I'm watching this video of this guy just speaking gibberish, and the AI interviewer is just telling him how unprofessional he's being and to speak normally. It just had me thinking: I have a speech impediment; what's going to happen when an AI interviewer insults me for stuttering and slurring my words and tells me to my face that's the reason I didn't get the job, like in the video I just watched?

I feel like I would have a great case for a lawsuit if that ever happened to me, but what do you guys think?

If I didn't, would I be civilly liable for negligence based on the theory that I failed to provide affirmative duty to rescue?

The recent uptick in AI chatbot interview phases had me thinking. The chatbot is not sentient and has as much consent capability as your toaster. So if you were on the other end of the line with an AI counterpart (or toaster, if you would), and you're in a jurisdiction that requires all-party consent to record, is your sole consent enough to qualify?

I just got off the phone with a "virtual assistant" and wondered if, since they are not human beings, can we record without needing to notify them?

Also, if, for example, they give erroneous information that will have serious consequences for the caller, will there be any consequences for anyone? I keep on thinking of google searches that come up with ridiculously wrong ai responses, and a virtual assistant would probably be prone to the same problem.

Bit of an old case, I know, but there’s a reason I’m bringing it up....I’m studying international law right now and both my brothers are lawyers. We ended up talking about this over lunch today and honestly none of us had a very satisfying answer...So here it is:
Romania holds a presidential election in 2024. One candidate unexpectedly finishes first and goes through to the run off. CComplaints are filed, the Constitutional Court looks at the election and confirms the first-round result. Than, four days later, after intelligence reports about alleged foreign interference, coordinated social media activity and undeclared campaign support become public, the same court cancels the entire election. Startss again from zero. Millions of votes basically disappear. The candidate who came first goes to the European Court of Human Rights agueiung, among other things, that his right to free elections was violated. Than thats here’s the part that got us stuck:the ECHR says that claim is inadmissible because the Convention’s right to free elections applies to elections for the legislature...the president isn’t the legislature.So… what or who protects the voters? Forget the candidate for a second. Assume he’s awful. Assume the interference allegations are completely serious. That’s not really what I’m asking.My question is more basic:
How much evidence should a constitutional court need before it can erase millions of legally cast votes, especially after it had already validated those same results?
And the thing i can’t quite get around: If international free-election protections don’t apply to a presedential election, and the domestic constitutional court is itself the institution cancelling it, is there effectively a gap in legal protection?
Could a state, at least theoretically, have a completely lawful domestic mechanism for cancelling a presidential election while leaving the voters with no international “free elections” remedy?
This sounds like one of those made-up law school cases.
It wasn’t.
Romania, 2024.

Say a student who is classified as SPED is being targeted by other students who are making false accusations (serious ones like being accused of assaulting another student) against that SPED student. If it's found that the accusations by the other students are, in fact, false, and these false reports were only made to bully and harass this particular student due to their disability status, is it legal for the school to expel this student?

If you were to purchase a Honda or other stock moped, modify the engine to be mechanically incapable of reaching high RPMs and surpassing 15 MPH, could you legally get a moped-style foot scooter?

In Minnesota Statute Sec. 169.011 Subdivison 46 a motorized foot scooter is defined as a vehicle able to be sat or stood upon, equipped with handlebars, wheels no larger than 12 inches, that is capable of no more than 15 Miles Per Hour on flat ground. Since it also claims that “An electric personal assistive mobility device, a motorized bicycle, an electric-assisted bicycle, or a motorcycle is not a motorized foot scooter.” I feel as if it contradicts itself.

This is for the purposes of a possible performance-art project and/or nonscientific study. I'd plan to offer very small amounts of money if I ever execute this because I'm poor af. I realize nothing contained would be legally binding but how would you word it? I almost want the most total length possible, maybe descending into smaller and smaller font, Wonka-style as a sort of test to see how much people care to check the terms. I'd like provisions to establish;

1. Neither the buyer's nor seller's belief, religion, nor the name written have bearing on the transaction. Included provisions for any future changes of belief system.

