Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
Some people believe that there’s always a way out of even the trickiest of situations, and in many cases, they are right. Numerous individuals have found themselves looking for loopholes to get out of certain pickles, be it in school, at work, or even in a courtroom.
The latter is what members of the ‘Ask Reddit’ community recently discussed, when one of them, a netizen going by the name of ‘Meme_Collector_GG’, addressed the lawyers in the group. The redditor asked them what has been the wildest loophole they’ve ever seen exploited in a courtroom that succeeded, and the respondents shared quite a few of them, which you can find on the list below.
This post may include affiliate links.
#1
There was one guy who owed $464 million in bond and his lawyers said he couldn’t pay it and didn’t have the money to pay it. He then went on to say he did in fact have the money but didn’t want to pay it so they appealed hoping to lower it. The day of the deadline, a court announced they’d be lowering the bond to $175 million. It was a crazy loophole, he escaped consequences.
Robert T 1 year ago
I live in hope that one day he will have to bend down to pick up the soap in the prison shower.
Scary Laugh 1 year ago
Time for my regular reminder that in English this guy's name means "fart".
Deb Johnston 1 year ago
The court did not accept the $175 Million. The unnamed person has to attach a financial statement to this bond. A bond that he owes on financial fraud.
shankShaw deReemer 1 year ago
He's just saying he has the 474 million to save face. He'd never want to say he was not as rich as he lies...I mean claims.
RELATED:
#2
I got in a no injury car accident, gave the cops my insurance which had both my name and my dad's name. I'm a male with a name that is normally a females name. Cop wrote the ticket to my dad because he assumed who I was by names on the insurance. When I went to court to pay the fine, the judge told me I couldn't represent my dad. When I explained that he was living very far away from the accident and I was the driver, the judge said well you have no ticket, and your dad obviously wasn't the driver, so case dismissed.
Pam 1 year ago
Not a loophole. Legally, if an Officer makes a critical error while issuing the ticket it must be dismissed.
madbakes 1 year ago
I thought so too. Clerks at the courthouse thought so too; they told me to talk to a judge. Judge doesn't care, and then I had to pay a fine plus $300 in court costs.
Load More Replies...
Kare Deter 1 year ago
The daughter of a coworker was in an accident in her father's car. When he got the police report the driver was listed as my co-worker who wasn't even there (19 year old female vs 50+ male), and in the description of the accident he somehow hit himself. Like everything that could possibly be incorrect was incorrect. It was a nightmare to straighten out.
DeoManus Argentem 1 year ago
Why would they write the ticket out to the name on the insurance and not the name on the drivers license? Imagine, borrow/rent a car and now you're immune to traffic laws.
Bookworm 1 year ago
That doesn't even work if it was the rental company's fault. My sister got a ticket in a rental car because it turned out Hertz hadn't registered or inspected the vehicle. Driver is still responsible.
Load More Replies...
Stephen Lyford 1 year ago
HA, nice! I once got a parking ticket in a neighboring town (too close to STOP sign, what a load of ****). EXCEPT, whoever wrote the ticket put AM instead of PM. I challenge it in court, I tell them I live 2 towns over, I work at home, I'm not even out of bed until after 8 AM (ticket was for like 7:30), my car is always in my driveway, and I wasn't anywhere near there at that time. They asked me if I worked near there (nope), have friends or relatives near there I'd be visiting (nope), yada yada yada. Asked me everything EXCEPT if I actually parked there in the PM instead. I never lied, but I wasn't about to volunteer that info. DISMISSED.
Catlady6000 1 year ago
They both drive the car. My daughter is added driver on mine and she doesn't even live with me. She does drive my car sometimes
Load More Replies...
#3
From LegalEagle , not a loophole but more a grievous malpractice:
Some lawyers tried to use ChatGPT to write their brief. The language model hallucinated and invented court cases and references. They filed it anyway.
Opposing party candidly asked the judge : "We don’t seem to be able to find the mentioned cases in any of the legal databases. Could they please provide sources?"
Judge frowned. Lawyers sweated , tried to play dumb and asked for time while they used again ChatGPT to write the fake cases. Judge was not amused. They got fined and humiliated.
Eric Brown 1 year ago
I love that Legal Eagle episode. I definitely felt Fremdschämen for those lawyers.
Guess Undheit 1 year ago
Clerks writes legal briefs for scumbag lawyers. Clerks are effectively lawyers (same knowledge) but get paid $10/hour while those scumbag lawyers charge clients $200-600/hour. They were so cheap they wouldn't even pay the clerk. Those chumps should lose their licenses.
Foffy Skrimshaw 1 year ago
Depending on what chatGPT has fed into it. It could be court cases from tv shows where the script is part of the training, or any legal literature that may have fake cases
#4
I'm not a lawyer, but this was a fun one to watch:
Someone received a speeding ticket on Main Street in Ann Arbor. He proves that 85% of drivers on that road drive faster than the speed limit and argues that the limit was improperly set under Michigan's anti speed trap law. Judge agrees and ticket is thrown out.
If everyone speeds, nobody does!
Savannah greenleaf 1 year ago
I agree I believe it is not generally an illegal act to keep up with normal flow of traffic.
Andrew Keir 1 year ago
it is in the UK, over speed is over speed full stop.
Load More Replies...
arthbach 1 year ago
The problem here lies with the road designers. People normally drive to the conditions, not the speed limit. It the road was made narrower, or bends added, if trees were added to the road side, or other visual obstacles put in place, the average speed would automatically lower.
Xenia Harley 1 year ago
I once had a judge agree with me that a lane was confusing. A bunch of people (unbeknownst to me) had gotten tickets the same day as me, and another person was pleading their case, when someone else said they got the same kind of ticket. I piped up and said so did I and I had photos of the lane. The judge said bring the pictures up to the bench. He was, like, "Yup, this photo shows it's confusing, and this one. This photo shows the policeman's point." He said, take this one back, and then threw out all the tickets we all got that day, saying it was confusing. (I don't think the cop showed up for court that day.) Like five people were in court with those tickets, and the judge even asked if there was anyone else there with that same ticket. (For the same offense.) Best day ever in a courtroom!
