about a year ago | (#42949293)

Technically it can, legally it can't of course. In Canada we have a standard called Bringing the Justice system into Disrepute. That would be one of those instance, it's actually pretty serious. It's one of the very few charges that when laid will not only see you stripped of service, but can have you disbarred, or removed from the bench with remand to custody.

We need such rules to be better enforced in the US. The actions of police and prosecutors once they believe you are guilty are often disgraceful, but are rarely punished.

But no, such a list would be too long to be useful. Really, a better quality of court-appointed representation (and enough funding for same) would be another potential solution which would help solve both this and many other problems with the justice system.

Re:Internet access is not necessary (5, Informative)

Endlisnis (208453) | about a year ago | (#42944495)

The problem with just having a list is that the police now get to choose which lawyers will be defending representatives (the police could remove a lawyer from the list because he's very good at winning). The whole point of a phone call is that you get to CHOOSE your lawyer.

Re:Internet access is not necessary (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year ago | (#42946019)

And then the police will love it when your conviction get overturned for ineffective council, as they denied your access to effective council...

Just like the pesky advising you of your rights thing.

Re:Internet access is not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42948331)

Who's going to argue that you were denied access to effective council? Your ineffective lawyer?

Re:Google is the new phone book (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944491)

Good point. There's going to be a lot of attorneys with big boobs visiting police stations now.

Re:Google is the new phone book (2)

SilentStaid (1474575) | about a year ago | (#42945243)

Good point. There's going to be a lot of attorneys with big boobs visiting police stations now.

Honestly, I've met a few hefty attorneys in my day, but there's no need to call the men out like that.

Re:Google is the new phone book (1)

Yaotzin (827566) | about a year ago | (#42944561)

The only caveat is that they should make sure they lock down the machine well...

Is that necessary though? If I was in custody my first priority wouldn't be to check in on Facebook and idly browse porn.

why not? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944631)

What makes you think that you'd be any better off using google than posting a request for your facebook friends. And if you're indigent (if you cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed for you), you might as well use your computer time to do something you enjoy.

My experience has been that there's more demand for bail bondsmen than attorneys at the local lockup. Most people would rather be released on bond and THEN find an attorney. Of course, if you're being interrogated, your strategy is "say nothing". Eventually, they have to find you an attorney or let you go.

Re:Google is the new phone book (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944881)

Yes, it's necessary. Partly so the suspect can't do complex operations like transferring money to the Bahamas, partly so they can't collate and fire off complex sets of instructions to people who are *not* their lawyers, partly so they can't threaten witnesses, and primarily to prevent the police using keystroke loggers to sniff the suspect's email addresses and passwords.

I'd be very curious to see how one could best lock down such an appliance.

Re:Google is the new phone book (1)

danomac (1032160) | about a year ago | (#42946567)

Well, if my own experience means anything, just redirect all web queries to Bing. They won't be able to find (or do) anything relevant.

Re:Google is the new phone book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42946569)

IANAL, so here's my question: are there laws concerning communications lawyers can and can't pass on? I get arrested, I call a lawyer, and I'm allowed a no-time-limit privileged meeting with the lawyer. Can I give the lawyer the hit order on the witnesses, which he would then forward to my friends on the outside?

Re:Google is the new phone book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42948827)

IANAL, so here's my question: are there laws concerning communications lawyers can and can't pass on? I get arrested, I call a lawyer, and I'm allowed a no-time-limit privileged meeting with the lawyer. Can I give the lawyer the hit order on the witnesses, which he would then forward to my friends on the outside?

All communication with your lawyer is privileged except illegal acts which in your example here it would get you an additional charge of conspiracy to commit murder, you would be arrested again before you even got out of the police station since your lawyer is required to report pending illegal acts to the court/police. You can tell your lawyer you committed a crime and they cannot reveal that information but telling him/her you plan to commit a crime gets you arrested again.

Re:Google is the new phone book (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#42944911)

I would imagine that the police are concerned about such things as suspects having access to relay/transmit information that would jeopardize their case or witness safety. It does present a significant technological challenge for the police department. I do support the courts decision however.

