Those are mostly cases of the courts trying to interpret laws in creative ways to reach conclusions they like. Cases like Bond and Yates prove that many prosec

Those are mostly cases of the courts trying to interpret laws in creative ways to reach conclusions they like. Cases like Bond and Yates prove that many prosecutors are willing to stretch laws, and get many courts to agree with those broad interpretations of the law.[1][2] My view is that they should read the laws more strictly. Do you expect the average citizen to have read all the civil and criminal laws of your state and country, in addition to all the opinions by appelate courts? If the answer to that is no, then you should not expect that citizen to abide by a body of law of which they are unaware. You might as well write the laws in secret and hide them from the people, because the current volume of law is equivalent to obfuscation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States