Dick Fint 1 year ago
As an ex-LEO and TAI, it's all good until something does happen. I regularly watch traffic here in FL where a great many people are much better drivers than newcomers and visitors. As the locals are streaming over the road 10-15 over, being familiar with the area and road conditions, all it takes is one individual who is unskilled in semi-rural area driving, or just kinda lost, and a low speed fender bender turns into a multi car debacle. What really gets me is when the kiddie car drivers are being passed on the right even by mini scooters, and they are still too ignorant of their danger to move to the slow lane.
Geoffrey Scott 1 year ago
Brother of a guy I work with is a Mich Sherrif deputy. The AVERAGE speed on a busy 2 lane road in rural Mich is 73. He gets the ones breaking the average, but there are SO many. (115 if you want to know). This particular road is a SE to NW route...horrific accidents due to people coming in on an angle.
#5
Not me, but a professor I had, who specialized on advocacy for victims of human trafficking (basically, helping victims of trafficking avoid deportation).
A salon was raided in connection to a suspected human trafficking ring. The tip turned out to be good, multiple people were arrested, and several victims were taken into custody.
Among them was a 4 year old boy. None of the victims knew him, "he helped clean the salon." Traffickers wouldn't fess up as to where he came from. *The kid didn't know his own name, where he was from, where his parents were, or where they were.* When the judge asked the kid for his name, he replied "Spiderman!" When they asked for his *real* name, he told them "Peter Parker!" Yeah, you get the idea.... anyway, prosecution wanted him gone because he was in the US illegally. Not sure where prosecution thought he'd get sent, but whatever.
Now here's a neat thing.... there's a federal statute on refugee eligibility. This particular statute hadn't been cited in over 60 years, but for all intents and purposes was still good law. The statute on question basically says, "if a victim of human trafficking is an unaccompanied minor is under X age and does not know their country of origin, they are to be granted asylum immediately, no court discretion." Now I have to emphasize, this law hadn't been used in literal DECADES, and was effectively forgotten by courts and legislature as a past relic that somehow slipped through immigration reforms over the years. But it was still valid.
My professor intended to cite this statute. The prosecutor was terrified of creating new case law, and offered to drop charges if this statute wouldn't get brought up. Professor agreed, bc client's interests.
In a strange twist of fate, the prosecutor died, and the newly assigned prosecutor said he would not honor any preexisting deals. Prof is like, "fine, let's make some case law!" New prosecutor panics and asks to go back to the original deal, which is accepted.
I suppose it's not a loophole, but very interesting IMO.
Savannah greenleaf 1 year ago
Terrifying thought of a child alone and cannot even give a name.
Load More Replies...
Kristin Burggraf 1 year ago
It would have been brilliant to set new case law - it would mean saving thousands of lives...
Featherking 1 year ago
Am I being crazy here; isn’t that a law you’d desperately want to KEEP? A very, very good thing? Am I reading this wrong…?
ConstantlyJon 1 year ago
Damn I wish they would've created some new case law. Would have been both in the child's interest along with so many other children.
Crouching hippo hidden panda 1 year ago
Horrifying that so many grown adults in this case were so completely unsympathetic to such a young victim. Ffing horrifying. Hope he’s safe and happy now
DragonofMordor 1 year ago
Good outcome. Trafficking victims can apply for T-visas. I wonder when this was. Usually immigration courts will pause the case to give trafficking victims time to apply for a visa.
arthbach 1 year ago
If there is a federal statute regarding this situation, how can case law be made?!
DragonofMordor 1 year ago
I'm guessing the wording of the statute probably has multiple interpretations. So case law would define what that statute means. And a super sympathetic case like this is more likely to get judges to create case law that interprets the statute broadly.
Load More Replies...
#6
Anti LGBT laws in Hungary missed a comma, which changed the whole meaning. The intent was that all books with a gay character should be wrapped in foil and sold separately from other books. The actual law was that if the books are sold separately from other books, they should be wrapped. Book store was fined, they went to court and win, their huge fine was dismissed .
Carla Phillips 1 year ago
"I noticed a comma on the middle of a phrase, it changed the meaning, did you intend this?" Angelica
Nads Whatever 1 year ago
Bolsominion, vai para a Hungria! Brazil’s former ultranationalist president Bolsonaro tried to hide in the Hungarian embassy after local authorities took his passport.
#7
Not a loophole, but a fun one just the same.
The Defense witness destroyed my case. Destroyed it. I was going to lose.
I had just one question:
"Didn't you offer to sell your testimony to my client?"
Answer: "Yes, but we never came to an agreement."
We settled in the hall after the Defense attorney quickly asked for a recess.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago
I'm actually troubled by this. Defendant has an alibi: he was seen by Witness away from the crime (for instance). Defendant seeks Witness to clear his name. Witness says, "I'll do it, but it'll cost you." Defendant TURNS DOWN offer. Witness testifies anyway. Now defendant gets convicted?
Load More Replies...
#8
I racked up parking tickets in law school, only to find out that the district had changed but the signs were never removed. The street behind the school was in a different district-one with no time limit on parking. The neighbors didn’t want students parking for hours on end so they treated it as de facto timed parking.
I defeated the tickets but only after the contentious hearing where the hearing office asked me why I thought it was ok to park wherever I wanted despite the signs. I said the signs don’t matter if they’re not legal and he said enforcement (meter maids) go by the signs, not the map. I asked if I could just put up signs wherever I wanted to not have people park and they would enforce it? He didn’t have answer for that one…
It really bothered me that the school made a big deal about getting a dispensation on parking time during exams, because the exams were an hour longer than you could park.
#9
Heard of at least one case where the defendant was charged with carrying a loaded firearm without a license, but the count had to be dismissed because it turns out the dumba*s had loaded it with the wrong caliber bullet. The police lab tried repeatedly to get the gun to fire in the range using the defendant's bullets, but even they couldn't make it work. So technically the firearm didn't count as "loaded" under the statute. It wasn't quite case dismissed, because there was a lesser charge that still applied to an unloaded firearm, but it was a much less severe charge.
Not sure if that's a "loophole," but it's one of the funnier and more harmless get-out-of-jail-free cards I've seen.
P1 No-Name 1 year ago
Harmless? Maybe no crime was committed but there was intent, surely? I hope the gun was confiscated at the very least.
Ken Beattie 1 year ago
Intent would depend on what he planned to do with the gun. Intent can also be hard to prove, unless there is plenty of additional evidence.
Load More Replies...
