Comes up in a large amount of interrogation videos I have seen "we don't care about small misdemeanors crimes, we aren't the drug police".

Even in the Chandler Murder case, Lawyer was present with the girlfriend witness and he said "You are going to overlook any type of Marijuana usage you find, right? " when they took her phone.

If you have evidence relevant to the case, but would tie you to a misdemeanor or petty crime (Like Marijuana possession) would you be able to get an immunity agreement on that beforehand?

The president “falls asleep” on camera and gets hauled away by his staff, looking rather unresponsive. The white house staff claims he’s fine and restoring himself with his typical lunch of twelve chicken thighs with gravy.

How long could they hide an actually dead president? How would this situation resolve if his cabinet actively tried to keep it a secret?

I recently read the Michael Connelly novels Resurrection Walk and The Proving Ground, both of which have habeas petitions as plot elements. In both books a habeas corpus petition is rejected (one by a judge and one by a DA). They both acknowledge that the evidence in the petition points to the client being innocent, and would likely have provided for reasonable doubt if raised at trial, but refuse to grant habeas because the evidence is “not new enough” and should have been introduced in the trial. In both cases the veracity of the evidence and its bearing on the innocence of the petitioner is unquestioned, and the only issue at hand is the novelty. Would it not be unethical for them to allow the continued imprisonment of the petitioner if the evidence not only presents reasonable doubt but strongly points towards their innocence? Is this just a dramatization or would this actually happen in a real case?

Had a close call today and wanted to know who would be at fault. This stretch of road has “3” lanes. Two opposing straight lanes, and offset, opposing turn lanes down the middle. Basically both turn lanes start at the same point (middle between two intersections), and open up as they get closer to their respective intersections. Hopefully this is clearer than it sounds as a write it.

As I was driving, I entered the turn lane as the white dashed line started. Someone had started driving up the oncoming traffic turn lane, across the yellow line. I ended up cutting them off. If I had hit them, who would be at fault? They had crossed the yellow line but I guess technically I was “making a lane change”, or so I’ve heard that be described. Does fault in this situation depend on who hits whom, where the cars hit, etc?

I'm trying to write a short peice of fiction and I am thinking of some ideas for a small section where I might include this happening. So, is this something that actually happens, where someone goes through the entire trial process on crimes charged by the state then afterwards they are given federal charges? Would a bank robbery be a good realistic example of that happening?

Given standing requirements of a particularized injury in fact, it's not clear that anyone would have standing to sue over a mass illegal dispersal of money. Plus, given the recent ruling regarding the ballroom construction, it certainly seems unlikely that it could be stopped by a court before the checks went out, and after that point what really could anyone do?

Occasionally reported, and more often alleged, is this practice where municipalities, states, mental hospitals, social services etc. pay for homeless people to be relocated to another city/state (sometimes giving them a bit of money in addition to the transportation costs). AKA "greyhound therapy". Heavily criticized because it essentially "exports" the problem, hiding it and its costs for the sending city while straining the receiving city's services.

I am curious, suppose it could be proven (through a whistleblower, discovery etc.) that this was indeed happening as a deliberate policy choice. Not in a more proper way such as family reunification with some verification that the family member is real; but as a routine policy of "offer homeless people a bus ticket/taxi ride out of here [possibly giving them some money if they accept]". And there is no coordination with the receiving city or its shelters.

Could the receiving city have a cause of action against the sending one? (Assuming there was no deception or coercion and the homeless people accepted the offer voluntarily.) Freedom of movement is a constitutional right in the US so it seems tricky to me.

So hear me out. There's a lot of vandalism and stuff going on with flock cameras on social media. Could someone with a large amount of money start paying people for pictures of vandalized cameras? Obviously its not going to be paying the people who vandalize the cameras because that would 100% be illegal. But like could someone specify "Hey, take a picture of a destroyed flock camera that you found and mark down its location so we can verify that it is a real flock camera that got vandalized, and we pay you $50." Im sure it would be pretty useful data, knowing where the most vandalisms happen can let you know what places to avoid, so I figure it wouldn't be too hard to get people to crowdfund it.

Quick recap/background:

Activist Samuel Tunick was stopped by airport CBP officers when he returned to the US, and was instructed to provide a password to unlock his phone. Instead, he provided a "duress code" that triggered a wipe of his device, so he was then arrested for "destroying or removing property to prevent a government seizure."

I've been thinking about this a lot. I disagree with the reach of government and think this case will generate a lot of debate regarding what constitutes a detention or seizure, but I think the government has a winning case because the agents were operating in their recognized capacity, and he admits that he deliberately took an action AFTER his first encounter with law them to destroy what the agents wanted to review.

So my hypothetical question is:

What if he had set it up on a dead man's switch instead, which would have automatically deleted the data if he DIDN'T provide a code within, say, two hours after starting the countdown?

