Law talkers, to me! Deceptive statements by officials

[Stonewall]

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.

Indeed.  The USSC finally put some limits on when police can do "officer safety" searches in cars.

[Rasputin]

All this talk made me hungry for hot wings. 

What's the point in hot wings if you don't like hooters?

[Rasputin]

I guess CC is such a great lawyer because he doesn't read all the material before him before answering the question, but is able to provide a requested advice after just reading the first part of the instruction. 

There was another specific question but being an idiot you didnt read the thread title that said "statements by officials" which can mean, in all areas outside Poland, someone who is not a cop and the OP said someone who is not a school official, which, outside Poland, can also mean someone who is not a cop.

Also, being an idiot, you didnt notice I was answering the OP and more accurately the implied question buried within it.  Too hard for you I know.

Concur; if grumbler wanted to ask about deception by cops he could have clearly stated as much.

[Rasputin]

I guess CC is such a great lawyer because he doesn't read all the material before him before answering the question, but is able to provide a requested advice after just reading the first part of the instruction. 

There was another specific question but being an idiot you didnt read the thread title that said "statements by officials" which can mean, in all areas outside Poland, someone who is not a cop and the OP said someone who is not a school official, which, outside Poland, can also mean someone who is not a cop.

Yeah, I guess I'm an idiot because I understood grumbler's question and you are clever because you failed to do so. 

I'm not sure that I'd brag about being the one to have understood a question that every talented lawyer on the board found ambiguous?

[Scipio]

In Mississippi, it is always acceptable to lie to teenagers.

[Neil]

Indeed.  The USSC finally put some limits on when police can do "officer safety" searches in cars.

Well, that's a mistake.  The lawlessness of the United States will only continue.

[Caliga]

What's the point in hot wings if you don't like hooters?

I had Hooters for lunch last Friday.  Maybe I'll go back today.

[Rasputin]

What's the point in hot wings if you don't like hooters?

I had Hooters for lunch last Friday.  Maybe I'll go back today.

I'll go Sunday and catch a game.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Thats an interesting take on it.  If I was counsel for one of the students I would argue that the representation of leniency meant leniency as to the penalties the school could impose itself and the school clearly breached that representation.

[DontSayBanana]

Thats an interesting take on it.  If I was counsel for one of the students I would argue that the representation of leniency meant leniency as to the penalties the school could impose itself and the school clearly breached that representation.

If the police refused a visit before the offer was placed on the table, then in convincing those students the threat of police dogs was coming from the police department, they impersonated law enforcement, and I think I would build a defense based on that.

[Barrister]

Thats an interesting take on it.  If I was counsel for one of the students I would argue that the representation of leniency meant leniency as to the penalties the school could impose itself and the school clearly breached that representation.

If the police refused a visit before the offer was placed on the table, then in convincing those students the threat of police dogs was coming from the police department, they impersonated law enforcement, and I think I would build a defense based on that.

Uh, no.

[crazy canuck]

If the police refused a visit before the offer was placed on the table, then in convincing those students the threat of police dogs was coming from the police department, they impersonated law enforcement, and I think I would build a defense based on that.

No, I dont think there is any impersonation.  I am not even sure there is anything wrong with telling them they might get caught by the police.  My issue is telling them expressly that if they in effect confessed and retrieved the drugs from their car that the school would be lenient with them.  Instead issued the most severe punishment the school could inflict - expulsion.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

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

Once again Peedy wins the thread

[Syt]

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?