Papa 1 year ago
I'm calling BS on this one. There no way a lab would attempt to fire a gun with the wrong caliber ammunition.
madbakes 1 year ago
I doubt the lab would be involved at all in a case like this. I agree.
Load More Replies... Andrew Keir 1 year ago
Here in UK (and throughout my time in the Forces) a gun is 'loaded' if it's closed. Contents of the magazine / chambers (and state of safety switch) aren't apparent to onlookers so are ignored. Makes life simpler, no guessing.
Strings 1 year ago
There have been a few game warden incidents where they find you traveling in the woods (weapon is supposed to be unloaded), and they ask to check... and have a round in their hand. Had it happen to a friend: he was carrying a 16 gauge, shell in the garden's hand was a 12 gauge
Savannah greenleaf 1 year ago
Well that could have been a horror story. Some individuals cannot be trusted to tie their own shoes let alone be in possession of a firearm. Sounds like that individual needs to stick to shoelaces.
Kare Deter 1 year ago
You are giving him too much credit. I think shoelaces would be too complicated. Velcro strips or slip-ons are more his speed.
Load More Replies... #10
IANAL but two come to mind.
For a period of time in my state if you got a speeding ticket you could have a hearing and request the radar technician to testify that the equipment had been calibrated correctly. Given that there were only two technicians qualified in the state they basically never showed up, and the ticket would get thrown out.
Another - a local cop got charged for catching the wrong size fish, basically poaching. Since he lied to the game officer in his statement, all prior convictions that relied on his testimony became easy appeal cases.
Stephanie Did It 1 year ago (edited)
ALWAYS examine your citation for errors. I took mine to court and pointed out to the judge that the address shown for the violation was not valid. He left the bench, consulted the city map on the adjoining office wall, and dismissed the ticket on the grounds that the address didn't exist. I have no idea what the officer was thinking when he wrote it. Another one: I was driving on a stretch of road that had a fairly low speed limit. Suddenly, a police officer ON FOOT jumped off the curb to stand in front of my car, waving his arms and gesturing for me to pull over, which I did in a very shaken state. He wrote me a speeding ticket. When I described the stop to the judge, including the way the officer endangered himself and me as well as other drivers in addition to his literally "eyeballing" my alleged speed, the ticket was dismissed.
The Other Guest 1 year ago
I wish I'd had the courage to do so when I was a lot younger. According to the ticket I got, I was doing 75 in a 65 zone, driving a Ford Mustang registered in my name. While I don't know the exact speed I was going - I didn't look at the speedometer when I got pulled over - I do know that it made a horrible noise when you went faster than 60, so yeah probably not doing 75. Also it was a Ford Pinto registered in my parent's name. Oh! And the cop also wrote that I was "crossing lanes." Well, yeah, dumbass, I had to cross lanes to get to the shoulder and pull over safely. Was I supposed to stop in the middle of the highway? It's been more than 40 years and I'm still bitter & mad at myself for not fighting it.
Load More Replies...
FrogMan 1 year ago
There HAS to be a better way to abbreviate “I am not a lawyer” than IANAL, right? Right??
Caramello 1 year ago
Oh, I thought it meant "I Admit Not A Loophole". I hate these all caps abbreviations sometimes
Load More Replies... Adrian 1 year ago
I got out of a couple by requesting a hearing and the cop not showing up. However, one time I got a worse fine because he did. As we left the hearing he smiled at me and said, "Race you to the next light?"
Aidan Pite 1 year ago
One time while crabbing with a GF, after catching a few nice big ones, we realized that while we had checked them for legal SIZE we hadn't checked for legal SEX... fortunately A) we were not being checked by a fish and wildlife officer we had realized our screwup on our own and B) they were all male, so even if we had we'd have been okay. Always make sure your catches are legal, folks.
Carla Phillips 1 year ago
I love the disclaimer at the beginning! I think i would type out in not a lawyer instead of proclaiming IANAL in all caps, but then again my mind stays in the gutter
Nicola Mawson 1 year ago
I once went through two cameras that were so badly calibrated I would have had to drive at a supersonic speed for a short while and then slam on anchors. Wrote to the prosecutor. Never heard back, but the tickets vanished
iBlank 1 year ago
I got a speeding ticket once as I was walking into my house. The officer apparently caught me speeding several miles away and followed me home, but didn't turn on his lights/siren until long after I parked. Then the cop wrote 20 over and 25 over on the same ticket. The trap was on a country road, far from any people/buildings, at a dip between two long hills. I, like many people, coasted through the dip to save gas. I was blown away when the judge actually fined me for 25 over, despite the situation, the error in the ticket and the cop no showing in court.
#11
Criminal defendants charged with stealing an item must be charged with stealing an item FROM someone. That someone must be a legal entity.
I once represented a guy who was charged with stealing dog food. He was homeless and trying to feed his dog. Needless to say, I was sympathetic, so I was willing to pull something of a dirty trick for him.
I queued him up for trial. As soon as the first witness was sworn in, I moved to dismiss. The entity he was charged with stealing from? “Wal Mart.” That is not a legal entity. I think the real name was Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. or something.
Case immediately dismissed. Since a witness had been sworn in, double jeopardy prevented them from trying him again.
General Anaesthesia 1 year ago
I doubt this. If you represented the guy and used this defense, you'd also know the name of the store, no "I think" about it.
Vix Spiderthrust 1 year ago (edited)
Clearly this is horseshit. If the first part of this were true then the second part would be false - it wouldn't be double jeopardy because stealing from "Wal Mart" and stealing the same thing from Wal-Mart, Inc would be two different crimes. Someone's knowledge of the law was gleaned from the film Double Jeopardy
#12
Marvel successfully argued that mutants are not people so X-men action figures get a cheaper tariff.
Kira Okah 1 year ago
Not "not people", they argued that they weren't human, case failed several times but succeeded in 2003. It's because human toys were considered dolls and nonhuman toys as toys, which commanded different tariffs. The tariff law has since been changed and both dolls and toys are charged the same rate. Yes, the argument that the X-Men (and the Fantastic Four) were not human did raise a lot of "WTF?" at the time, givn that the point of the comics is that they absolutely are human.
