Most of us do our best to stay on the right side of the law. Nobody’s got time for prison, of course, but rules are also there for a reason, right? We have them to keep us safe, resolve disputes, and stop society from descending into chaos.
But the law isn’t always as straightforward as it seems, and some provisions are so bizarre or oddly specific that they read more like punchlines than policy. Throw unexpected legal loopholes into the mix, and things get even more interesting. Fortunately, we don’t need to wade through mountains of case law for examples: lawyers over on Reddit have done the legwork for us, sharing legal loopholes and other surprising technicalities from around the world. Some might have you scratching your head, while others, well, you never know—they might just come in handy someday.
#1
In Denmark, if the sea between Sweden and Denmark freezes and a Swede crosses the ice on foot, you're allowed to beat him/her with a stick until they leave. Best part? It's in ~~our constitution so it's nearly impossible to change it~~
EDIT: Shimfs pointed out in a reply that it's not our constitution but just the Danish Law. I did some quick searching around, and couldn't find a proper source, but I've found the explanation for the law: In the winter of 1658, the sea between Denmark and Sweden (Øresund) froze solid enough for the Swedish army to cross (we've always been fighting, check our history, it's not pretty) and it ended up with Denmark loosing a lot of territory. According to everything I can find on the internet, this was what led the Danish king to make this law.
EDIT: Shimfs pointed out in a reply that it's not our constitution but just the Danish Law. I did some quick searching around, and couldn't find a proper source, but I've found the explanation for the law: In the winter of 1658, the sea between Denmark and Sweden (Øresund) froze solid enough for the Swedish army to cross (we've always been fighting, check our history, it's not pretty) and it ended up with Denmark loosing a lot of territory. According to everything I can find on the internet, this was what led the Danish king to make this law.
29points
#2
In terms of loopholes, my criminal law professor was also a practicing criminal defense barrister, and he told this story about a case he had won:
The event happened in the city of Jervis Bay in Australia, which is notable because it's an annexed part of federal land so that our capital territory can have an active port.
My professor's client had gotten into a fight on the beach and, in knee deep water, proceeded to beat the guy he was fighting.
Charges were laid and it went to court.
My professor managed to find that, at the time, the delineation of the federal land around Jervis bay ended at the high water mark.
Also, at that time, the delineation of the coastal region belonging to the state ended at the low water mark.
He managed to show that, because the crime had happened in between these two points, neither the state or federal court had jurisdiction to try the client, and he got off.
Obviously the definitions were amended after that so that there would not be such a gap, but that one guy got through.
The event happened in the city of Jervis Bay in Australia, which is notable because it's an annexed part of federal land so that our capital territory can have an active port.
My professor's client had gotten into a fight on the beach and, in knee deep water, proceeded to beat the guy he was fighting.
Charges were laid and it went to court.
My professor managed to find that, at the time, the delineation of the federal land around Jervis bay ended at the high water mark.
Also, at that time, the delineation of the coastal region belonging to the state ended at the low water mark.
He managed to show that, because the crime had happened in between these two points, neither the state or federal court had jurisdiction to try the client, and he got off.
Obviously the definitions were amended after that so that there would not be such a gap, but that one guy got through.
18points
#3
In the UK, a pregnant woman is allowed to relieve herself in a policemans hat if there are no toilets nearby. The policeman has to cover the woman with his coat for her dignity.
18points
We all know that laws are there for a reason. Some might even call them the backbone of civil society, with a lawless society looking very different from the world we’re accustomed to living in today. But like the humans who draft them, laws aren’t without their own imperfections. As legal scholar Roger Brownsword puts it, “As a human enterprise, law reflects the imperfections that are all too common in humans.”
#4
Not a lawyer, but if you want to write someone out of your will (especially a child or spouse) it can be tricky because they can challenge the will ~~and often win~~ *and cause a big expensive headache for everybody involved*. Here's a loophole: put a clause in the will that gives the person some paltry sum on the condition that they don't challenge the will.
