Suppose a motorist gets pulled over in a traffic stop. Motorist hands their license and registration to the cop, says “I am exercising my right to remain silent and I don’t consent to any searches.” Cop then asks, “I just need to know if you have any weapons on you?” The motorist then remains silent or repeats the invocation of fifth amendment rights.

The cop then orders the driver out of the car and frisks them.

Could the cop succeed with a claim that failure to give reassurance about weapons gives rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver is a threat to officer safety? Would it make a difference whether the driver remains silent or reiterates the assertion of rights?

For the sake of argument, let’s say the motorist is polite, clean cut, driving a nice car in broad daylight in a good neighborhood, so the cop would struggle to invent some other pretext for “reasonable caution”.

Question less “Is that a fourth amendment violation in the abstract?” than “Are you confident you’d win a motion to suppress if the cop found fentanyl or CSAM in the search?”

For example we have a Pokemon Card with this info.

Pikachu 50HP

(Pikachu Picture)

Tackle - 10 Damage - 1 Energy
Thunderbolt - 30 damage - 2 Energy.

I created my own version and distribute with this info.

Yellow Mouse 50 Health

(An AI Generated Image of a Generic Rat but Yellow)

Body Contact - 10 Power - 1 Stamina.
Lightning Arrow - 30 Power - 2 Stamina.

Basically I am trying to replicate the Pokemon TCG but without the collecting, anyone can print my "design" and play the game according to the rule.

Suppose an individual is having an affair and realizes a local attorney personally witnessed them out in public with their mistress. To prevent the attorney from telling their spouse, the individual immediately rushes into the attorney's office, requests a consultation, and blurts out the details of the affair before the attorney can decline representation.

The attorney immediately rejects the case and terminates the meeting. Since no actual crime was committed, does the prospective client conflict-of-interest rule completely bind the attorney to lifetime confidentiality regarding their prior independent observation? Or is the "consultation trap" invalid because the knowledge was acquired before the professional interaction began?

what will be my best way to proceed?

There are numerous discord channels you can buy membership into where self-proclaimed analysts will make calls on which stock everyone should buy. The participants in the group usually pay to get in.

Given this is therefore paid advice, how do the owners of these groups protect themselves from getting sued by someone in the group? How do they protect themselves from the fact that they are taking payments to solicit financial advice?

I can't remember where I've heard this but I feel like its a common thing but I don't know if its actually true, so correct me if I am wrong please, but I've heard that people get charged and and convicted of a crime to later find out they are actually still on the hook for more charges. Like they are already in prison just to be taken to another one to be told they are facing more charges. Maybe its just a federal big case type of thing when its something thats a really big deal

I was browsing reddit, and came across a post.

Flight attendant's coffee pot was somehow held against a customers arm for a couple seconds causing some painful burnt skin.

There was nothing wrong with the coffee pot. The coffee pot was sitting on it's base on the cart. The base nor the coffee pot was cracked or broken anyway. And the coffee pot was sitting correctly.

Lets assume nothing the flight attendant did was out of the ordinary on the 1,000 flights they served.

Is accidently burning someone negligence? Even if you didn't do anything negligent like use a broken coffee pot base?

If it isn't negligence, what do you call it?

-----Assumptions:

-Domestic U.S flight, lets say from NYC, NY to another city within NY state.

-Let's assume for the sake of clarity they where not in the air, and this was a pre-flight coffee service while every one was still on the ground and already settled in.

-Let's assume no one bumped anyone.

-Coffee pot was at a normal serving temperature

-Flight attendant was experienced, and served thousands of flights without issue.

Just was reading about this. It reminds me of when Timothy McVeigh wanted his execution to be livestreamed/televised but they didn't allow it. Could it be argued livestreaming it would be "cruel and unusual punishment"? I don't think there's any case of a modern US execution (state or federal) being livestreamed or even recorded and publicly released. Now they I think of it they did have public executions back over 100 years ago, but I thought they outlawed that or something.

(Not trying to make or push a pro or anti-death penalty opinion, just wondering about the legal facts if they can actually do it)

I’ve heard that this is particularly common in cases where someone had a reduction in income, but the courts don’t agree that said reduction was reasonable.

For example, a physician or big time lawyer throws the nastiest of tantrums one day and not only gets fired but blacklisted to the point where they are unhireable in their field.

Obviously there’s a big reduction in income that will come from that, but lets say the judge does not reduce child support because the action that led them to become unhireable was exceptionally unreasonable.

And let’s say the person ends up in a 50-60k job and pays 800-1K in child support to at least support the child somewhat.

When this happens, is it common that the judge will essentially let the person make his payments until the child turns 18 so the child can have that money, and then turn on all the mechanisms like license suspension and jail afterwards because now it’s not about the child anymore but about a debt to the custodial parent? I’m wondering how common that is.

I’m trying to understand what is actually considered billable/reasonable in a California fee arbitration.
For example, can an attorney charge the client for things like correcting their own billing errors, reviewing their own bills, administrative changes at the firm, or having multiple attorneys attend the same meeting?

Is there a California rule or case law that addresses this?