#13
Still in law school but I'm amazed at how few loopholes there are; I'm always on the lookout but there's usually some catch-all, some provision, some exception, some countervailing doctrine that prevents it. The closest thing I've found to a clear loophole is that some items are exempted from the list of what can be seized to satisfy a judgment against you, but without specifying a maximum value. Like under NY's CPLR 5205, even though exempt books can't exceed $500 in value, "religious texts" have no such limit, so theoretically, if you invested all your money in expensive rare bibles, they couldn't be taken no matter what.
Dragons Exist 1 year ago
Technically I could say any book (like Harry Potter) is part of a religion of I say it is and pretend to believe in it
BumbleBloom 1 year ago
Hmmm bibles you say? Like the ones being sold by a certain person whose name rhymes with chump?
michael Chock 1 year ago
My next business, selling solid gold bibles to rich incompetants and criminals.
#14
Friend was pulled over for expired plates driving his Mom’s car. Got a ticket. Friend went to court, tried to argue his case, but was told he can plead guilty or innocent, and no deal on a lesser charge was offered.
So he pled innocent, and went to trial. (Side note: this guy is brilliant. Studied physics in college, worked with reactors for a bunch of years, then gave up his high income job to go to law school.)
In court during the short trial, the friend argued his ticket for expired plates is a tax violation, rather than a moving violation, and no one can be held liable for another person not paying their taxes. Somehow the judge agreed. Tossed the ticket, and thereby forced the district attorney to cancel the tickets of several other people who received tickets for similar violations.
I was told law makers were forced to rewrite the law 6 months later.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago
Not buying it. The issue isn't being responsible for "taxes" for expiring plates, but operating that car on the public's roadways. I can imagine a slow-witted DA getting caught by surprise by a novel argument; I can't imagine him conceding all future cases.
Bruce Scheiman 1 year ago
I'm 💯 % with you. Not buying this story for a second. Like MR said, it's guilty or not guilty. Not I plead innocent.
Load More Replies...
Svenne O'Lotta 1 year ago
They said their friend was a genius, not them 😆
Load More Replies...
#15
Wild loopholes aren't really a thing, but what is a thing that I've seen a lot is judges knowing absolutely NOTHING about a particular area and being convinced to make a blatantly wrong decision by a quack expert because they don't understand the expertise of the actual, real qualified expert and therefore cannot be appropriately convinced by it.
To give a general example of where this type of thing comes up, quack experts have caused judges to send people to prison for serious crimes because they present bunk statistics that sound really convincing that the chance of this person being innocent is like 0.000001%, and the judge (or jury) doesn't understand statistics so they're convinced by that.
Scott Rackley 1 year ago
Like the judge who ruled against mifeprestone. I'm sure he knew the expert was full of it, but it gave him the cover to go with his fundie religion.
#16
Not a lawyer but I once got a ticket for having my dog off leash at a park in Denver while the park rangers let the other offender go with a warning because they felt bad the dog only had 3 legs. I successfully argued that my rights had been violated under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment that requires law enforcement to provide a reliable reason for treating similarly situated people differently. We both had dogs, both off leash, in the same park, at the same time, stopped by the same officers in a single interaction. The law does not exempt 3 legged dogs from being on a leash so they were forced to throw my ticket out.
Verena 1 year ago
As a volunteer ranger in our nature parks I see enough horrible damage done by dogs whose owners are too entitled to follow the "on leash at all times"-rule. We have dedicated areas in the woods for dogs to play, and the entire beach, so no reason for complaints. But I don't see a three legged dog hunting a deer, about to giving birth, and pull the fawn out of her by force and kill it.
Natasha Arruda 1 year ago
I'm sorry but a three legged dog could absolutely do that, you're just less likely to see a three legged dog because people tend not to adopt and or are more likely to put to sleep than do the expensive amputation surgery. However, the scenario you mention is one of a couple reasons why my dogs are always leashed, since they're a beagle, dachshund, hound mix and I don't want them to potentially hurt little critters. I was devastated when my boy broke his lead and killed a woodchuck once.
Load More Replies...
Blue Bunny of Happiness 1 year ago
Farmers have the right in England at least to shoot a dog if it’s worrying livestock. The stress can cause sheep to miscarry. Living in a rural area, every year we get an influx of tourists who can’t comprehend that their dog needs to be on a lead when in a field with livestock (usually sheep here) and who then complain on social media when a farmer tells them to put their dog on a lead.
Scott Rackley 1 year ago
Yeah, I would have ticketed you both. Keep your damn dog on a leash unless it's a dog park. Check the rules even then.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago (edited)
Sen. Edwards, a vice presidential candidate, was found innocent of paying hush money to a stripper. Despite soliciting the funds from donors through a campaign team, he argued that they were "personal gifts" and not improper funds because his motive was sparing his dying the wife the grief of knowing he had cheated on her. The federal court basically found that paying hush money to a stripper was legal if the prosecution couldn't prove that influencing the election was an intent, even though the payments were made during a campaign season by campaign staffers.
#17
Not a lawyer, but in my court case my attacker talked and talked and talked for over 36 hours combined until the judge was just fed up and dismissed it all. So, I guess if you just make the judge bored enough, you win.
Tucker Cahooter 1 year ago
That guy sounds a natural for the Senate, they would do great at filibusters
Realistic Optimist 1 year ago
Not sure the country, but most legal systems have pretty clear ways to handle things like this. If it's the US, you can't just talk forever. Judge would tell you to get to the point or sit down, and you either listen or get held in contempt of court.
weatherwitch 1 year ago
I'm so sorry that this happened to you. That is appalling that your attacker was allowed to get with both this and what they did to you 😔
#18
I got the physical evidence (a bag of d***s) thrown out because the officer reached into my client's pocket before patting the outside first. Because that the was the only evidence that my client committed a crime, the prosecutor was forced to dismiss the entire case.
James Frail 1 year ago
This is why the censorship here is both stupid and yet hilarious. I totally read that as a bag of male anatomy.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago
I think the officer didn't pat him down because he didn't want to feel a package of d***s.
Load More Replies...
Halcyon 1 year ago
This probably would've been admissable if it was in the U.S though, because of "Inevitable Discovery." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable_discovery
The Original Bruno 1 year ago
That's the problem here, I think. The d***s are inevitably discovered if you pat someone down, but not if you don't. Reaching into his pocket must be a violation of privacy in a way that a pat-down isn't. The pat-down must then give you the "reasonable suspicion" needed to invade privacy.