So, little Jimmy who has constantly disappointed you has to make the choice between $5000 right now, or the possibility of spending a lot on a lawyer and not getting anything.
So, little Jimmy who has constantly disappointed you has to make the choice between $5000 right now, or the possibility of spending a lot on a lawyer and not getting anything.
12points
#5
In the UK the legal age of drinking is 5 as long as there is a guardian present and as long as it is not in a licensed area (pub, club, bar etc) However a beer garden of a pub doesn't count so you can legally have a shot of tequila with with a toddler while watching the teletubies.
10points
#6
In Pennsylvania you are allowed to resist arrest with an amount of force equal to that being used by the police if you are being unlawfully arrested. Good luck getting that to work, ever.
10points
One reason for these imperfections is that laws rely on rules, and no set of rules can account for every possible situation. Lawmakers also can’t always predict how a law might be used—or misused—once it comes into effect. In an article published in the International Journal of Law, Social Sciences and Humanities, Pranav Bhondve describes this as a problem of limited foresight and hindsight: even when lawmakers try to account for different scenarios, they can’t foresee every possible outcome.
#7
In California, when issued a moving violation, you have a right to a change of venue under certain circumstances.
The venue (court to hear your case) must, on request, be changed to the seat of the county in which the citation is issued IF the county seat is closer to your home.
So let's say I'm ticketed in little ole Twentynine Palms, County of San Bernardino, CA. The default courthouse to hear my case will be just down the road at Joshua Tree. But before the officer completes the citation, I can demand that my case be heard in San Bernardino city, 100 miles away because San Bernardino is closer to my home in San Diego.
Why is this important? Because chances are good that officer lives much closer to where he/she issued your ticket than 100 miles away in San Bernardino. Chances are even better that they won't drive the 100 miles to attend the hearing.
The venue (court to hear your case) must, on request, be changed to the seat of the county in which the citation is issued IF the county seat is closer to your home.
So let's say I'm ticketed in little ole Twentynine Palms, County of San Bernardino, CA. The default courthouse to hear my case will be just down the road at Joshua Tree. But before the officer completes the citation, I can demand that my case be heard in San Bernardino city, 100 miles away because San Bernardino is closer to my home in San Diego.
Why is this important? Because chances are good that officer lives much closer to where he/she issued your ticket than 100 miles away in San Bernardino. Chances are even better that they won't drive the 100 miles to attend the hearing.
Report
10points
#8
(The town referred to here is a border town on the English/Welsh border)
You can shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow in Chester, inside the city walls and after midnight.
You may only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight.
It is against the law to call any Welsh person “English”.
All males over the age 14 must carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy.
Criminals can apply for sanctuary in Notre Dame Cathedral and must be “fed and watered” for up to six weeks.
You can shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow in Chester, inside the city walls and after midnight.
You may only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight.
It is against the law to call any Welsh person “English”.
All males over the age 14 must carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy.
Criminals can apply for sanctuary in Notre Dame Cathedral and must be “fed and watered” for up to six weeks.
9points
#9
If you put a dollar in a machine and it plays a game and pays you money if you win, that is gambling, often illegal.
If you put a dollar in a machine and it dispenses a product (Coca-Cola) _then_ lets you play a game and pays you money if you win, that's called a _promotional game_ and it is legal in all 50 states.
If you put a dollar in a machine and it dispenses a product (Coca-Cola) _then_ lets you play a game and pays you money if you win, that's called a _promotional game_ and it is legal in all 50 states.
9points
Brownsword makes a related point in The Cambridge Handbook of the Governance of Technology, explaining that legal rules “speak only to what ought or ought not to be done, not to what can or cannot be done.” In other words, laws can prohibit certain things without necessarily preventing every way someone might get around those prohibitions.
#10
In the UK if you pay for parking and there's a sign saying that they aren't responsible for damage to the car then you can still sue them as long as you've paid because by law you expect security with the money you paid.
