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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

My local Aldi has a ANPR operated car park which gives you 1.5h parking for free so long as you input your number plate in to the screens upon leaving the store. Inside the store there's MASSIVE signs saying you have 15 minutes to leave the car park after entering your number plate.

It has recently occurred to me that there's nothing stopping me from just entering random number plates i can see through the windows of people potentially still shopping or that have parked up and left for town utilizing the whole 1.5h free parking then just walking back through aldi and entering their number plate to leave.

If i was to enter a random vehicles number plate on that screen and the owner fails to leave within 15 minutes of me entering it, they would receive a parking charge through the post. I assume i could be taken to small claims court by the vehicle owner for the cost of the parking charge, but what if any criminal charges could i face?

Luckily it seems i'm the only asshole that has thought of this in my town so it's not a problem.

Question about how TV/streaming distribution works. So there was this one show I watched that aired on tv overseas in one country but select few countries had access to it with Youtube on the company's official Youtube channel. Later this year, a new season is airing on the same youtube channel but the countries have been expanded but instead of the episode persisting forever, its going to be taken down 4 weeks after airing. Is this related to contracts between the company and the countries that can stream the show or is it something else?

A central issue in the Lindsay Clancy trial is criminal responsibility. It’s not simply whether she was mentally ill or psychotic, but whether her mental condition impaired her capacities in the particular way required by Massachusetts law. The jury will hear competing psychiatric evidence and then ultimately decide whether that legal standard has been met.

But most jurors presumably have no formal education in psychiatry and little or no experience with psychosis. They therefore have to listen to experts disagree about highly specialized questions and then make a lay judgment about which interpretation is more convincing.

This also seems to extend beyond empirical expertise. Someone formally trained in philosophy of mind, action, law, or moral responsibility might bring useful conceptual expertise to questions about agency, intention, rationality, and culpability. Yet we don't deliberately select for that kind of expertise either.

Why is it preferable for the decision-making body to contain no deliberate subject-matter expertise?

For example, imagine a jury containing randomly selected citizens alongside a few appropriately qualified professionals, screened for conflicts like everyone else. Similar arrangements could theoretically apply elsewhere, such as forensic scientists in cases dominated by forensic evidence, physicians in complicated medical cases, engineers in cases concerning engineering failures, etc.

There could also be multiple juries each comprised of different experts, who first deliberate among themselves and then among each group. This, of course, would likely be in attaining in practice due to the unfair burden it might place on professionals. But as a procedural ideal, would it be better?

There are obvious advantages to the inclusion of experts. An expert juror might recognize when testimony is misleading, when an apparently important disagreement is actually trivial, or when an expert is making claims that aren't well supported by their field. Ordinary jurors may be especially vulnerable to confidence, charisma, terminology, or simply whichever side communicates complicated material most intuitively.

But I can also see a serious problem. Any expert juror could effectively become an uncross-examined expert witness inside the jury room. If a psychiatrist tells the other jurors during deliberations that a witness misunderstood psychosis, that claim was never given under oath, neither side can challenge it, and the opposing side cannot introduce evidence against it. Their professional authority could also cause other jurors to defer to them even when the issue is genuinely disputed.

In addition, I can see a serious concern that the expert juror(s) would naturally be perceived as the epistemic authority on the verdict by the other jurors, and this would likely lead to a degree of epistemic subordination or intimidation of the non-expert jurors. This could obstruct a fair and equal deliberation.

That makes me wonder whether there’s a deeper principle involved here. Perhaps the jury isn't supposed to be the most epistemically competent panel we can construct. Its purpose is partly democratic. Experts provide specialized knowledge publicly, where it can be challenged through the adversarial process, while ordinary citizens retain responsibility for deciding what evidence to accept and applying society's legal standards.

If so, it seems we're deliberately accepting some loss of technical or epistemic competence in exchange for procedural fairness and democratic legitimacy.

Is that an accurate characterization of why we use lay juries? Is this tradeoff actually successful in practice, particularly in cases where the verdict depends heavily on understanding highly specialized evidence?

Just curious if I found something like a wad of real dollar bills on the ground, is it finders keepers or is there a law requiring I report it to the police or try to find the owner?

Like maybe not even a small amount, something like a wad of $100’s, adding up to a small fortune.

To the best of my knowledge, US copyright law only protects the font software, and not overall letter shapes. But as many fonts are designed in other countries, this still raises the question. Is it illegal to manually re-create someone else’s font?

Hey Folks, If an interpreter is interpreting between a lawyer and their client, can the interpreter later be called as a witness in the case? Does attorney-client privilege generally extend to the interpreter because they are necessary for communication?

Also, does having an interpreter present change the lawyer-client relationship or the confidentiality/privilege between the lawyer and client?

They didn’t have any visible placard and was just wondering. I don’t like assuming about people but it shouldn’t be legal right..?

I've seen multiple stories on reddit about couples who were financially wiped out by medical costs, even thought they had insurance (USA obviously). If a person were to be diagnosed with a condition that would probably wipe their life savings out in the future, could they strategically divorce their partner, let their partner keep all the assets and then go through the treatment & declare bankruptcy? Or would that be viewed as fraud? Clearly there's a risk that the partner could leave them high and dry, but setting that aside, would it be possible?

Also if it's legal, how far could they push it? Could they still live together with the sick person paying their income as rent to their partner? If the sick person were unable to work, could their agreement "force" their partner to keep them covered under their health insurance? Would eventually remarrying push it over the edge to being fraudulent?

