Law talkers, to me! Deceptive statements by officials

[Ed Anger]

I don't know, it feels like a fatal heart attack is imminent any time I eat something deep-fried.  That's probably what distracts me from realizing the greatness of deep-fried food.

Goddamned communist.

[DGuller]

Will this thread be about: deep-fried lawyers?

I think the correct term is "Uzbek lawyers".

[crazy canuck]

I don't know, it feels like a fatal heart attack is imminent any time I eat something deep-fried.  That's probably what distracts me from realizing the greatness of deep-fried food.

Goddamned communist.

dropping someone in a vat of boiling oil is a great way to test for communist tendancies.  If they have a heart attack and sink then clearly they are a communist if they float after being crisped then they are not.

[saskganesh]

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.

the real lesson here is not to trust authority.

[crazy canuck]

the real lesson here is not to trust authority.

You didnt answer the question dammit!

Please wait here until Marti comes in to point that out.

[garbon]

Oh, the quality of their food has gone down considerably IMO.... but in KFC's defense you can now get grilled chicken there.  I tried some recently and it wasn't bad.

Yes. I didn't feel like vomiting because the place was dirty. It was just because the food was awful. Well the wedges were okay but the chicken made me sad.

*side note: There were only black people at the KFC. Also it was a complete standalone (which is rare as like you said it often comes with a Taco Bell or the like).

[Jacob]

Can somebody explain to me the logic behind deep frying?  How could anyone ever think that drowning food in boiling oil could ever lead to something good?

Poor people doing lots of manual labour needing to increase the caloric value of their meagre food supply.

[dps]

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.

I'd argue that they were dealt with leniently.  They were just expelled from school, not turned over to the police.

[Barrister]

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.

I'd argue that they were dealt with leniently.  They were just expelled from school, not turned over to the police.

I like the cut of your jib.   

[DontSayBanana]

Grumbler, another thing you should probably mention is that drug law enforcement in schools is apples and oranges compared to drug law enforcement in the general adult population.  We were talking about this on Monday and primary and secondary schools merely need reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, because of their in loco parentis status and the heightened interest in grounds security. 

Also, I wonder where the admissibility of dogs in the parking lot stands in your state- according to the USSC, dogs sniffing doesn't constitute a "search," and the passenger compartment of an empty vehicle is also searchable, given reasonable suspicion (no expectation of privacy for an empty car that you can see into).  However, some states (including NJ) expanded their statutes to give privacy back to the vehicle owner/driver.

[Barrister]

Grumbler, another thing you should probably mention is that drug law enforcement in schools is apples and oranges compared to drug law enforcement in the general adult population.  We were talking about this on Monday and primary and secondary schools merely need reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, because of their in loco parentis status and the heightened interest in grounds security. 

Also, I wonder where the admissibility of dogs in the parking lot stands in your state- according to the USSC, dogs sniffing doesn't constitute a "search," and the passenger compartment of an empty vehicle is also searchable, given reasonable suspicion (no expectation of privacy for an empty car that you can see into).  However, some states (including NJ) expanded their statutes to give privacy back to the vehicle owner/driver.

Large portions of this would be incorrect in Canada.

[garbon]

Large portions of this would be incorrect in Canada.

You don't have states?

[DontSayBanana]

Large portions of this would be incorrect in Canada.

To be fair, those two opinions seem particularly contentious in the US.  I'm not sure where I stand on dogs, but a Kentucky case was described this way to us (thin on details because it was in an application discussion and the professor didn't want to be bogged down in smart-ass answers by quick-to-research paralegal students):

A guy is pulled over for a tag light out or some other minor offense.  This is going on while the news is filled with cops being struck by fleeing perps or reckless drivers, so the cop asks him to sit in the back of the cruiser while he runs the insurance and registration.  Another cop happens to be in the area and pulls over just to check on things... a K-9 officer.  The dog starts going crazy, so they tell the guy that's been pulled over he can either consent to a search or continue sitting in the back while they call in a warrant; either way, his car's getting searched.  They find some weed somewhere in the passenger compartment- under the driver's seat or somewhere like that, book him, take him to court, and he fights it on the grounds that their probable cause was a dog search.  The court upheld it; since he wasn't in the car (I'd like to see what happened if he insisted on staying in his own car, BTW), the police didn't need a warrant to search the cabin as he had no reasonable expectation to privacy.  I want to say this was around 2002, and several states have since amended statutes to close that loophole- we needed to know about it for NJ, since the class focuses especially on federal and state laws as pertaining to our locality.

[dps]

A guy is pulled over for a tag light out or some other minor offense.  This is going on while the news is filled with cops being struck by fleeing perps or reckless drivers, so the cop asks him to sit in the back of the cruiser while he runs the insurance and registration.  Another cop happens to be in the area and pulls over just to check on things... a K-9 officer.  The dog starts going crazy, so they tell the guy that's been pulled over he can either consent to a search or continue sitting in the back while they call in a warrant; either way, his car's getting searched.  They find some weed somewhere in the passenger compartment- under the driver's seat or somewhere like that, book him, take him to court, and he fights it on the grounds that their probable cause was a dog search.  The court upheld it; since he wasn't in the car (I'd like to see what happened if he insisted on staying in his own car, BTW), the police didn't need a warrant to search the cabin as he had no reasonable expectation to privacy.

They'd have parked one cruiser right on his tail and the other directly in front of him so he couldn't go anywhere until they could call in and get a warrant.

I don't have any problem with the idea that the actions of a drug-sniffing dog can be probable cause for a search, but I don't like the doctrine that you should have no expectation of privacy in an empty car.  To quote the 4th admendment:  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...".  I don't see how an automobile which you own ceases to be part of your "effects" just because you aren't in it at the time.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't have any problem with the idea that the actions of a drug-sniffing dog can be probable cause for a search, but I don't like the doctrine that you should have no expectation of privacy in an empty car. 

You'll be relieved to learn then that this doctrine is not the law.  There is a lower expectation of  privacy, but not zero.  And the Supreme Court just recently limited the scope of auto searched incident to arrest last term.