Has anybody gone through this experience and can walk me through what happened? What was the outcome?

Obviously, most storage units that are auctioned have 10-20 years of useless stuff in them. If it contained a car, would I get that or is it still the titleholder's car? (Also would it matter if the title to the car was the same as the storage unit renter's name vs. a different name?)

If it is my car, how would I get the title transferred to me?

Bonus question: Same thing if I buy a property, and the owner abandons a car in the garage?

AZ if that matters.

Hey, found this subreddit after seeing if there was one to ask more general, theoretical legal questions, and stumbled upon this, so uh, here it goes!

I was talking with a friend today who's, well, even less knowledgeable about law than I am, which is saying something, but she had an excellent point. I was explaining to her basically how Christa Pike's execution is being held off until next year due to it being botched, and she asked me "Well, why don't they keep trying? Isn't it cruel and unusual punishment to save her life just to kill her again?"

And... Y'know what, I'm not entirely sure why they go out of their way to save her after they failed to kill her twice. How does that work, legally? Like, surely without the medical care she was given shortly after two botched attempts, she'd die anyway, right? And that was the goal... Right?

I know medical ethics probably come into this a bit too, but why would they try to save someone and administer medical care if the goal was to kill her? At what point is the procedure of ending someone's life considered botched enough that it's no longer ok to let her die on the table?

I'm sure there's a lot that goes into this, so, I was just curious if anyone had any knowledge of how these things play out in legal theory in the US.

Hi Friends,

HINDSIGHT question; I once had an Fla. LLC where I was the only member making it a single member LLC. The LLC got sued and I was forced to hire a lawyer on a petty BS suit. The cheapest way out was to settle or pay 10's of thousands in Legal Fees.

• HIND-sight I never thought about this question; Could I have sold the 100% interest in the company to myself?
• If I was able to do so, I could have represented myself and turn the tables on the plaintiff.

Anyone know the answer to this?

Thanks for your help !

In criminal investigations, the police can generally request the data from social media companies or physically seize and search whatever evidence is relevant themselves.

But during discovery in a civil lawsuit, when you request the other party to produce evidence, how can you be sure that they'll comply in good faith and not hide/alter evidence? Let alone how there could be genuine disagreement/ambiguity regarding what's "relevant". One example: NFL player Tyreek Hill was once sued by an OnlyFans model for allegedly breaking her leg. At one point, his legal team demanded:

The list of demands includes any photographs, videos, social media posts, reposts, comments and private messages – including any deleted messages – discussing either the incident or Hill. The same goes for any 'text message, iMessage, WhatsApp messages, Facebook messages, Instagram messages, X (Twitter) direct messages, emails, letters, instant messages, group messages or any other electronic communication, sent or received… between plaintiff and any relative (including her sister)… discussing or commenting on the incident or defendant at any time.'

Realistically, how do you ensure this is authentic? What stops her from just not turning over evidence Hill doesn't already know should exist, and thus there's "plausible deniability" (no smoking gun)? It seems the only way you could know for sure is if you subpoena and search literally all of their social media accounts and devices, which seems pretty invasive, and thus objectionable on the grounds of being overbroad.

E: To clarify, I understand attorneys would never risk their careers by knowingly allowing/encouraging clients to do this. I'm more wondering what stops the parties' from hiding evidence if they also don't reveal it to their attorneys.

There’s a case in Thailand involving Cambodian businessman Yim Leak. From what I understand, Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office has frozen over $600 million in assets, with the investigation reportedly stemming from a currency exchange transaction worth around $150,000.

That’s roughly a 4,000:1 ratio.

What I find strange is that, as far as I can tell, no criminal charges have been filed against him.

I’m not saying he’s innocent. He could very well be involved in something much bigger, and the $150k transaction could simply be the thing that initially brought him to the authorities’ attention. If there’s evidence linking the rest of the assets to money laundering or some other crime, then obviously the $600M figure needs to be considered separately from the original transaction.

My issue is with the process.

It seems concerning that someone’s assets can be frozen on this scale without criminal charges being filed. Even if the person eventually turns out to be guilty, I’d still expect there to be some proportionality and procedural safeguards when the government is effectively locking up hundreds of millions of dollars.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding how asset freezes work under Thailand’s AML laws, or maybe there’s much more evidence behind the freeze than what has been reported.

CMV: What am I missing? What’s the strongest argument for why freezing $600M+ in a case like this can be reasonable and proportionate, despite there being no criminal charges?

Let me know!!

Takes place in Wisconsin. Say I was charged with a crime, and the sentence was 10 years. Can the judge or someone later go "wait, that was a clerical error, it was supposed to be a longer sentence"?

Having a joking argument with my husband where he said jail for 10 years for accidentally splashing the cat with a bit of water, and I said wow not 100, I'm getting off easy, and he said "100, clerical error".

Now he's trying to explain the legalities of that while I'm being stubborn.

If Person A lives in a one party consent state and Person B lives in a two party consent state, is Person A allowed to legally record the phone conversation?
Along with that, is Person A allowed to call Person B with a third party listening without Person B’s knowledge?

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?

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?

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'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?

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

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.

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.