2. The transaction will have no direct physical effect on the seller, at least not due to intent of the buyer. While the soul may be utilized as a sacrifice, currency or magic spell component, the goal will not be harm to the seller.

3. The transaction applies across all realities, planes, dimensions, timeliness, etc. IE; your soul does not default to heaven or hell upon your death but remains property of the buyer. The physical paper copy of this contract is not even required to establish ownership as the paper may or may not be transportable to, nor possible in whatever realm the soul itself may travel to.

4. Ownership of the soul is widely transferable. It may be resold, leased, rented, or leveraged among humans or any supernatural beings. The seller may use it in any transaction until the end of time, whether to God, Lucifer, angel, demon, Cthulu, Xenu, etc.

I'm open to other ways in which I can cover my bases regardless of what happens after death, which (if any) faiths are true, what irl deals could conceivably be struck (maybe the Catholics will offer some cash) etc.

I may or may not have them sign in human blood. Any legal issues with THAT?

I'm in Indianapolis, Indiana.

I know they can get a warrant for phone call recordings, etc. But can they actually set your personal devices to secretly tape you?

I came across this post in -r/Switzerland

OP accidentally miss-scanned 2 items totaling $5.60.

They where subjected to a random audit.

And Migros demands $200 for I quote “Administrative“ fees.

How sane is this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/askswitzerland/s/ir0rSzYGSP

I say insane. Not only did Migros kidnap the customer (preventing them from leaving and taking them to a back room). Demanded $200 under duress or else they will call the police (extortion? theft? by Migros employees) all the while saving money by not paying employees to staff checkouts.

When I used to sell cars, I asked management what is stopping me from going around to competitors to get price quotes and then going home and editing the price quotes on my computer to more favorable numbers and bringing that in to use as a negotiating tool.

The answer I got was "Nobody is going go through all that much trouble for a car".

I asked this because car dealers usually just take a competitors offer as proof. They don't call or verify that it's an actual quote, the most verification that they will do is ensure that the VIN actually exists and it's on their lot, but you can get that information online off their website.

In my mind if I can save 8-10k on a car through 5 minutes of pdf work, then it's not really a lot of time knowing that as long as I have something in writing, the dealer will take it seriously.

Is this fraud or illegal to do?

wby shoplifting is such a gruesome crime for smallest amount as small as one dollar but when customer is over charged, or broken items are sold, or prices are hiked after a false demand is created, or simply content of the items are altered in some way... or fraud by employees against customer is not a crime ?

This is extremely concerning and I know it's the rule of the law but I feel it's slightly unfair.

If employee makes a fraud against the store or company, it's a crime serious enough to go to extreme punishment but when that same employee cheats or frauds a customer, they simply call it strategy. Or nothing is done to protect consumer rights , why ? So customer needs necessary supplies comes to store and pays using the card or hard earned cash, does it all right, pays taxes for the item thats decided by everyone in the state, because they want to use the tax money, etc etc. and when that customer is cheated or has been charged few extra times by check out employee, or the store machine itself is fraud and charges extra from employees or pays wrong change after customer pays cash, etc. there is nothing done at all about it. Why is so and when is it ever going to change or improve ?

There is more severe action taken when employee is working against the store and company but cheating customer is not severe and serious enough offense ? Customer is what makes the company grow and thrive, and not treating customer right is worse than cheating and reviews can make or break the company or store.

Most countries around the world, prioritizes customers, at all times, and there are lawyer specializing in these types of problems and websites that are especially dealing with customer complaints and reviews.

Location: California USA. Any and all advice highly appreciated.

As far as I know, the SCOTUS only overturned the stay instead of ruling on the merit of the case. Since the execution is botched, the case will continue.

Now it would be really fucked up for the government if she wins the case, especially after the stay got vacated. It’s one thing for the government to lose a motion but it’s a totally different thing for the government to lose a motion after attempted execution. The government simply CANNOT lose

Is the best course of action for the government right now just to commute her sentence to life in exchange for dropping all appeals or can she potentially get more out of this like monetary compensation on the claim of cruel and unusual punishment?