Re:Google is the new phone book (1)

aklinux (1318095) | about a year ago | (#42948223)

I was thinking more like guest access on a Google Chrome device and DNS filtered through something like OpenDNS.

How much access and monitoring? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944249)

For police, the decision may have resource implications, since providing Internet access will be more costly and cumbersome than pointing to a nearby telephone.

The other problem is how much access are you going to give the suspect? Would the police be allowed to monitor everything in case the suspect tries to tamper with evidence or influence people?

Re:How much access and monitoring? (3, Insightful)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about a year ago | (#42944335)

The other problem is how much access are you going to give the suspect? Would the police be allowed to monitor everything in case the suspect tries to tamper with evidence or influence people?

The question is an interesting one - police are (in most countries, at least, including Canada afaik) not allowed to monitor communications between a lawyer and their client, with that "no monitoring" also extending to their initial attempts to locate/contact their lawyer. Presumably if the police allow the accused to log into their gmail account to email a lawyer, they would not be allowed to retain those login details for future evidence searches. Of course, if the internet access is used purely to find a directory of lawyers and go down them one by one to find one willing/able to represent the accused, that is another thing. But if a police officer offered me a PC and said "just login to your email account here, find a lawyer and send them an email asking for help", I am not sure if I would laugh or cry at such a bad attempt at password phishing.

Re:How much access and monitoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42948977)

The other problem is how much access are you going to give the suspect? Would the police be allowed to monitor everything in case the suspect tries to tamper with evidence or influence people?

The question is an interesting one - police are (in most countries, at least, including Canada afaik) not allowed to monitor communications between a lawyer and their client, with that "no monitoring" also extending to their initial attempts to locate/contact their lawyer. Presumably if the police allow the accused to log into their gmail account to email a lawyer, they would not be allowed to retain those login details for future evidence searches. Of course, if the internet access is used purely to find a directory of lawyers and go down them one by one to find one willing/able to represent the accused, that is another thing. But if a police officer offered me a PC and said "just login to your email account here, find a lawyer and send them an email asking for help", I am not sure if I would laugh or cry at such a bad attempt at password phishing.

Nope in Canada the police actually dial the phone number for your lawyer you have picked then confirm they are indeed a lawyer the police officer then identifies their self and location to the lawyer and tells them they have such and such in custody for whatever crime and hands the phone to you and leaves the room. The no monitoring only starts when you are communicating with your lawyer.

Re:How much access and monitoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42949811)

More than that - any communication by the lawyer to assistants and agents and consultants are also protected.As a lawyer put it to me - if you want to sue a builder then do it through a lawyer and any engineering consultation the lawyer makes about the building is protected but if you consult the engineer directly it isn't. Nice deal the lawyers have cooked up for themselves.

Re:How much access and monitoring? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944415)

Have you never been in jail you faggot? They monitor everything. Everything is recorded. Waiting for you to say something incriminating.

Re:How much access and monitoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944709)

Have you never been in jail you faggot? They monitor everything. Everything is recorded. Waiting for you to say something incriminating.

Have you installed those phone systems, cracker?

Re:How much access and monitoring? (5, Insightful)

digitalvengeance (722523) | about a year ago | (#42944507)

According to Iowa Code 804.20, the police "shall" monitor any phone calls made. The exact text is:

Such person shall be permitted to make a reasonable number of telephone calls as may be required to secure an attorney. If a call is made, it shall be made in the presence of the person having custody of the one arrested or restrained. (Source: https://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83&input=804.20 [iowa.gov])

I can't speak to legislative intent, but I wouldn't be surprised if harassment of victims or witness tampering were at least part of that conversation. If your attorney comes down to the police station, then you can chat as privately as your attorney wants. In practice, the police monitor and log all calls made such that they can later prove that they gave the suspect a reasonable opportunity to contact someone. (Failure to do so can have pretty severe legal ramifications including excluding evidence.)