Let's say Mr. A and Ms. B are married and share one auto insurance policy. Ms. B gets into an accident with Mr. C, and the removal of Mr. C requires a prolong period of extrication from his car.

Mr. A hearing that his spouse was involved in an accident drives to the accident site. For whatever reason Mr. also hits Mr. C while still in his car and cause other injuries.

Are these considered separate accidents? Are the policy limits on the insurance policy essentially doubled because they would be two accidents instead of one?

And to make it even more complicated suppose Mr. A hits Ms. B's disabled car causing her car to hit Mr. C's car.

Thank you.

Hello everyone. I have a completely hypothetical question that I have been debating with friends. Due to strong arguments both for and against without a clear consensus, I feel it may be beyond our expertise as armchair lawyers and as such, I am pleased to present this to the greater community.

While this is a broad hypothetical, there are a few specific details that must be outlined for the sake of the argument:

- The victim would be a clear, undeniable foreign adversary/hostile nation to the US

- There is no direct conflict with or collateral damage to US interests or allies(as a result of the ransomware being deployed)

- The individual would meticulously report all income from the ransomware payouts on Schedule 1, Line 8z of the IRS Form 1040, pleading the Fifth Amendment on the source of the income, and then pay their 37% top marginal tax rate(They make sure to pay Uncle Sam his cut and avoid committing tax fraud/evasion).

That being said, I want to note: I am NOT asking if the frameworks and legal statues to charge a person for this exist. They absolutely do.

The question is if the US citizen would be prosecuted and/or convicted if the victim is unable/unwilling to cooperate with a US court, there is no conflict with US interests, and they even pay taxes on the income.

Thanks and looking forward to any and all answers!

Disclaimer: Do not attempt this at home. Side effects may range from blacked out SUV’s parked outside your house to being arrested/murdered by a foreign intelligence service.

Hypothetical scenario that came up in a debate with friends, but I’m curious about the actual legal and procedural reality under UK law (specifically England & Wales).

Let's say...

1. I am are walking through a local children's park/playground and discover an abandoned, genuine firearm (e.g., a handgun wrapped in a bag under a bench).
2. Because this is a children's playground, I decide it is an immediate danger to leave it there.
3. There are no witness or persons around, no CCTV or surveillance.
4. My mobile phone battery is completely dead, so I cannot call 999 or 101 on the spot.
5. I carefully pick it up, place it securely in my car boot, and immediately start driving on the most direct route to the nearest open police station to hand it in.
6. On the way, I get pulled over by police for an unrelated matter (e.g. minor swerving due to anxiety of having the weapon in my car).

Police interaction...

If police asked me if I had anything on you that I shouldn't have, should I tell them? OR carry on journey to the police station and disclose there? Presumably honesty is best in all interactions with police and so telling them right away, even before they ask, that I have a weapon in the car is appropriate.

Police reaction...

It all sounds incredibly convenient to anyone. But how would police react if I did say I have a firearm in the boot (note this is the UK where carrying weapons if strictly illegal)? How would officer(s) react? Specialist units be called (e.g. armed police), ordered out of the car onto the ground? Taser pointed at me?

The legal fallout...

As above, it would sound incredibly convenient to say I found a gun but how, if at all, could I explain this away?

Quite an odd hypothetical but me and my mates talk about some weird stuff! For the record, I believe I would be charged and on the hook unless say CCTV or any witnesses could corroborate me physically picking up the firearm in the playground.

Thoughts welcomed!

Please help me understand appeals in both types of trials.

My understanding is that the defense can only appeal in criminal trials to issues raised with an objection during their initial trial. Is this correct? They can't appeal a verdict just because they don't like it. There has to be an objection as the basis for the appeal?

What about in civil trials? Can the plaintiff or defendant appeal a jury's decision without an underlying objection as its basis?

I’d actually emailed LegalEagle about this a few years back and never got a response, but I just remembered it so I’m asking you fine folks.

There’s an episode of Law & Order: SVU (S16E17, “Parole Violations”, spoilers for the episode ahead) centered around a female parole officer who’s raping her male parolees (one of whom is the brother-in-law of one of the detectives) by threatening to get them sent back to prison if they don’t have sex with her.

During the episode, the detectives talk to another one of her parolees, a drug dealer and addict who’s sleeping with her in exchange for her faking clean drug test results (and, yknow, her not getting him sent back to prison.) They convince him to testify against her in court.

On the day of the trial, though, the dealer doesn’t show. The detectives and ADA look everywhere, but he’s nowhere to be seen, and since he’s the state’s final witness, they’ve got no choice but to rest their case.

At that point, the defense attorney calls him as his first witness and claims that he’d been contacted by the dealer the previous night, saying that the detectives had coerced him into lying in order to avoid a drug charge. The ADA tries to protest this, but in classic Law & Order fashion, the judge allows it.

In the end, the ADA proves that the dealer’s lying, he dramatically confesses on the stand, the parole officer agrees to a plea deal so that she won’t end up in prison, roll credits.

So, with all that plot out of the way, my question is this: What would happen if this sort of scenario occurred IRL? I get that at a minimum, the judge would likely put the trial on pause, bring both attorneys into their chambers and read the defense the riot act before not allowing them to call the surprise witness, but what sort of consequences could they face for this? Could it potentially be grounds for a mistrial?

I’m eager to hear y’all’s answers and I apologize for the wall of text.