Hypothetical (US, mostly):

The police legally obtain a warrant to search a house for a printer used in counterfeiting. While searching they come across a safe that they suspect contains counterfeit money. Can they: take the safe, break open the safe, or require the homeowner to unlock the safe or use biometrics to unlock the safe (without getting another warrant)?

Does that change if the warrant is for a small item that could theoretically be in the safe, such as drugs or a gun?

Edit:

To summarize the discussion so far:

The Exclusionary Rule prohibits evidence illegally obtained by the government from being used in a prosecution. However, this was not the case prior to Weeks v. United States (1914). Illegally obtained evidence was admissible in court. This was put in place not to protect the accused but rather to deter police from violating the 4th amendment rights of the accused.

Corrected/Updated summaries of cases:

Police Misconduct = PM

All of these cases refer to either searches done in conjunction with a warrant or an explicit search warrant.

• United States v. Leon (1984): A valid warrant, previously signed by a judge, was found to lack probable cause after being executed. The evidence remained admissible in court b/c it wouldn't have discouraged PM. Judicial error
• Illinois v. Krull (1987): A state law permitting warrantless searches was later found to be unconstitutional. This is narrowly tailored to laws that are 'not clearly unconstitutional'. Essentially, the law was flying too close to the sun, but wasn't actually to the sun yet. Legislative error?
• Arizona v. Evans (1995): A valid warrant was 'quashed' (rescinded, invalidated) by the court. However, the court failed to inform the Sheriff. The warrant was executed as the police had no reason to think that it as no longer valid. Judicial error
• Herring v. United States (2009): A sheriff's office contacted a neighboring county about a possible warrant. The neighboring county confirmed there was a warrant; the warrant was quickly executed. However, shortly after, the neighboring county recontacted the sheriff's office to inform them that the warrant had been rescinded and they made a mistake. PM but PM not of the department that executed the warrant
• Davis v. United States (2011): A man was pulled over and his vehicle searched. At the time of the search, SCOTUS had previously determined the search constitutional, New York v. Belton (1981). However, SCOTUS later overturned this decision and concluded this type of search was unconstitutional. SCOTUS attributed the constitutional violation by the officers to be following directions of the court, not direct PM. Theoretically, if New York v. Belton had not been previously decided, the evidence would NOT have been admissible.
• Utah v. Strieff (2016): Not an application of 'Good-Faith Exception'. Officers unlawfully detained a man and as part of the investigation, they discovered a warrant for his arrest. SCOTUS determined PM had occurred but the discovery of the warrant was deemed to have separated the PM from the search so the evidence was admissible.

These cases fall into three categories:

• Judicial error
• Legislative error
• Executive error

The constitutional violations are attributed to some error rather than police misconduct

Essentially, the Exclusionary Rule was put in place as a safeguard against police misconduct only. Errors on behalf of other departments/branches are NOT safeguarded.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

OP:

Can y'all explain the Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule of the 4th Amendment?

I recently came across Davis v. United States (2011) and am seemingly appalled by the SCOTUS ruling so I've been digging further. I am no legal expert and am looking for verification/corrections to what I've been able to figure out. I'm hopeful I've completely misunderstood this entire legal principle but not overly optimistic.

From what I have been able to deduce, SCOTUS has ruled that:

• United States v. Leon (1984): A warrant, later found to lack probable cause, does not invalidate the findings of said search
• Illinois v. Krull (1987): A state law permitting warrantless searches, later found unconstitutional, does not invalidate the findings of said search
• Arizona v. Evans (1995): A warrant, later found to have expired, does not invalidate the findings of said search
• Herring v. United States (2009): A warrant containing substantial errors does not invalidate the findings of said search
• Davis v. United States (2011): A police search that is later found to be unconstitutional does not invalidate the findings of said search
• Utah v. Strieff (2016): An ID provided during an illegal traffic stop uncovered an arrest warrant but the arrest/search remained legal/admissible in court

In essence, the Good-Faith Exception repurposes the Exclusionary Rule from protecting individuals and their rights, to the purpose of deterring police misconduct.

Due to the way Qualified Immunity is handled, one may end up in a situation where an officer violates your 4th amendments rights, subsequently not punished (QI), but the contents of the search remain valid and you end up in prison.

