Can you designate a lawyer preemptively and in perpetuity ?

[md2000]

@UDS

Well, there are analogous situations in commercial arrangements, though they may not be called “powers of attorney”. For example if you pledge land or property as security for a loan or other obligation, typically that will give the other party the right (in certain circumstances) to sell your land or property in order to recover the loan/compensate himself for your breach of obligation. You can’t (before repaying the loan or performing the obligation) revoke his authority to do that. Likewise when money is paid into an escrow account, you authorise the escrow agent to do certain things in certain events, and you typically cannot revoke that authority - at least, not unilaterally.

So, yeah, it is possible to assign away some of your rights in such a way that you cannot recover them, or at any rate cannot recover them in certain circumstances. But these are strictly limited and usually temporary, and they are nearly always (or even always always?) characterised byh somebody else being able to exercise the right on your behalf. I seriously doubt, on public policy grounds, that the courts would accept that the right to consent to a search can be assigned in this way, still less renounced in such a way that neither you nor anybody else can exercise it.

Basically, those sound like a form of contract - which logically, would require both sides to agree to change the terms. Goes back to my comment about quid pro quo - a solitary declaration of intention, just like a promise of a gift, I assume (IANAL) has no standing in law. “If I win the Powerball, I will give you a million dollars” is meaningless and unenforceable. “shovel the snow off my driveway, and if I win the Powerball you get a million dollars” - that is a contract.

One is a one-way declaration, the other both sides give and get something.

[drewder]

@drewder

Sometimes consenting to a search can be to your advantage.

Seems there was this guy who was pulled over by the police for going 100 mph in a 60 zone. So the cop comes up to his window and asks to see his drivers license. The guy says he doesn’t have one as it was suspended the last time he had a DUI.

So the cop asks to see the registration for the car which the man replies that the car is stolen and the cars owner is chopped up in bits in the trunk.

Alarmed the cop tells the man to wait there and goes back to his car to call for backup. The cops supervisor, a captain, shows up as part of the reinforcements. The captain asks the driver to see his license which the driver hands over and it’s perfectly valid and checks out clean in their system. Confused the captain asks to see his car registration, again it’s perfectly valid, in the drivers name and clears the system no problem.

So the captain scratches his head, turns to the man and asks him to open the trunk which is perfectly clean with no bodies. Captain doesn’t know what to think now so he says to the man “I don’t quite get it, I was told that you had no license, stolen car and a body in the trunk.” Man gets an exasperated look on his face and says “Yeah I know what you mean, I bet he told you I was speeding too!”

Sorry everyone, I thought this was a funny joke but apparently it may be construed as legal advice. I do not recommend this as a way of getting out of a ticket nor should you exceed the legal speed limit in your jurisdiction. Telling a police officer that you have stolen a car and murdered its owner will not likely end well for you and may in fact lead to a very bad day.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@md2000

Goes back to my comment about quid pro quo - a solitary declaration of intention, just like a promise of a gift, I assume (IANAL) has no standing in law. “If I win the Powerball, I will give you a million dollars” is meaningless and unenforceable. “shovel the snow off my driveway, and if I win the Powerball you get a million dollars” - that is a contract.

Well, the gift you describe is expressly conditional (since you haven’t won the powerball) and any contingent offer can be withdrawn. An unconditional promise of a gift can become binding under certain circumstances.

[Leo_Bloom]

@drewder

Sorry everyone, I thought this was a funny joke but apparently it may be construed as legal advice. I do not recommend this as a way of getting out of a ticket nor should you exceed the legal speed limit in your jurisdiction. Telling a police officer that you have stolen a car and murdered its owner will not likely end well for you and may in fact lead to a very bad day.

Ital added.

Was that legal advice?

[Loach]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So far as that goes, television is correct. A suspect’s invocation of the right to counsel must be “scrupulously honored,” which is not necessarily true of the invocation of the right to silence. That is, a suspect who invokes his right to remain silent can be asked if he still wishes to remain silent 12 hours later. A suspect who invokes his right to speak to an attorney may not be questioned again unless he has had the opportunity to consult one, unless he initiates further dialogue.

That is incorrect. I earlier cited the Shatzer decision. After 14 days an attempt can be made to talk even after asking for a lawyer.

[UDS]

@gnoitall

I’m no lawyer, but my impression is that such a law was an answer to the drunk driver quickly switching to a non-driving seat and saying “See, I’m not driving drunk. I don’t know where the driver went, he took off when you weren’t looking.”

Not really. It’s not unreasonable to think “drunk guy + car + car keys = bad combination; we’ll make it illegal”, and that’s your basic drunk-in-charge law. You can be convicted of being drunk-in-charge without any evidence that the car was driven at all, by anyone - e.g. they find you passed out in the car in a pub car-park. It’s enough that you’re drunk, and you’re in charge.

@gnoitall

But if the law’s still on the books, it would certainly be applicable. Maybe. If the driving automation is considered the driver-of-record, you theoretically should be able to do or be anything that a passenger in a human-operated car can do or be.

And if the driving automation isn’t the driver-of-record, driverless cars don’t provide any practical advantage over piloting yourself, since you’ll be on the hook for anything that goes wrong anyway. You’re the driver, even if the car is driving itself, so rules like “no cell phone use” or “no driving distracted” will still apply.

Yup. There’s a degree of speculation here, since there will have to be legal changes before driverless cars can become commonplace, but my guess is that, at least for a transitional phase until people have trust in the system, it’ll be a requirement that every driverless car must also be capable of being driven under human control, and can’t go out on the road without a licensed driver who can control it if required (and who must, of course, be sober, and have the appropriate insurance, and etc etc).

In the longer term, this might not always be so. If driverless motoring is accepted as safer than human motoring, including in failure mode, then it makes sense to allow cars travel without a qualified human driver. And I think people will expect and demand that; if they are to compete with taxis then I need to be able to go out for an evening, have a few drinks and then go home in a driverless car.

[md2000]

I expect that a problem in the future will be traffic gridlock - it’s cheaper to tell your self-driving car to drop you off and keep circling the block until you come out, than pay exorbitant parking fees.

The DUI law in Canada IIRC is “in control of a motor vehicle”. That includes if you are sleeping in the back seat of your parked car while intoxicated, with the keys available, since (drunks being unpredictable) you could wake up/come to and drive away.

[UDS]

@md2000

I expect that a problem in the future will be traffic gridlock - it’s cheaper to tell your self-driving car to drop you off and keep circling the block until you come out, than pay exorbitant parking fees.

It’s cheaper still not to own a driverless car, but just to rent one for the short time that you actually want to travel. Then, after your journey is finished, it’s available to go and carry other people on their journeys and doesn’t have to circle aimlessly. If it’s not required for other journeys, it can go off and park somewhere that isn’t prime real estate or valuable highway space until it is needed.

Meanwhile, when you want to make another journey, you’ll just summon another car.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Loach

That is incorrect. I earlier cited the Shatzer decision. After 14 days an attempt can be made to talk even after asking for a lawyer.

True. But Shatzer only applies to suspects who have been released from custody for 14 days. I was speaking hypothetically about a situation in which a suspect has been detained throughout the relevant period.