Load More Replies... #19
IANAL but in college we would have bonfire parties in the woods. I was friends with 2 other guys and we were all Eagle Scouts, they were stoners I was not. So the 2 stoners get caught hot boxing their car in the school parking garage, cop searches and pulls out my Machete from the previous weeks bonfire. Stoned out of their minds and freaking out they immediately tell the cops it's mine not theirs (fair enough). I get a summons to Mickey Mouse Court (college disciplinary board) for violating handbook rule x.x.yz.
Well I look up the rule and it says no knives, guns or martial arts weapons in the dorms. They basically said sign here and write a 5 page essay about why you follow the rules. I said no, I didn't violate the rule, it was never in the dorms. They replied the parking garage counts as the dorms. I didn't take it in the garage. My dorm is a mile away. I park close to my dorm. They said the parking lot adjacent counts. I'm like okay I park in auxiliary since there is 1 pace for every 3 residents adjacent to the building. To which they replied that lot (300 yds from the dorms) still counts as the dorms. So I replied that's not a weapon it's a tool you buy it at home depot and the lawn crews on campus are using them. They told me to sign and I flat out refused.
They gave up and said I could go. I said where's my tool? They initially said it had been destroyed. I'm like WTF you owe me a machete. Then turns out campus PD had it. They were surprisingly more chill about it than admin when I talked about Scouts.
Con O Cuinn 1 year ago
Reminds me of a cop threatening to arrest me for having a knife on me. The search was legit, I was smoking a joint when he walked around the corner but it was pretty finished and I didn't have anything else on me so he was pissed and just looking to get me. But I had a knife on me because I was coming from work. Also had a measuring tape, 2 screwdrivers, a handful of screws and such. When the car came to pick me up, it was a more senior officer driving. After asking what the story was, he told the first guy to let me go. That having a blade on you for a legitimate reason is not a crime.
Little king trash mouth 1 year ago
I mean, anything is a weapon if you want it to be. It doesn't matter it's intended purpose (OP saying it's not a weapon because he bought it at Home Depot).
Nicola Mawson 1 year ago
Got a school friend out of trouble for dying her hair. The rules specifically spoke to highlights. It's not a highlight if all the hair is one color
#20
I am a lawyer. I specialize in tax and litigation (civil, not criminal tax). The biggest loophole is money. Can you pay your lawyer to be as creative and annoying as you can. It's literally that simple.
Bog down the court with motion practice, beg for continuances, and throw absolutely everything possible you can because you can. You won't see a Public Defender or a Low Income Clinic attorney do this. There is simply not enough of them.
Adrian 1 year ago
Not a loophole, a catastrophic problem with the US legal system. It's pay to play and those with the big bucks win.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago (edited)
I always see complaints about the *US* legal system. How do European counts prevent this? Do they? If so, where are the $multi-billion settlements. From what I've read, the U.S. was the innovator in class-action lawsuits which have made funding for these massive lawsuits possible.
Load More Replies...
Gabriele Alfredo Pini 1 year ago
It is the same thing I saw in the Catholic Tribunal: the judge are serious and you cannot pay to have your valid wedding annulled, but a good lawyer with enough time can found a cause of nullity in every wedding.
The Starsong Princess 1 year ago
The better the lawyer and the more money you have, the better deal you get offered. It’s all about the deal because trials are expensive.
#21
NAL. I got a ticket thrown out for running a stop sign. Before it was rewritten, the law stated that all 4 wheels had to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. My 4 wheels were locked up as i slid down the hill and blew straight through the intersection. Technically, the wheels were at a complete stop as my old s**tbox didn't have ABS. The judge threw it out.
Dave M 1 year ago
They could argue that the wheels need to be stopped in relation to the ground, not stopped as in not rotating.
Verena 1 year ago
This is why the texts get longer and longer and harder and harder to read. Every detail needs to be described in detail.
Load More Replies...
Con O Cuinn 1 year ago
Dunno if OP was just driving like a thick or what, but wouldn't a mechanical malfunction be a valid defence?
Kare Deter 1 year ago
To those saying "mechanical failure" - Would that have been a valid defense if it involved the death of your family member coming lawfully from the other direction? It wasn't mechanical failure, it was driver error. If your vehicle doesn't come equipped with ABS then you need to learn how to control your vehicle.
Xenia Harley 1 year ago
Had a cop yell at me once, because he said I "went through the stop sign". I had stopped, just not AT the stop sign, so I actually could see if traffic is coming. You know what I mean? The stop sign was set back from the intersection, and you had to move past it to see. Technically, you have to STOP at such a sign, then inch out slowly to where you can see! (Cop's explanation.) Who does that? Most people stop where they can see and not at a set back stop sign. (I did not get a ticket that day.)
#22
The wildest loopholes I've seen are really tame - the cops made mistakes.
A truck driver given a ticket for driving an overweight truck over a bridge, and the cop didn't weigh the truck. A guy given a ticket for failure to to yield at an intersection when he did a U-turn in the middle of a highway causing an oncoming driver to rear end him. Stupid stuff like that.
Dragons Exist 1 year ago
I assume he wasn't blind, if you can't see the weight diff between a pickup truck and a semi truck u could get checked out
Load More Replies... #23
NAL; just a bibliophile and a fan of American History.
In a book about Coke County Texas by a lady named Yarborough, she mentioned that a young man was taken before the judge in the small town for “firing his gun in the street”.
The young man was brought before the judge who pulled up the statute and read it and it said essentially “it is an offense to discharge a firearm in the streets of Robert Lee, Texas”.
He then asked the boy to describe exactly what he was doing, why, and where he was.
The boy said, “Well… I was standing in the lot on this side of the street and saw a badger in the lot on the other side of the street in the other lot. I pulled out my rifle and shot the badger.”
The Judge said he was free to go as “he had not been standing *in the steet* when he shot, and thus had not broken the law.
martin734 1 year ago
What is it with so many Americans that the first thing they do when seeing a wild animal is to shoot it?
Ms. Mack 1 year ago (edited)
That is a North American Badger, different from an European Badger. Not so Wind in the Willows- ish.
Load More Replies...