Re:How much access and monitoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945983)

California code 851.5 explicitly says that for a telephone call to an attorney "This telephone call shall not be monitored, eavesdropped upon, or recorded." This wording is not on the sections that allow telephone calls to bond bailsman or family members. Some other state codes, such as Nevada and Ohio, do not say anything about the call requiring a presence of another person, although they don't say anything about not monitoring it either (unless there is another law or code that forbids monitoring any calls between the detained person and a lawyer).

Enough with the Michael Geist. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944289)

Another day and another post from the left-wing "intellectual" Michael Geist. Maybe one of these days he'll get a real job and stop posting his opinion as fact. But until then, I guess even the smallest of his farts will be posts on Slashdot.

Re:Enough with the Michael Geist. (1)

Kinwolf (945345) | about a year ago | (#42944407)

Michael Geist left wing? You must not have the same definition of left wing as we have in Canada. And his fart are mostly centered and low from what I heard.

Re:Enough with the Michael Geist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945023)

Anyone not fascist enough to have the jackboot of government stuck halfway up their ass is left wing to some of the people here.

Re:Enough with the Michael Geist. (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#42948539)

Not to mention the fact that Michael is well respected in his real job as a law professor and does this mostly out of the goodness of his heart (of course, since his real job is teaching, I'm sure there's crossover with his advocacy hobby).

Idea for a new ASK SLASHDOT: (5, Interesting)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#42944387)

If you were allowed to call your lawyer, would you know who to call?

Re:Idea for a new ASK SLASHDOT: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944661)

A divorce lawyer.

Re:Idea for a new ASK SLASHDOT: (2)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#42944745)

If you were allowed to call your lawyer, would you know who to call?

Hmm. Now I have an actual reason to consider a tattoo, since a "legal alert" bracelet -- if they existed -- could be taken away.

Sure, as long as there's the obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944793)

CowboyNeal option

Re:Sure, as long as there's the obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945205)

Ghostbusters!

Re:Idea for a new ASK SLASHDOT: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944859)

The answer rhymes with 'toast mustard'.

Re:Idea for a new ASK SLASHDOT: (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#42946449)

I would call my modem, so I can make a connection to the Interweb and then remove any record from the police file, so they have to let me go.

Re:Idea for a new ASK SLASHDOT: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42946863)

If you were allowed to call your lawyer, would you know who to call?

No.
But I would know whom to call.

Re:Idea for a new ASK SLASHDOT: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42948275)

Nope. I just moved. I don't know the reputations of any lawyers here (or how to figure that out), and everyone I know just moved here too. Sooooo...

Re:Idea for a new ASK SLASHDOT: (1)

jonadab (583620) | about a year ago | (#42949413)

Honestly, I would probably refuse to speak to a lawyer. I'm pretty sure I'd rather be imprisoned than have to deal with a lawyer.

So far, I've managed to avoid any legal entanglements.

But I'm telling you... (5, Funny)

Kinwolf (945345) | about a year ago | (#42944455)

... my lawyer is on a raid in WoW, I MUST level my char to 80 to be able to reach him!

Re:But I'm telling you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945431)

Sure, like just reaching 80 would be enough to get into the raid. No, you'd also have to spend months grinding honor tokens, or whatever the fuck they're called now, for the entry level gear to get in.

WoW-free for 2+ years - what a lucky escape.

Re:But I'm telling you... (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about a year ago | (#42946089)

90 these days. And gearing up from heroic instances is enough to get you into Mogu'shan Vaults LFR, although being flung in with 24 other random people can be a bit of a trying experience.

Anyway, you wouldn't need to be in the same raid, any toon on the same realm could whisper the raiding lawyer (or any realm if said lawyer had responded to your RealID request).

Re:But I'm telling you... (1)

ImprovOmega (744717) | about a year ago | (#42947223)

90 these days. And gearing up from heroic instances is enough to get you into Mogu'shan Vaults LFR, although being flung in with 24 other random people can be a bit of a trying experience.

