Law talkers, to me! Deceptive statements by officials

[grumbler]

We had an incident in the school yesterday in which two students were told by school officials (who had heard from a third student the night before last) that the police were coming and bringing drug-sniffing dogs to investigate the students' cars.  The students were offered the deal that they would be "treated leniently" if they went to their cars, took out any drug paraphernalia, and turned it in to school officials.  The students did so (I don't know what they turned in), and were promptly sacked from the school.

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.

A brief search of the web indicates to me that the police can lie in interrogations subsequent to arrest and charges,but cannot deceive for the purpose of generating charges.  I'd kinda like to hear from some lawtalkers before responding to my students, though.

Any of you (real lawyers only, please) have any comments or cites for me?

[Berkut]

I am not a lawyer, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn once.

I would tell them to blame the Army Corps of Engineers.

[grumbler]

I would tell them to blame the Army Corps of Engineers.

That decision came down after the contretemps here. 

[Strix]

I am not a lawyer but I liked doing it so much, I bought the company!

This is an issue I deal with on a daily basis at work because of what I do and because of our working relationship with local law enforcement. So, from that basis...the school officials were not acting as agents of the police or other law enforcement, and so they are not required to follow any of the rules that apply to law enforcement such as Miranda, Search Protocols, etc, and so on.

[grumbler]

I am not a lawyer but I liked doing it so much, I bought the company!

This is an issue I deal with on a daily basis at work because of what I do and because of our working relationship with local law enforcement. So, from that basis...the school officials were not acting as agents of the police or other law enforcement, and so they are not required to follow any of the rules that apply to law enforcement such as Miranda, Search Protocols, etc, and so on.

Your answer is contained in my original post.  The question is not whether school officials have to follow the rules of law enforcement officers, but rather ""whether it would be legal for the school officials to lie about the drug dogs if they were not school officials."  Could a cop or SA lie to a suspect in order to get him to confess guilt, even before the cop/DA had probable cause?

[DisturbedPervert]

Those students learned a valuable lesson.  Don't trust The Man.

[alfred russel]

Way back in the day when I was in school, a friend of mine who frequently indulged kept his stash in his car. Then one day he thought he would be the cool kid by keeping the stash in his backback and showing it off to the other kids. And that just happened to be the day the dogs came to sniff the parking lot and the lockers. And when the dogs walked by our classroom, a dog jumped on the door barking like crazy.

[alfred russel]

Even though it is now decades later, this is the first time it has occurred to me that may be BS. I wonder if a teacher didn't tip my friend off, and that is why he put the drugs in his backpack that day, and he just decided to play it off like he was super lucky.

[Barrister]

Could a cop or SA lie to a suspect in order to get him to confess guilt, even before the cop/DA had probable cause?

Not sure what SA stands for, but for a cop, yes.  They can lie before having probable cause (reasonable grounds in Canada).  It gets more complicated if they are potentially inducing someone to commit a crime, but that's not an issue here.

That being said looking to the criminal law at all is a red herring for these kids.  It's a school action and a school decision, and they need to look to more administrative law issues to determine if there is any recourse.

[stjaba]

29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 744, as well 741 and 726 are on point.

Money quote: "Whether deception renders a confession involuntary depends upon whether the deception interjected the type of extrinsic considerations that would overcome a defendant's will by distorting an otherwise rational
choice of whether to confess or remain silent." § 744

[DGuller]

My film teacher in high school once told a story about a school trip to Canada.  They were crossing the border, and their bus was going to be searched.  He told everyone that it would be highly stupid for students to keep any drugs on themselves, and told everyone to put everything in the box at the front of the bus while he stepped away for a couple of minutes.  He was not amused to see the box almost filled when he came back.

[crazy canuck]

That being said looking to the criminal law at all is a red herring for these kids.  It's a school action and a school decision, and they need to look to more administrative law issues to determine if there is any recourse.

