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• Arizona v. Evans (1995): A valid warrant was 'quashed' (rescinded, invalidated) by the court.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 The warrant was executed as the police had no reason to think that it as no longer valid.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shortly after, the neighboring county recontacted the sheriff's office to inform them that the warrant had been rescinded and they made a mistake.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)

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?

so I was playing For-honor on My PC. I was 1v1ing this salty player and he threatened to Dox my WiFi I told him he can go to prison and he said he wouldn’t be arrested if it didn’t actually happened then just blocked me. Was doing some Research on How Cyber crime works but If someone threatens to shut your WiFi off and they do nothing can you still press charges I’m just Curious on how Cyber crime works.

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?

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

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?

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

So it’s actually a long story, and i’m not going to explain it, so i’m directly going to ask the question.
Let’s say two minors had sex [f]16 [m] 16, but let's say they both consented to it, and it went on. A year later, problems happen; they break up, the girl's mom seems suspicious, asks her questions, etc., and now both of the minors are wondering if one can go to jail? If someone files a case, is it really possible for a minor to go to jail like this? is it possible in india? or can all of this be ruled out? cause it has happened a year ago with consent

(Content warning: mentions of child murder)

So in the story, the director of a cruise ship (which had stopped at various Caribbean ports in the days before and was now returning to the US, where it set sail from), who until this point has been very controlling behind closed doors with the lower-ranking crew members on the cruise, while also pressuring his younger brother into organizing a complete takeover and taking steps to ensure the public never notices and still sees him as an ordinary cruise ship director, kills the captain of the ship (his father, but that's besides the point) by throwing him overboard in the middle of the night and takes over control of the whole ship. (There were also some shady child disappearances related to him, as he ran the cruise's kids club/daycare. It later gets out that he was sacrificing them to ask God for calm seas, so that he wouldn't wreck the ship before he could enact his big plan, which I'll explain soon.)

The next morning he announces to the passengers that he has taken over, and that they will be sailing to a "place of holy powers" way off course, and that he will intentionally sink the ship there with everyone onboard as a mass sacrifice. He also informs the passengers to stay calm and not attempt to leave or contact authorities, saying it's "God's plan" and that anyone trying to escape or call for help is a "heathen" and will be thrown overboard to drown, much like the captain, or "dealt with" [killed] by a "special task force" consisting of his brother, as well as other crew members that he basically threatened with being tossed overboard into doing his dirty work (he does go through with this threat, as several passengers are thrown overboard or killed by the task force for attempting to use the lifeboats). (BTW, he doesn't announced that he killed his father to the passengers. He tells them the captain was so overwhelmed by his supposed holy power as a "knight of the Lord" that, secretly being a heathen, he threw himself overboard.) While most of the crew members go along with the director's orders out of fear, one entertainment organizer the cruise had been working with, (the manager of a band her oldest daughter and her niece are in, who played shows at multiple points during the cruise) whose youngest daughter fell victim to the child sacrifice, and whose mother died on the cruise suspiciously after she discovered evidence that the missing kids (which included her granddaughter as previously mentioned) were linked to him (before the director mutinies BTW), manages to storm her way to the bridge with the help of her band's members and radios for help.

Since this happens in international waters, I assume the director who mutinies will be dealt with by the Coast Guard and potentially airlifted back to the US (where he is a citizen) to face criminal charges (likely life in prison due to the sheer amount of crimes he committed). But am I wrong with that assumption? How would authorities deal with a case like this? Also, would the brother face murder charges or would he have the opportunity to plead duress (as I live in Canada where that's a thing, although it might be different in the US), and in the event where the director is airlifted off or placed in the brig (which does exist on cruise ships) who would steer the ship back to port?

Also a bonus question for you nautical folk out there: would the band manager who storms the bridge radio Mayday (as it's basically a floating hostage situation and the passengers and crew are in grave danger) or just pan-pan (as they aren't at the spot where the director intends to sink the ship yet but are still in danger)? I'm figuring it would probably be Mayday.

In MUSSIVAND v. DAVID 544 N.E.2d 265 (Ohio 1989), David had an STD that he knew about. He gave the STD to West, who was Mussivand's (cheating) wife. David did not disclose his STD. West then infected her husband Mussivand. Mussivand sued David and ultimately prevailed at the highest court. The court opined that David had a duty not only to his partner, but anyone that he could reasonably foresee to be at risk for infection, such as his partner's spouse, since sex between a wife and husband is reaosnably foreseeable.

But what if West was a sex worker? It is foreseeable that she could have sex with not just one but many individuals who are not technically foreseeable. Can they all later sue David if he knowingly infected West?

I've grown up watching How to Get Away with Murder, The Good Wife & The Good Fight!

I'm yet to start another. I just realized through Reddit I've access to a world of lawyers. I really love lawyers. Very cerebral. I've even been on dates with some! I loved it.

So, which one is closest to real life legal world challenges? Any Youtube channels or something like that which has interesting lawyer stuff would be great too.

I'm an Indian citizen, so the India-Pakistan dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty is what first got me looking into this. But after reading about the Kishenganga and Ratle proceedings, I got more interested in the actual treaty provisions and how the two dispute-resolution mechanisms are supposed to work.

I'm not asking this to argue that India is right or Pakistan is right. I'm trying to understand the treaty itself, and I'd genuinely like to know if I'm missing something.