My "big picture" questions are whether the government legally treats inaction that results in deletion the same as they would action that results in deletion, and whether or not an individual has an obligation to act or could be compelled to act?

But since I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure I'm not making myself clear, here's a scenario:

My understanding is that for US citizens, CBP:

1. cannot force you to disclose or enter a password (although they can input your biometrics if enabled)
2. cannot refuse you entry for refusing to provide a password (though they can prolong your detention)
3. can seize your device long enough to finish their investigation or copy your data (and must allow you entry in the interim)

Assume the above rules (and anything else that's currently in play in the real world). Let's assume someone, John the activist, is flying back to the US from Europe. He has a "dead man's switch" program on his phone, which will delete his phone a certain number of minutes after activation if a deactivation code is not entered (if it is entered, then the timer resets). He has disabled his phone's biometrics.

He's flying into DFW and, though he has not done anything illegal, has reasonable concern that he'll be singled out for additional CBP review due to his activism and social media presence, both critical of the current administration and of CBPs parent agency. He is concerned that if he is, a list on his phone of associates "unfriendly to the administration" would be compromised. But he's not sure of anything- he gets picked for additional review about half the times he travels, otherwise it's a quick 30-60 process to go through entry customs and immigration.

Before disembarking the plane-ie, before his first contact with CBP and before he even knows whether his device will be reviewed or seized, he sets the dead man's switch for two hours.

He deplanes and retrieves his luggage quickly, and at t minus 60 minutes is concluding his entry screening questions when he's approached and informed he's been selected for additional review. He's been through this before, and initially the interview is quite cordial, with routine questions about his job and travels. But before long his activism status is brought up, and the interview becomes more adversarial.

Based on his prior experience, and the advice of counsel, he answers the questions that he knows he must, and deflects questions where appropriate. He also makes it clear that beyond the legally required customs questions, he will not be answering any questions without counsel. The interviewing agent requests a password for his phone; John replies that he will not be providing him a password for the phone, and that if CBP so desires, they are welcome to temporarily seize the device, and he requests to go. The agent demands a password, and John again refuses. This escalates to the agent holding the phone in front of John's face, before he realizes that biometrics have been disabled.

Around this time, the phone flags with a pop-up notification "Warning: this data on this device will be permanently deleted if the abort password is not entered within the next 10 minutes." This is the first time that the agent has seen something like this, and again demands John give him the abort password, which he refuses to do. The agent retrieves his supervisor, who also unsuccessfully demands the password... And everybody watches as the phone screen freezes, and after a few seconds goes black.

Several more hours in in interrogation lapse, with agents demanding an explanation as to what exactly happened and why, and John refusing to answer anything without the presence of an attorney. He is ​eventually released and drives to his home, but the next day is visited by law enforcement who informs him that he is under arrest under 18 U.S.C. § 111, interfering with an officer performing their official duties, and further actions based on an adverse inference would be forthcoming.

By the end of the day, it's an international news story, with John and his attorney asserting both the reasonable need for privacy given John's employment, as well as citing a belief that under the fifth amendment, his inaction was appropriate, that the arrest was invalid due to the absence of physical interference with the agents' duties and that any attempts that were made to compel him to release the password constituted infringement of his right against self-incrimination, even though there was no underlying criminal activity.

So...

What would come of that case? If there was an app like that which shifted phone deletion from being a deliberate action chosen while already in CBP jurisdiction to instead be an issue of inaction and how far the government could compel someone to take action, would that be a better defense from a legal standpoint? For bonus points, what if John didn't know the password- what if successfully keeping the data meant linking up with his wife in the pickup lane and having her enter the code?

EDIT: I'm very much enjoying the thoughtful responses. to reiterate, this doesn't reflect on the "real world" case, nor the debate about privacy. Although there's obviously a question about substance that can't be fully ignored, it's intended to be more about technicalities, which is how many of these cases are likely to be decided... and I could forsee "John's" case to be very realistic in the near future, as software like this exists and, like the duress password, is likely being used currently. it's just a matter of time before the theoretical case isn't so theoretical...

I read on social media that they can do this. Does this apply to an employee on a merchant ship as well? What about Scientology's Sea Org ship? Which laws permit this? When is this allowed? Is there an appeals process? Generally keeping a person captive is a crime, but I suppose there is some specific exemption here?

in my 150 page health insurance document this is the first item addressed in things not covered. let’s say you are injured as a result of a riot, but you aren’t taking part in the riot. for example, you are on a sidewalk not paying attention and get trampled by a riot. will they cover your care still? do you have to prove lack of involvement? the fine print (5) says “Actively taking part in a violent disturbance involving two or more persons.” how would that play out in real life? i am dying to know.

also, this is of course the USA. where else would you pay an extreme amount for health insurance, have them not cover it all regardless, but then refuse to cover anything because of a nuclear explosion????