#24
Not a lawyer. This happened about 10 years ago in Wayne PA. Was in court testify against a former employee for stealing. The case befor his was a drunk driving case. It was open and closed case. Lady blew twice the legal limit after roaming into a parked car at a gas station. The prosecutions case was simply the arresting officers testimony as nd the breathalyzer results. After the prosecutor questions the officer and rests his case you could see the defendants lawyer chuckle. I thought it was odd and then I found out why. Defending lawyer stands up and spouts off some PA code and asks the judge for for an immediate dismissal. Judge grants it but is visibly pissed. He then immediately takes recess and calls both the officer and prosecutor into his chambers. It was about three minutes of the judge beratingvthem both and the whole courtroom could hear it. It turns out that at some point during the prosecutions case either he was supposed to ask the officer or the officer was supposed to say that he had been specifically trained to use the breathalyzer and detect impaired driving and by failing to do so the prosecution failed to meet the necessary requirements for the conviction. It was wild.
Dave M 1 year ago
This is why people hate lawyers. When you get someone off even though you know they are guilty you are a POS.
Jonas Fisher 1 year ago
Well, not exactly. While this one person got off (and shouldn't have), lawyers using tactics like this help keep law enforcement honest. We don't want police who are slapdash with things like chain of evidence, or search and seizure, etc. So, letting one person go free from time to time is a small price for keeping the system as a whole more accountable for the laws they really ought to be following.
Load More Replies...
Ken Beattie 1 year ago
That sounds like one where you should have a right to reply. He says "dismiss on these grounds" the prosecutor get's a chance to respond and prove that his officer was capable.
#25
Not me, but my old roommate was a lawyer and he used to get d**g cases dismissed all the time because the county where he worked never maintained chain of custody.
He got cases dismissed where the cops had pulled the d***s from the person’s pocket, but since they couldn’t prove in court that the d***s were real and were the same d***s that were confiscated the judge would throw out the case.
Chicken Nugget 1 year ago
idk why but whenever i see d***s i just automatically think they are dil dos its weird
digitalin 1 year ago
I automatically assume the word is d i c k s so it's extra funny when they say something like "threw a bag of d***s at him".
Load More Replies...
Přemek Marek 1 year ago
All the time? Hardly. A few times? Maybe. A couple times? OK. Also, this is not a loophole, this is how it should work. Because if they just took the officer's word for it - oh boy, we know where that would lead, don't we?
mysterious(all pronouns) 1 year ago
I heard about a case where a guy was arrested for selling "dr ugs" which turned out to be like ground up concrete or something. Because they weren't actually illegal, he didn't break the law.
Crouching hippo hidden panda 1 year ago (edited)
surely the fact they were detached meant the D i c k s weren’t real? Hahah bored panda censoring makes it so much dirtier in my mind. Why censor d***s? Im reading it, not using it ffs
#26
I once had a $500 ticket thrown out because the cop cited me to appear in court after my 18th birthday for a crime I committed as a minor.
I didn't even have to argue the point. I showed up and the prosecutor apologized and sent me on my way. Shoulda set it for juvenile court, Officer D******d.
Andrew Keir 1 year ago
I'm not in favour of technicalities but, if the prosecutors can't get their behaviour to fit the laws, it makes sense for them to get slapped down. But, yes, I'd be a happier bunny if OP hadn't deserved the ticket in the first place...
TheRealRobertWhite 1 year ago
Prolly not a good idea not to require them to do their jobs correctly when they're empowered with life, death, liberty, and financial ruin. If we are held to the law then so must they.
Load More Replies...
#27
My grandpa was a lawyer for an oil company a few decades ago. They had a huge federal case one time, and he simply went up to the judges and told them they didn't have jurisdiction. The oil was drilled in Texas and refined in Texas, had never left the state of Texas. So there was no interstate commerce, and the federal court had no jurisdiction. He got the case thrown out "on bonk".
Rob D 1 year ago (edited)
Always nice to hear oil companies having their legal hurdles minimized. Big oil attorneys...special place in hell...
Dave M 1 year ago
One email sent concerning the crime is enough to make it interstate commerce. The email "might" have traveled out of state and you cant prove that it didn't.
Ken Beattie 1 year ago
Bear in mind he said "his grandpa" and "a few decades ago". That would suggest it happened pre-email.
Load More Replies... #28
As people have said. ‘Loopholes’ are rare. But this story jumps to mind. Wouldn’t take much embellishment to make a dramatic tv moment.
Convicted criminal was on furlough. A program with the jail where you can be released on an ankle monitor while still serving your sentence. He cut the monitor, ran and was caught. Indicted for Escape.
Case gets to trial and the prosecutor puts on a pretty straightforward case. people from the jail and ankle monitor company and arresting cops testify. Then the defense moves to dismiss. Prosecution has failed to prove escape.
There was actually a different law called unlawful evasion that applied to escaping off furlough program. this was extra confusing because escape is the correct charge for cutting an ankle monitor if you are serving your sentence on ankle monitor. Which you can do sometimes. But if you start in jail and get out on an ankle monitor as part of a furlough program then the crime is unlawful evasion.
Prosecutor was furious. Because the defense could have dismissed the case at any point. Arraignment up to trial. But he never said anything. So the guy sat in jail for months awaiting trial on a charge he could get dismissed. Judge ordered the case dismissed.
There was some small debate about whether he could be retried or not, because did double jeopardy attach if he was never actually charged with the right crime? But the DA wasn’t going to highlight the embarrassment and just let it go. A crime (and slam dunk case) with a 6+ year sentence dismissed for a few months in jail. .
Stephanie A Mutti 1 year ago (edited)
My experience is double jeopardy applies because it's the same set of facts/circumstances..but it's probably debatable. For example if a person goes to trial on a number of charges and is acquitted on some charges but the jury gets hung on the other charges. In a re-trial double jeopardy prevents the DA from re-trying the acquitted charges and from adding charges.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago
Pretty sure that double jeopardy does NOT apply if the very reason the case was dismissed (not acquitted) is that the wrong law had been applied. If he were acquitted, that would be another matter.
Load More Replies...
#29
Not an attorney/courtroom story, but still a kind of legal loophole.
I knew a guy that was drinking a beer while driving home one night. The conditions were snowy and he slid off the road into the ditch. He called for assistance and before the police and tow truck arrived he got out and put the six-pack on the hood. He made sure they saw him take a drink from the open bottle while he was standing outside the car as they pulled up.
He told them sliding off the road like he did shook him up and he decided to drink one of the beers to calm his nerves. They had no way to prove that he was drinking it while driving.