Report
9points
#11
Here's another thing I think people should know. It would be a stretch to call it a loophole, but it's something many people don't know.:
If you're ever driving down the road and see a car that looks reckless and or drunk, and you consider calling the police but figure "there's no way they'll get here in time to witness this dangerous driving and/or there's nothing they can do about it until it actually causes an accident": CALL THE POLICE. It's quite important if the person does cause an accident down the line* [edit: my typo said "down the liar" - maybe a Freudian slip].
911 calls are used by shrewd lawyers and insurance companies to establish that someone was driving in a reckless manner. Since it's sometimes hard to prove who was responsible for the accident, your 911 call could help the state in prosecuting offense; or could really be the difference in whether someone wins a civil case. When in doubt, just call and report your location, a description of the car, and a license plate if you can give one.
If you're not comfortable calling 911 there is probably a non-emergency number for your local police department so keep that in your phone.
One caveat: 911 only keeps the records of the calls for a limited period of time. So if you see someone on the news and say to yourself "hey, I saw that car driving erratically before that!" don't assume the police already are aware of your call. Contact them and let them know what you did and whether you're willing to serve as a witness.
If you're ever driving down the road and see a car that looks reckless and or drunk, and you consider calling the police but figure "there's no way they'll get here in time to witness this dangerous driving and/or there's nothing they can do about it until it actually causes an accident": CALL THE POLICE. It's quite important if the person does cause an accident down the line* [edit: my typo said "down the liar" - maybe a Freudian slip].
911 calls are used by shrewd lawyers and insurance companies to establish that someone was driving in a reckless manner. Since it's sometimes hard to prove who was responsible for the accident, your 911 call could help the state in prosecuting offense; or could really be the difference in whether someone wins a civil case. When in doubt, just call and report your location, a description of the car, and a license plate if you can give one.
If you're not comfortable calling 911 there is probably a non-emergency number for your local police department so keep that in your phone.
One caveat: 911 only keeps the records of the calls for a limited period of time. So if you see someone on the news and say to yourself "hey, I saw that car driving erratically before that!" don't assume the police already are aware of your call. Contact them and let them know what you did and whether you're willing to serve as a witness.
Report
9points
#12
It's been suggested that it's possible to commit a felony with impunity in the portion of Yellowstone National Park that sits in Idaho. The national park is a federal enclave and does not fall within the jurisdiction of any of the three states it inhabits (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho). When those states were admitted to the union, they ceded that land to the United States and cannot enforce their laws there. When Congress created the District Court for the District of Wyoming, it decided to place the entirety of Yellowstone Park within that jurisdiction.
Here's where things get a little weird. The Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to a trial by a jury drawn from the state and district in which the alleged crime occurred. According to the latest U.S. Census, that portion of the park has a population of zero. That is, no one lives in both Idaho and the District of Wyoming. So, if, for example, an individual were to end someone in the Idaho portion of Yellowstone, he would be hauled off to Cheyenne for presentment. Once the defendant has been indicted, however, the U.S. Attorney would be powerless to try him unless the defendant waived his right to a jury trial or voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the District of Wyoming.
To the best of my knowledge, this has never been tested.
Here's where things get a little weird. The Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to a trial by a jury drawn from the state and district in which the alleged crime occurred. According to the latest U.S. Census, that portion of the park has a population of zero. That is, no one lives in both Idaho and the District of Wyoming. So, if, for example, an individual were to end someone in the Idaho portion of Yellowstone, he would be hauled off to Cheyenne for presentment. Once the defendant has been indicted, however, the U.S. Attorney would be powerless to try him unless the defendant waived his right to a jury trial or voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the District of Wyoming.
To the best of my knowledge, this has never been tested.
8points
When legislation leaves gaps or its wording allows for different interpretations, people may find ways to take advantage of them. As Brownsword explains, the effectiveness of law’s governance is hindered by “the interpretive affordances that professional lawyers find so readily in rules” and the opportunities these can leave for people to avoid complying with them.
#13
If you ever want to mail something...less than legal, pop it into a USPS First Class Envelope.
