Law talkers, to me! Deceptive statements by officials

[Barrister]

Grumbler, it is pretty routine in the law biz for a client to walk it with a legal question, when in fact there is an entirely different issue that they should be investigating.

You set out a fact scenario, then asked a question that had very little to do with the fact scenario.  I think your condescencion to CC and I for suggesting you were asking the wrong question is misplaced.

You have now clarified exactly why you are asking the question.  And I already answered that question as well - there is no general rule that an officer must be truthful.  In Canadian law police conduct could reach a point where evidence would be excluded: I suggested police entrapment, jaba pointed out the rule on voluntariness of a statement.  But there is no general rule.

[Rasputin]

I am content that almost no one is bothering to read the question, save stjaba, and that I could, by using his cites, figure out the answer to the question and explain it to the students.

...except that St Jaba may not have answered the question.

He appears  to have merely cited to some exclusionary rule principles regarding the admissibility into evidence of a confession procured by law enforcement through potentially deceptive means.

I'm not convinced that these same evidentiary principles (rooted in the 4th and 5th amendments to the constition and not the rules of evidence) would have applicability to a school official on school grounds in dealings with minor students.

In any event, this is the question you are really asking.

I do not know the answer, but I promise you St Jaba has not answered it, but has instead told us an outcome, depending upon the outcome to the real question.


And for what its worth, in law talker circles, Am. Jur. has about the same weight as citing to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[stjaba]

I don't question the fact that school officials could have searched the vehicles on any reasonable grounds.  The question my students have brought me is whether it would be legal for the school officials to lie about the drug dogs (the city police and county sheriffs had both declined to send the K-9 units on grounds that they had no legal authority to do a search) if they were not school officials.

Grumbler isn't asking about school officials, his basic question is about the extent that law enforcement can deceive a suspect. That's what his hypothetical was about.

Rasputin,

I am not suggest citing to Am Jur- obviously it is a reference tool to find case authority. Since we're not in court here, I think it is appropriate as a guide.

[Rasputin]

I don't question the fact that school officials could have searched the vehicles on any reasonable grounds.  The question my students have brought me is whether it would be legal for the school officials to lie about the drug dogs (the city police and county sheriffs had both declined to send the K-9 units on grounds that they had no legal authority to do a search) if they were not school officials.

Grumbler isn't asking about school officials, his basic question is about the extent that law enforcement can deceive a suspect. That's what his hypothetical was about.

Rasputin,

I am not suggest citing to Am Jur- obviously it is a reference tool to find case authority. Since we're not in court here, I think it is appropriate as a guide.

If grumbler is asking you to answer assuming that they were law enforcement officers then I would agree that you've been responsive.

I'm not snubbing your cite to Am Jur; I just wanted to make sure that grumbler understood the weight (or lack thereof) of the legal authority being offered.

[PDH]

I have read this thread carefully, and my suggestion to Grumbler is to go on a killing spree.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler, surely you recognize that a question that states "would it be legal ... if they were not school officials" at least implies that it was legal for the school officials to do it.

If you didnt want some advice about the implicit question then why post all the background.  BB is quite right.  As lawyers we see clients asking the wrong questions based on the fact pattern all the time because of their lack of knowledge the law.

This appeared to be one of those instances since the implication in the question was clearly in doubt.

[Stonewall]

The specific answer would depend on the jurisdiction you're in.  I have no clue what the rules are in Virginia. 

In Florida, the police are generally allowed to deceive a suspect with a few exceptions.  If the deception is aimed at convincing him to confess to something, it will generally be allowed.  If the deception is aimed at confusing him as to what his rights are, or of rendering his consent involuntary (coercion, etc) it is impermissible in that any resulting evidence gained will be excluded. 

Police are allowed to lie to a suspect but may not fabricate documents in furtherance of that lie.  This rule is not in effect in every state.  Some states allow the fabrication of documents to be used in order to elicit a confession, Florida does not.

A police officer who makes a promise to a suspect that induces him to incriminate himself has acted improperly.  Police are not allowed to promise suspects anything.  A promise is viewed by Florida courts as coercion that renders a confession involuntary.  Promises such as "I'll talk to the DA and see what I can do" are ok.  Promises like "I'll talk to the DA and we'll get you a reduced sentence" are not.  One is specific quid pro quo while the other is generic and promises nothing other than that a conversation will take place.

Generally, if your hypo had happened in Florida, the cops would have been fine, legally, with telling the kids that if they didn't allow the police to search or bring them any drugs that they would bring the dogs out.  It gets trickier and probably crosses the line once they promise something specific, i.e. leniency, in exchange for the drugs. 

Your advice to your students should be to tell the police that they have no permission to search anything, that if they want to search come back with a warrant.  And then they should ask if they are free to leave.  They should ask that question every couple minutes until the cop lets them go or arrests them. 

[The Brain]

I have read this thread carefully, and my suggestion to Grumbler is to go on a killing spree.

Starting with himself.

[The Brain]

Btw, grumbler works at a drug school? I thought he was a responsible person.

We didn't have drugs at my school. Maybe Swedes are just superior.

[alfred russel]

Your advice to your students should be to tell the police that they have no permission to search anything, that if they want to search come back with a warrant.  And then they should ask if they are free to leave.  They should ask that question every couple minutes until the cop lets them go or arrests them.

He could also advise them not to bring drugs to school.

[garbon]

I think your condescencion to CC and I for suggesting you were asking the wrong question is misplaced.

Just plain rude, really. Perhaps our lawyers should think twice about responding next time.

[Malthus]

Your advice to your students should be to tell the police that they have no permission to search anything, that if they want to search come back with a warrant.  And then they should ask if they are free to leave.  They should ask that question every couple minutes until the cop lets them go or arrests them.

He could also advise them not to bring drugs to school.

Or at least, if they must, share them with school officials.

[Caliga]

Or at least, if they must, share them with school officials.

I like the cut of your jib.

[garbon]

I like the cut of your jib.

Fag.

[Malthus]

I like the cut of your jib.

Fag.

No, that's tobacco.