Mogu'shan is weaksauce in LFR. Heart of Fear will still faceroll an incompetent group just because the fight mechanics are hardcore and twitchy. Oddly, once you finish that up Terrace of Endless Spring is back to easymode. Go figure.

Re:But I'm telling you... (1)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#42948965)

Ugh, how I *don't* miss LFR. Or grinding stupid reputation points/tokens/whatever crap they decided to call it this patch.

(Has it really been a whole year since I got out? Dang. I still miss it sometimes, until I remember having to log in every day for a couple months, for a half hour of the same boring rep grind... and then after a couple month reprieve a new patch would pop, and I'd be all excited about the content until I realized that it meant another long rep slog... ugh. Or alternatively, now I can just think about pandas, and how they thought it was a great idea to base a whole xpac around an April Fools joke...)

I do still miss it occasionally though. Mostly while intoxicated (/2 was always more amusing in such a state. :p)

Re:But I'm telling you... (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#42950737)

Sure, like just reaching 80 would be enough to get into the raid. No, you'd also have to spend months grinding honor tokens, or whatever the fuck they're called now, for the entry level gear to get in.

WoW-free for 2+ years - what a lucky escape.

I thought WoW gave you a fully geared max level char with new games now?

Re:But I'm telling you... (1)

subanark (937286) | about a year ago | (#42948215)

Blizzard never did implement the Equipment Potency EquivalencE Number (EPEEN) system (which they introduced on 4/1/2010). If they did it would block out you from seeing or hearing anyone who wasn't leet enough to be worth your time (based on gear level) along with other bonuses to allow you to troll those lesser players.

Ep?C! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944475)

Apple too. No, goodbye...she had BSD's codebase wheRe it belongs,

Efficiency (2)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about a year ago | (#42944477)


If you were allowed to call a lawyer multiple times then I see no reason not to allow a person to google a lawyer.

This might actually speed things up and maybe even alleviate the need for an escort. A cell with some locked down access to a yellow pages site or something of the sort. No need to leave.

Mr. Anderson... (4, Funny)

ClickOnThis (137803) | about a year ago | (#42944823)

...what good is the internet if you are...unable to type?

[Apologies to those with physical challenges.]

Re:Mr. Anderson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945331)

what good is changing me and wasting count time if the case will just get thrown out of court for you cutting off my rights.

Re:Mr. Anderson... (1)

danomac (1032160) | about a year ago | (#42946597)

Presumably if they're unable to use a finger to press a key on the keyboard they wouldn't be able to dial a phone number either...

Truly a worthy ruling (1)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | about a year ago | (#42945241)

For those of us who have had the unfortunate pleasure of being arrested, think about it. You had to call a relative, or look in a phone book for some advertisement of a lawyer. While I doubt they'll be getting many of these machines, one usually has at least 24 hours of free time in jail. Why not give that time to do at least /some/ due diligence in picking one's council. Bravo Canada.

Re:Truly a worthy ruling (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945669)

Why not give that time to do at least /some/ due diligence in picking one's council.

While that certainly sounds nice, it has no real meaning to me.

One of my teachers once told me: (translated)"Measuring is knowing". Followed by a grave "But only when you know what you are measuring".

In my case (and probably lots of people with me) I would have no idea what to use as yardstick to measure those lawyers against.

To pick a good lawyer probably goes the same as with picking a good plumber: Only after he did his work you will know. And in case of lawyers that method can cost you dearly, both in money (to be payed to the lawyer and others) as in freedom (because of being put into jail because of this lawyers bad job).

In other words: for most people who do not deal with the Law on a regular basis being able to pick a lawyer is nothing more than a farce.

But than again, I regard the judicial process as a kind of random thing: depending on quite a few factors which have very little to do with the Law itself you could win or lose a case.

Re:Truly a worthy ruling (2)

dbc (135354) | about a year ago | (#42946891)

How true. My wife *is* a lawyer. But there is very little of our own legal business that she feels qualified to handle herself, since legal practice is very specialized, and her specialties aren't a lot of good outside of a large company context. Mostly, she is very good at hiring the right lawyer and getting good value for the hours billed.