Jrog 1 year ago
Made up BS stories that keep popping out from misinformed goons... In both UK and US, when you are in possession of car keys, a police officer can assume that you may have been driving while under the influence of alcohol and you can be charged with DUI if found intoxicated near your vehicle, even if not at the wheel. Even if you are not caught in the act, evidence of alcohol or d**g consumption in or nearby the vehicle and "intention" (commonly identified as being in possession of car keys) is enough for an an officer to assume you were driving under the influence and proceed accordingly.
Ken Beattie 1 year ago
In Australia you can be charged if you have the keys in possession and you're asleep in the driver seat with it reclined flat. One of the suggestions, if you've had a few drinks and decide to sleep in your car, is make sure you don't use the driver seat. And if possible "hide" the keys so they're not on your person.
Load More Replies...
Sam Loreum 1 year ago
In the UK they can work it out, I hope elsewhere catches up. Also, doing it deliberately will get you arrested anyway.
T'Mar of Vulcan 1 year ago
There was an episode of CSI Miami with this plot. Calleigh's father thought he hit something, and Calleigh told him to drink something so that they couldn't do a breathalyser.
Gustav Gallifrey 1 year ago
Back in the 1980s,a girl i knew had a similar ran-off-the-road accident. She had, admittedly, had a drink or maybe two before driving, but she was no heavy drinker. She got a whack to the head in the crash, and was utterly disoriented. In something of a daze, she drank from a bottle of perfume in her bag. With a high alcohol content, this rendered blood alcohol tests ineffective. But, her incoherent actions brought a high price, of burning and damage to her mouth and oesophagus. She would not have done it if she was in possession of her senses, because she knew enough to know that this would be the consequence.
#30
Not a lawyer, but close to one. In law school in Finland, they were taught about a case where a man was on trial for failing to pay back a loan.
His lawyer argued that he shouldn’t be convicted of delinquency (no idea what the actual terms are in English, bear with me) _because he never had intended to pay the loan back in the first place._
And he _won the case._
The reason was because the prosecutor had made a mistake: he had prosecuted the man only for the lesser charge of being delinquent in making payments, and forgot to write up the alternative charge of outright fraud.
So the court had to rule that there was reasonable doubt whether the man actually committed the act he was on trial for.
arthbach 1 year ago
This may not have translated well. In English, if being delinquent with regards to a loan means you have missed a scheduled payment. It doesn't matter if it is the first, the last, or somewhere in the middle. It also doesn't matter about the person's intentions. They might have been planning on paying the whole thing, but became involved in a traffic accident, and ended up in a coma when the payment was due. They might have decided to default on the whole thing. In both cases, they would be delinquent, although the person in a coma would certainly have mitigating circumstances.
Ken Beattie 1 year ago
This sounds like a seriously risky defense though. I'd assume the initial case was brought as a civil one with the bank trying to get their money back. Admitting he never intended to pay it back amounts to an admission of fraud, which would surely become a criminal case. So he goes from needing to pay some money, to potentially ending up in jail?
#31
There really aren't loopholes like that where people dramatically win a case in court based on a word in a statute no one else read or whatever it is you're thinking of.
Closest thing I can think of...I knew of a criminal defense attorney that had a slight foreign accent. When he had a lost cause of a case, in court he would sometimes play up the accent heavily, pretend to understand less English than he really did, generally play dumb, etc. This was juxtaposed with one of the best prosecutor offices in the country who were all very polished. His hope was the jury might feel sorry for his client and acquit him even if they thought he was guilty because it felt like he never had a fair shot.
It was a fine line to walk to do that and not p**s off the judge though lol. .
Adrian 1 year ago
You're wrong. I won an alimony case over a single word, "until". After a contentious divorce, I was ordered to pay alimony to my ex-wife "until" various things happened; death, remarriage and most importantly here, cohabitation. Shortly after the divorce she had a boyfriend move in with her briefly and tried to conceal it. I found out and subpoenaed him to testify. She argued that it was only briefly and that the alimony should continue after they broke up and he moved out. She lost and it's now a cited case that defines "until".
Timbob 1 year ago
Smug lawyer: “did you actually see my client bite off mr. smith’s ear”? Witness: “no”. Smug(stupid) lawyer: “then how can you se so sure he did “? Witness: “‘cause I seen him spit it out”.
Peter Trudell Jr 1 year ago
So you are saying it was in his mouth, but you do not know how it got there... is it possible the ear was on the floor and my client picked it up and put it in his mouth?
Load More Replies... #32
A lawyer acquaintance knew of a few places where there were 'no parking' signs but the areas were somehow missed in the by-laws. He defeated all the tickets.
#33
Not a lawyer but I got pulled over driving a buddy’s car at 3am on a back road I wasn’t familiar with, daytime running lights on so no brake lights (oops) and drove right by someone else they had already pulled over. Knew I was f****d when they pulled out after me. Said I was acting sus, demanded to search or else the dog was gonna be called in, found my weed and set it on the hood of the car. Filled out a little slip saying it was weed etc etc. Well the court date is here and my lawyer asks the first cop if he did a field test to see if it really was thc weed or just hemp? He said he thought he did. They send that one back and call out the other cop, ask him the same question and he answers that he isn’t sure, and doesn’t remember if it was done or not. I also stated I did not see a field test done to confirm that there was thc present and the judge scoffed at the cops and dropped it. Phew! Only spent a couple weeks in jail for the other charges!
Dave M 1 year ago
The brake lights still work. OP is saying he was so stupid he couldn't figure out how to turn on the headlights.
Danny rodreaming 1 year ago
Not stupid, stoned. Too stoned to turn on the headlights.
Load More Replies... Con O Cuinn 1 year ago
Driving without headlights is still dangerous driving. Daytime running lights aren't enough to be able to see appropriately.
Verena 1 year ago
OP should smoke better quality. Or pay a visit to the optometrist, if he never saw brake lights working on the cars in front of him, in daylight.
iBlank 1 year ago
OP accidentally wrote "brake" lights, but meant "head" lights
Load More Replies... #34
I went to court and watched my lawyer boldly lie... He asked me something before going in that I confirmed and stated the exact opposite to the judges face. When we were leaving a couple other lawyers complimented him on his speech. Most of them lie and everyone knows it... Whoever is the better lier often wins and it is acceptable which is a bit of a loophole if you ask me.