I was really curious about this one. Can you replace all that spring mechanism around the trigger with a tiny electric motor and attach the hammer to the motor. Then link the motor to an apple watch heartbeat detector to set the motor rotate exactly once for every detected heart beat. Will this make this firearm, which shoots at a steady rate, not a machinegun? I guess you can argue that your heartbeat is manually pulling the trigger so it is technally a semi-auto firearm?

Since a semi-auto firearm is basically one biological event (pulls a trigger once) → exactly one shot, so one heartbeat per shot kinda also falls into this category?

For example, if the lawyer was harmed by a particular corporation, and ten years later, is representing a client in a lawsuit against that corporation.

Would motions be filed to remove this lawyer? Or could he be questioned about his past experiences or potential bias, in front of a jury?

I don't know the history very well, but apparently we did go metric but a world war stopped us from implementing it.

Trump has somehow superpowers over naming stuff

Can he use that law to metric us?

Also I say Lake New York, then we go New York Ocean for the Atlantic and California Ocean for the Pacific?

Like Trump isn't thinking this through. Lake America is so shortsighted.... America is not limited to a lake.

EDIT: I dislexiced the oceans but corrected it. left and right be hard sometime. Try screwdrivers you gotta learn clockwise and counter from all directions.

What persons throughout recent history did we all know were "guilty" from a practical standpoint (it was very obvious they did the thing/deserved serious consequences), but due to some technicality like mishandling of/inadmissible evidence, time limitations, or something else either got off completely scot-free, or got off significantly easier than they deserved?

This idea comes from another Reddit thread over in r/theydidthemath.

However, instead of pictures of other cars, what if it was all license plates?

The actual license plate would not be obscured, so people could certainly still read the correct plate. But it does seem like the sort of thing that might really confuse flock cameras, especially if lots of people started doing it, and used custom images each time. I figure if all the wraps use the same print, then that would become a pattern that the system could be trained to ignore.

I saw a tiktok about this and I'm wondering if it's legal. Obviously it seems very ethically dubious at best, and I remember reading that it's generally illegal to set up traps in your home to harm intruders but I don't remember the reasoning. The same would apply here, right?

I am writing a book in which a woman is brutally beaten in California. The book is fictional, but I like to stay as close to accurate as I possibly can. Which brings me here. I am interested in legal opinions and, if allowed, what general citizens know about the effectiveness of the laws in question.

The victim of the beating will testify against her pimps, who tried to beat her to death. She is willing to go to trial and testify to what she remembers about the assault. The prosecution has two additional witnesses and the videotape they recorded from a cell phone. The defense has both perpetrators, identifiable on the video tapes. One police officer arrived on the scene in time to see one defendant kick the victim in the head.

Them's the facts.

I understand that California, like most states, has victim identity protection legislation.

My first question: How well does "identity protection," which as I understand it, means that the name of the victim may not become public information, actually protect the identity of anybody in real life?

The plot thickens... The victim is 21 at the time of the attack, but was held by the defendents as a sex slave for the previous 4 years, along with 18 other young women. This incident led to the "business" being raided and most of the women being taken into protective custody, their names were collected, victims were interviewed both at the hospital and at the police station, rape kits done on those willing,... The victim in question, Janey, cooperated fully with police and left a detailed account of her ordeal with them.

In other words, there is an extensive record of her experience as a sex slave, sitting on a hard drive at the Police Department.

On another hard drive, somewhere in the files of California's Social Service department, there exists a lengthy record of the time this same woman spent as a ward of the state in several foster care placements.

My second question: Realistically, which of her records are available to the prosecution, defense, newspaper reporters, etc.

My Final Question: Does this young victim have a chance in hell of remaining anonymous?

A murder has occurred, and police are looking for witnesses. They managed to find one who was there at the time, witnessed it, but there is a problem: they have a documented criminal history of perjury (and fraud). Will this person still be eligible for being a witness in court if the DA is desperate to make a murder case?

Dreaming of winning the lottery. In my state you cannot be anonymous. Is it possible to change your name , legally, claim the prize paying all taxes then change back and disappear? In Wisconsin lottery winners are public record. Instead of a lifetime of lawyers and dodging con men can i assume a legal alias to protect my family and future peace of mind?

I'm specifically thinking about a town like Helen, GA, but I'm sure the laws around incorporated jurisdictions vary greatly from place to place. Helen is basically a tourist town. There's an estimated 500 actual residents within the city limits, but the town sees an estimated 3 million visitors each year. Spread out evenly, that's 8,000 extra people each day, and it's not spread out evenly. While the town is currently growing slightly per the census, it's definitely becoming more and more tourist/commercial oriented. Hypothetically if its actual residents do start declining and eventually drop to 0, what then? This wouldn't be a typical abandoned town that usually just dies when the population drops to 0, but there wouldn't be anymore voting residents despite an otherwise thriving town.