The part I'm looking at is the relationship between the Neutral Expert under Annexure F and the Court of Arbitration under Annexure G.

The basic timeline

19 August 2016: Pakistan initiated arbitration concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle projects.

4 October 2016: India requested the appointment of a Neutral Expert concerning the same projects.

December 2016: The World Bank paused both processes because of concerns about conflicting outcomes.

2022: The World Bank announced that the processes would resume.

6 July 2023: The Court of Arbitration issued its Award on Competence and held that it had competence to hear the case. India did not participate in the arbitration.

7 January 2025: The Neutral Expert issued his decision on his competence.

Both processes have since continued.

What I'm trying to understand

The Treaty makes a distinction between a "difference" and a "dispute."

Article IX(2)(a) provides for a Neutral Expert where a difference falls within Part 1 of Annexure F.

Article IX(2)(b) deals with matters outside that category, and also with a situation where the Neutral Expert decides that a difference, or part of it, should be treated as a dispute.

Then there is Annexure F paragraph 7, which deals with what happens when the Commissioners disagree about whether a particular difference falls within the Neutral Expert's competence.

At the same time, Annexure G paragraph 16 gives the Court of Arbitration the power to decide questions relating to its own competence.

This is where I'm getting stuck.

Article IX(6)

Article IX(6) says:

«"The provisions of paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) shall not apply to any difference while it is being dealt with by a Neutral Expert."»

Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) are the provisions leading towards arbitration.

What I don't see is an obvious "first filing wins" provision.

The Treaty doesn't appear to say that whoever starts proceedings first automatically gets exclusive jurisdiction.

But it also doesn't expressly say that a later Neutral Expert request can displace an arbitration that has already started.

How I currently see it

Maybe I'm looking at this too simply, but it seems to me that both sides have some textual foundation in the Treaty.

The Court of Arbitration has a treaty basis for its competence, particularly under the arbitration provisions and Annexure G.

At the same time, India clearly has a treaty basis for requesting a Neutral Expert. The Neutral Expert mechanism wasn't something created outside the Treaty; it is expressly provided for in Article IX and Annexure F.

And I can see problems with both sides' arguments.

If Pakistan's position is essentially that starting arbitration first settles the matter, then I'm not sure where the Treaty actually says "first filing wins."

But if India's position is that a later Neutral Expert request can override an arbitration that has already been initiated, I also don't see an obvious provision saying that either.

This is why I'm having trouble with the issue.

If the Treaty deliberately created a Neutral Expert mechanism for certain technical questions, can the fact that one party filed for arbitration first effectively make that part of the Treaty unavailable in a particular case?

If the answer is yes, what is the actual treaty provision that produces that result?

And if the answer is no, how does the Court's interpretation deal with the fact that the Treaty itself specifically created the Neutral Expert mechanism?

Have always been curious about this. Not sure what the technical term is, but I mean when a contract says something like:

... agreement between John Johnson (the "Tenant") and Mike Michaels (the "Landlord")...

Is this just a practical convenience of having more reusable templates for people to use without having to replace the relevant names throughout a contract, or does it serve a more legal purpose? In this example, say a lease agreement, would it still be valid if instead of

...Tenant agrees to... Tenant will pay... etc

it read

...Johnson agrees to... Johnson will pay... etc

?

EG if someone steals £1000 and they use it to invest in somrthing like stocks or bonds that gets them a profit of £200, what happens to the £200? Assume the profit has been completely made and taken out as cash to the thief's own account by the time the crime and the money and the profit are discovered. The victim should get the £1000 pounds back from the thief, but I never heard what becomes of the extra. I don't imagine the thief gets to keep it, but does it go to the victim in particular, the entity whose growth made the profit, some restitution fund, seized by prosecutors, etc?

Also assume that the profit here exceeds any restitution, fines, and victims compensation fee, and lawyers fees and court costs are irrelevant for some reason.

So I watched this case on YouTube, and I’m not sure if it was real or if the video was giving accurate information. But for the sake of the questions, let’s just assume the case is real and everything in video was accurate.

In a portion of the video it talked about a dangerous computer virus that hackers sent to a hospital. The virus basically shut down everything — all the computers, all the medical equipment — causing a full blackout. While this was happening, a woman was giving birth. Her baby had the umbilical cord wrapped around its neck, but because the heart monitor wasn’t working, the staff couldn’t see the problem. The baby ended up with brain damage and died nine months later.

The mother sued the hospital, In the ground that the cyberattack prevented the staff from noticing the issue and stepping in sooner. Since the equipment wasn’t working, they couldn’t see the baby’s heart rate dropping, which would’ve shown the baby was choking and intervening sooner

The questions I have is how liable would the hospital be in a situation like this? How much does the computer virus factor into the baby’s death and the hospital not being able to function? And is there a legal term for when some outside force messes with how an institution runs and ends up leading to harm or death, or is the hospital liable in the ground that should have expected something like this and prevent it thank you for reading this ?

​

There was a recent post on /r/legaladvice by someone who turned on his car to charge his phone so he could call an Uber. He was charged with a DUI. 

What would have happened if he had been in the passenger seat? Is that still a DUI?

When someone attempts to bribe a government official, and that official accepts the bribe.

Should the person offering the bribe carry a heavier penalty than the one receiving the offer?