According to the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, federal law dictates that the only person who can open first class mail is the addressee. This means that the postal service, and any federal agency cannot inspect/search first class mail.
TLDR: no one can inspect first class mail. NO ONE!
According to the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, federal law dictates that the only person who can open first class mail is the addressee. This means that the postal service, and any federal agency cannot inspect/search first class mail.
TLDR: no one can inspect first class mail. NO ONE!
8points
#14
In Australia, the postal rule regarding contracts is one that Australian Courts seem to be unable to rid themselves of. A contract is made up of a number of things, but what makes it binding is when an offer is accepted.
If a contract stipulates that acceptance can be communicated by letter, then acceptance occurs when the letter is placed *in the mail box*, instead of when it is recieved. Hijinks ensue whenever the mail system loses letters somehow (disasters, accidents, general mail system losing stuff).
If a contract stipulates that acceptance can be communicated by letter, then acceptance occurs when the letter is placed *in the mail box*, instead of when it is recieved. Hijinks ensue whenever the mail system loses letters somehow (disasters, accidents, general mail system losing stuff).
8points
#15
At common law, alienation of affections is a tort action (read: someone can sue you) brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the marriage. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.
Alienation is, however, still recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah
Alienation is, however, still recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah
8points
This is where legal loopholes come in. Grammarist defines a loophole as a gap or ambiguity in a law or set of rules that allows someone to circumvent a requirement or restriction. Interestingly, the term originally referred to a narrow opening in a fortified wall. In castles, these slits allowed archers to watch for and shoot at attackers while remaining protected.
#16
This became moot last year, but I enjoyed discovering this one. San Antonio had a knife ordinance designed to make carrying a folding knife illegal. State law criminalized possession of a knife longer than 5.5 inches. The ordinance criminalized possession of a folding knife under 5.5 inches.
Nobody said anything about knives exactly 5.5 inches.
Nobody said anything about knives exactly 5.5 inches.
Report
8points
#17
In Scotland there is no crime for house breaking unless another crime is committed in addition to entering the house, for example you damage the property, ie break a window, or theft. Theoretically u could break walk into an unlocked house and just chill, however your actions could lead to harassment but that would probably involve a sustained period of time
7points
#18
That in New York, signing a waiver of liability before engaging in some game, sporting event or amusement park isn't worth the papers it's written on.
Report
7points
By the 17th century, the term was being used figuratively to refer to a small opening or outlet for escape. And as The Vocabularist writes for the BBC, “The meaning of loophole as a clever scheme, often caused by a defect in a law or rule, was in use as early as October 1648.”
#19
If you are being sued by the state in Canada, you can request that you trial be Bilingual (Eng & French) and they must comply.
Thus many times they Crown will drop the charges or settle with you if the cost of running the case in both languages if not worth the time (or repeating everything) or money
It has gotten my Canadian friend out of many instances of minor traffic/transport stuff.
Thus many times they Crown will drop the charges or settle with you if the cost of running the case in both languages if not worth the time (or repeating everything) or money
It has gotten my Canadian friend out of many instances of minor traffic/transport stuff.
Report
7points
#20
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. Essentially if the state conducts an illegal search, any subsequent fruit of the illegal search is inadmissible.
Best Example is Wong Sun v. United States. Government did illegal search of A. A incriminated B. Police went to B and found illegal substances, B then incriminated C, the supplier. Police went to see C. C invited police in to discuss. C then went to the station and made a voluntary confession. Supreme Court found that A and B were protected by 4th Amendment exclusionary rule. C would have been had he not gone to police station to voluntarily confess. If this seems confusing, read the case for more confusion.
Best Example is Wong Sun v. United States. Government did illegal search of A. A incriminated B. Police went to B and found illegal substances, B then incriminated C, the supplier. Police went to see C. C invited police in to discuss. C then went to the station and made a voluntary confession. Supreme Court found that A and B were protected by 4th Amendment exclusionary rule. C would have been had he not gone to police station to voluntarily confess. If this seems confusing, read the case for more confusion.
6points