Hugh Cookson 1 year ago
And this is why a lot of lawyers / attorneys go into politics .... it's still lying but on a grand scale .....
DragonofMordor 1 year ago (edited)
Your lawyer was a bad lawyer. You don't lie to the judge. And no, most lawyers don't.
Andrew Keir 1 year ago
It's not what actually happened, it's about what you can get the Court to accept. TLDR - stay out of Court!
What do you think ?
Sweet Fanny Adams 1 year ago
changing the word cheating to loophole doesn't make cheating any better.
Justin Tyme 1 year ago
I got a speeding ticket for going 27 miles over the speed limit. There is a fine for that and possible conviction on a Reckless Driving charge. However, when the officer wrote the vehicle information, he put the color as "silver". My state registers cars as "grey" rather than silver. I told the judge that there are no silver cars in this state. Therefore, the charging information is not valid. My case was dismissed.
Hey! 1 year ago
By-law gave us a ticket for not clearing the snow in front of our house, on the sidewalk. Many parents had called us in while we were gone for two weeks. Turns out, it was the city's job to do so, not ours. And the law is really specific about it too: split primary road, bus services first to be cleared of snow, salt, leaves, and other debris.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago (edited)
To those that say that wild loopholes don't exist: Federal law requires that all employers receive documentation that you are legally present in America to be able to take a job in America. But subsequent case law forbids employers from discriminating against people on the basis of national origin. So if your employee is a 19-year-old boy who only speaks Spanish, and provides you with the driver's license and social security number of what appears to be an old lady named Linda McCann, you're not allowed to check him out unless you check out English-speaking Irish women at an equal rate. Congress provided a tool called E-Verify to check out all your new hires, but you're not required to use it (except where required by contract or by state law). So in spite of the law, any employer only has to say, "I had no legal reason to suspect that this man who turns out to be 19-year-old Omar Vasquez wasn't really 86-year-old Linda McCann," essentially meaning that the ID law is useless.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago
FWIW, the last thing immigration enforcement needs is Karen complaining that her hair stylist is an illegal alien because she doesn't pronounce her Ls well. But there's no excuse to not use E-Verify.
Load More Replies...
I_imagine_even_worse_w***s 1 year ago
Disappointed that most of these weren't actual loopholes. I want to hear about cases like where someone gets off a charge of stealing a turkey on a Wednesday because some obscure ancient law states no one can ve charged with the theft of foul on a Wednesday lol
Gustav Gallifrey 1 year ago
I've seen a case where someone would not take advantage of a 'loophole' offered to them. A young man, up on a DUI charge. He had been ONLY JUST over the limit. He was a nice kid, the sort you could clearly see would never appear in court again. The magistrate tried to cut him some slack, looking to dismiss the charge: 'now then, was this a special occasion, a birthday, or some celebration, something like that, something out of the ordinary?' Answer: 'uh...no sir." 'Was it an extraordinary occasion, where you might have got carried away and lost count of your drinks?". 'Uhh...no, sir". By this time, EVERYONE in the court is thinking, "just say 'yes', you fool!'. But, he was too honest for his own good and got a small fine and a short disqualification from driving.
digitalin 1 year ago
I wouldn't say "too honest for his own good." So he got a small punishment for something he did wrong. Owning up to it with integrity makes him a better person and he'll have a better life in the long run.
Load More Replies... Sweet Fanny Adams 1 year ago
changing the word cheating to loophole doesn't make cheating any better.
Justin Tyme 1 year ago
I got a speeding ticket for going 27 miles over the speed limit. There is a fine for that and possible conviction on a Reckless Driving charge. However, when the officer wrote the vehicle information, he put the color as "silver". My state registers cars as "grey" rather than silver. I told the judge that there are no silver cars in this state. Therefore, the charging information is not valid. My case was dismissed.
Hey! 1 year ago
By-law gave us a ticket for not clearing the snow in front of our house, on the sidewalk. Many parents had called us in while we were gone for two weeks. Turns out, it was the city's job to do so, not ours. And the law is really specific about it too: split primary road, bus services first to be cleared of snow, salt, leaves, and other debris.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago (edited)
To those that say that wild loopholes don't exist: Federal law requires that all employers receive documentation that you are legally present in America to be able to take a job in America. But subsequent case law forbids employers from discriminating against people on the basis of national origin. So if your employee is a 19-year-old boy who only speaks Spanish, and provides you with the driver's license and social security number of what appears to be an old lady named Linda McCann, you're not allowed to check him out unless you check out English-speaking Irish women at an equal rate. Congress provided a tool called E-Verify to check out all your new hires, but you're not required to use it (except where required by contract or by state law). So in spite of the law, any employer only has to say, "I had no legal reason to suspect that this man who turns out to be 19-year-old Omar Vasquez wasn't really 86-year-old Linda McCann," essentially meaning that the ID law is useless.
The Original Bruno 1 year ago
FWIW, the last thing immigration enforcement needs is Karen complaining that her hair stylist is an illegal alien because she doesn't pronounce her Ls well. But there's no excuse to not use E-Verify.
Load More Replies... I_imagine_even_worse_w***s 1 year ago
Disappointed that most of these weren't actual loopholes. I want to hear about cases like where someone gets off a charge of stealing a turkey on a Wednesday because some obscure ancient law states no one can ve charged with the theft of foul on a Wednesday lol
Gustav Gallifrey 1 year ago
I've seen a case where someone would not take advantage of a 'loophole' offered to them. A young man, up on a DUI charge. He had been ONLY JUST over the limit. He was a nice kid, the sort you could clearly see would never appear in court again. The magistrate tried to cut him some slack, looking to dismiss the charge: 'now then, was this a special occasion, a birthday, or some celebration, something like that, something out of the ordinary?' Answer: 'uh...no sir." 'Was it an extraordinary occasion, where you might have got carried away and lost count of your drinks?". 'Uhh...no, sir". By this time, EVERYONE in the court is thinking, "just say 'yes', you fool!'. But, he was too honest for his own good and got a small fine and a short disqualification from driving.
digitalin 1 year ago
I wouldn't say "too honest for his own good." So he got a small punishment for something he did wrong. Owning up to it with integrity makes him a better person and he'll have a better life in the long run.
Load More Replies...
Related on Bored Panda