It's kind of sad that you need to be a lawyer in order to hire the lawyer that you need.

I'll say this, if you are arrested and charged with something, you need a criminal lawyer who does mainly criminal law. If it is a domestic violence charge (real or something imaginary from crazy-land) get a specialist in DV. If it in any way touches on civil rights law, get somebody with experience in civil rights litigation. If firearms are involved in any way, make absolutely certain that the lawyer understands your state's gun laws forwards and backwards. (In California, call the CalGuns Foundation hotline: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ [calgunsfoundation.org])

I hope this NEVER comes to the USA! (1)

SomePoorSchmuck (183775) | about a year ago | (#42945615)

And here's why -- just imagine if police were forced to provide this in the '80s. Kevin Mitnick could have used a Google search box to activate a script running on WOPR to launch a nuclear missile!

We wouldn't even be here on Slashdot now, just huddled in our underground shelters for decades waiting for the end of nuclear winter. Although now that I think about it, I haven't been out of mom's basement since World of Warcraft was released. So I guess no real difference there.

Internet access is a basic right (1)

Teunis (678244) | about a year ago | (#42945987)

In Canada, internet access is a "basic right" (what this means is kind of complicated, but basically everyone needs to be able to access internet, legally ... at least unless they are incarcerated already).

So under our law, this allowance for access is easily within reading such rights.

Not a lawyer, but worked for Canadian ISPs since the '90s.

Hollywood... Ontario? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#42946457)

The portrayal of police procedures in "Hollywood crime dramas" is generally going to reflect US law (or the popular perception of it, anyway). Last time I checked, our Neighbors to the North had their own legal system - one that doesn't always mirror our American one.

Re:Hollywood... Ontario? (1)

jonadab (583620) | about a year ago | (#42949475)

It's actually remarkably similar, in terms of the basics. (We both inherited a large body of existing case law from England, and a lot of the subsequent developments have been similar as well.)

There are numerous differences in the particulars, of course.

Right to contact counsel only (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42948013)

In Canada, the right to contact counsel does not extend to the right to have that counsel present during questioning. Unlike in the US, we can't tell the police to bugger off until our lawyer shows up. They can question us without counsel present as long as they like. We don't have to answer, but they can continue aggressive questioning.

Health vs. Justice (2)

alexo (9335) | about a year ago | (#42948801)

Canada has a public health care system.

Unfortunately, it does not have a public "justice care" system. If you need to defend yourself in court, you either need to pay a huge amount of money or, if you cannot afford the shittiest possible lawyer, you'll get a public defender that is so overworked and underfunded as to be even worse than the aforementioned shittiest possible lawyer.

Once I asked an acquaintance of mine, who happens to be a criminal lawyer, how much on the average does it cost to have a decent legal representation for, say, a murder case. His answer: "How much does it worth it to you?"

The institutional injustice system is a blight upon society.

"Myth" but based in fact... (1)

itwasgreektome (785639) | about a year ago | (#42949993)

"While the storyline is myth — there is no limit on the number of phone calls available to an accused or detainee — " In California, the arrestee has a right to 3 FREE phone calls within the local area codes (California Penal Code section 851.5). This has likely been bastardized over time to be what people perceive to be their "only calls" they get. There IS a limit on the phone calls available to an inmate outside of their 3 free ones- that limitation is that they must have friends willing to pay $20 for 15 minutes of collect calls. Which basically means the only calls most inmates get are those 3 free phone calls. As well, phone calls can usually only be made during dayroom hours- usually the 12 hours of the day general population is allowed to be outside of their rooms. My favorite line arrestees always say is, "They didn't read me my Miranda rights!" An officer only has to read you your miranda rights if they question you about your culpability in a case AFTER they've arrested you for that offense (or after they have developed enough information to be able to arrest you). The general rule for Miranda is "Custody (usually arrest) + interrogation." Absent both of those, need not be mirandized (most people aren't).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...