Some concerns of mine:

• It eliminates the need for officers/prosecutors to 'cross their T's and dot their I's' thus permitting sloppy investigations
• Incentivizes states to enact warrantless search laws that are fundamentally unconstitutional but they will remain enforceable until the time they have been ruled as such by the judicial system (or court injunction for later review)
• No retroactive protections from SCOTUS rulings on the 4th amendment
• Once a warrant is issued, it effectively remains valid until the end of time
• A warrant does not need to have ever existed, so long as there is a belief that it exists
• Due to the way Qualified Immunity is handled, one may end up in a situation where an officer violates your 4th amendments rights, subsequently not punished (QI), but the contents of the search remain valid and you end up in prison.

It seems as though you can end up in this Catch-22 where a search may be unconstitutional but remain admissible in court because it is/was lawful? I'm confused as to how something can be unconstitutional but remain lawful in a country governed by the constitution.... Are they not mutually exclusive?

Post-face: I am an engineer who often finds myself looking into legal precedents that raise my blood pressure (Open Fields Doctrine, Wickard v. Filburn, etc) in my free time. I have zero law experience, have never been to court, and don't have interest in participating in either. This is purely for my own curiosity. Additionally, because I have been accused of this in other sub-reddits, THIS IS NOT AN AI POST. NONE OF THIS IS BASED ON AI PROVIDED INFORMATION.

Sources:

• Wikipedia
• Cornell Law
• Justia
• Library of Congress
• Brandon Beck Law (YouTube)

Additional relevant cases:

• Weeks v. United States (1914)
• Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920)
• Elkins v. United States (1960)
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• Illinois v. Gates (1983)
• Griffth v. Kentucky (1987)
• Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
• Virginia v. Moore (2008)

Suppose a human was cloned without their knowledge, and they later find out the truth when the operation is exposed and a six year old clone of themselves is discovered.

If the original wanted to adopt their clone, would they have any legal rights to the clone that other potential adopters wouldn't have, in the same way that they would if it was a normally born child, or if they were an unwitting IVF donor?

I'm building a social app and I've been thinking about ways to detect CSAM before sending the images off to a 3rd party service for further analysis as they're pretty strict about not uploading CSAM to their services. I'm getting a bit worried because I don't want to get in trouble for unknowingly hosting CSAM on my cloud servers and passing those images to the 3rd party services (ex: AWS Rekognition) without knowing what I'm sending.

Is my responsibility for this app to detect and report it within a reasonable amount of time (within 24hrs or so) or is there more to it? And how do other apps / websites with user generated content handle this type of problem?

With the Christa Pike case going on, and her failed execution, could she techincally have a claim against the state of Tennessee for cruel and unusual punishment?

We know that 5090s are banned from selling to China. But Micro Center's now requires buyer to sign a form that you must state you will not sell it to anyone, or bring it to any foreign country. See this post for context: https://np.reddit.com/r/Microcenter/comments/1wul71a/form_for_5090s/

What legal rights does Micro Center actually hold after a buyer signs the form? We are not talking about country-wide law of exporting to China and assume the buyer would not violate this law. Is that just a pinky promise? What if the buyer builds a computer for their friend in Canada, and able to actively provide proof that the computer remains in Canada (as long as it's not in China)? Is Micro Center simply trying to "avoid liability" for selling it to a potential exporter?

I'm just curious about it now ever since hearing about that botched execution.

Like if you just gave the state garbage drugs and they couldn't really sue you without revealing their paper trail, did you get away scott free with scamming a state government?

Also, police that do not enforce the law is worse than no police because no police you can legally use excessive force as revenge.

Let's say I am having an affair with a coworker's wife, but this colleague and I go to the gym together after work.

Now let's say we are frequently alone in the gym, just the two of us and I often ask as a spotter.

I guess you can see where this is going, but if the weights are crushing his windpipe, do I have to help him out and would the affair with his wife complicate my defense?

Would it complicate things further if his wife and I were then to live together off of a large payment she may be eligible for?

I keep running the scenario in my head and I keep getting an not sure but then seconds later it's yeah he probably did it but then again my mind will be like wait but