I agree.  The Criminal law doesnt really play into this.  Concepts of administrative law might but, as discussed below, since this is a private school I have my doubts about that.  My main concerns are related to breach of contract and potential Human Rights breaches.  Obvious caveat - I am looking at this through the eyes of Canadian Law.



In Canada if you were at a public school then the power to expel would be given by statute and so the decision maker would be exercising a statutory power which in turn would permit a judicial review of the decision on the basis that it breached principles of natural justice.  I assume you have something similar in the US.  A great deal of deference is given to these kinds of decisions however, if the decisions are clearly flawed, the Court will intervene.

In a private school setting I suspect that most of the powers of the administrators are given by contract with the student body.  There may also be broad statutory powers to run the school which may also permit a judicial review but I suspect the express authority to expel is contractual giving the Courts even more reluctance to get involved by way of a judicial review on adminstrative law grounds.

In order to inquire into the actions of the school officials I suggest you look at the terms and conditions that have been agreed to as a member of the school community.  I suspect that the contract gives school sdminstrators wide ranging powers which might include what they did in this instance.

However, the thing that gives me most concern is it appears that the students were assured that if they came clean they would be dealt with leniantly.  This seems to be a clear representation made to the students on which they relied to their detriment.  On the face of it the students appear to have a damage claim against the school for misrepresentation and possibly breach of contract if the officials breached any other term of the contract - such as either an express or implied term to deal openly and honestly.

In addition, one thing that jumps out is the possibility that these students might be dealing with the disability of addiction.  The need to accomodate disabilities is a very complicated area of the law and especially given the fact that the law will likely be different in your jurisdiction I wont go into a detailed analysis here but given the Schools decision to expel, this could be an interesting launching point for that kind of discussion with your students.

edit:  In summary Grumbler, the implied premise of the question, that school officials could lie in this manner is not without its own problems.

[grumbler]

29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 744, as well 741 and 726 are on point.

Money quote: "Whether deception renders a confession involuntary depends upon whether the deception interjected the type of extrinsic considerations that would overcome a defendant's will by distorting an otherwise rational
choice of whether to confess or remain silent." § 744

Thanks.  This is the kind of thing I was looking for.

The whole "this is a red herring" argument is a red herring, because my kids are asking about what the law is as they will encounter it outside of school (as I have said twice now).  That school officials, as school officlas, could have searched the cars on their own (because the cars are on school property and the school officials had a reason to think rules might be violated) isn't in question.  Whether it should be in question isn't something I am going to address with the students unless they ask me for my personal opinion.

[crazy canuck]

29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 744, as well 741 and 726 are on point.

Money quote: "Whether deception renders a confession involuntary depends upon whether the deception interjected the type of extrinsic considerations that would overcome a defendant's will by distorting an otherwise rational
choice of whether to confess or remain silent." § 744

Thanks.  This is the kind of thing I was looking for.

The whole "this is a red herring" argument is a red herring, because my kids are asking about what the law is as they will encounter it outside of school (as I have said twice now).  That school officials, as school officlas, could have searched the cars on their own (because the cars are on school property and the school officials had a reason to think rules might be violated) isn't in question.  Whether it should be in question isn't something I am going to address with the students unless they ask me for my personal opinion.

Ok then ask your questions more carefully next time .  The way you put the question made it sound like your students think what school officials did was ok and they are wondering if it is ok for others to do the same thing.

The question proceeds from a false premise.  But if you are content with that false premise then fine.

[grumbler]

Ok then ask your questions more carefully next time .  The way you put the question made it sound like your students think what school officials did was ok and they are wondering if it is ok for others to do the same thing.

The question proceeds from a false premise.  But if you are content with that false premise then fine.

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.

The fact that you think the question stems from a false premise indicates that you have not read

the question my students have brought me is whether it would be legal for the school officials to lie about the drug dogs... if they were not school officials.

with any attention to the question being asked, because there is no false premise from which the question proceeds.

But thanks to all of you who responded for taking the trouble of responding, even if some of you didn't take the time to read the question you were responding to.