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?
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 09:24:18 AM
I would tell them to blame the Army Corps of Engineers.
That decision came down
after the contretemps here. :(
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.
Quote from: Strix on November 19, 2009, 09:33:05 AM
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?
Those students learned a valuable lesson. Don't trust The Man.
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.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 09:43:55 AM
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2009, 11:39:55 AM
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.
Quote from: stjaba on November 19, 2009, 11:47:58 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 12:28:30 PM
Quote from: stjaba on November 19, 2009, 11:47:58 AM
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 :P. 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 12:35:54 PM
Ok then ask your questions more carefully next time :P. 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
Quotethe 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. :hug:
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 12:51:18 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 09:18:13 AM
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.
Quote from: stjaba on November 19, 2009, 01:13:02 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 09:18:13 AM
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.
I have read this thread carefully, and my suggestion to Grumbler is to go on a killing spree.
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.
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.
Quote from: PDH on November 19, 2009, 01:20:09 PM
I have read this thread carefully, and my suggestion to Grumbler is to go on a killing spree.
:yes: Starting with himself.
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.
Quote from: Stonewall on November 19, 2009, 01:41:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2009, 12:59:45 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on November 19, 2009, 01:41:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 02:32:57 PM
Or at least, if they must, share them with school officials.
I like the cut of your jib.
Yum, thanks. :mmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fartiewayne.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F02%2Ffaggots.jpg&hash=aaccef1f4880f6401babe1c6e3b508ea1b9585f3)
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 02:36:32 PM
No, that's tobacco.
Perhaps in a queer country. Cal and I are Americans, hoss.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 19, 2009, 03:07:13 PM
I'm not sure that Kentucky counts.
The birthplace of Kentucky Fried Chicken could be placed in no other country.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 12:28:30 PM
Quote from: stjaba on November 19, 2009, 11:47:58 AM
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.
Personally, I love the fact that you asked "I know it is irrelevant when talking about school officials but what the situation would be if these were cops doing that" and got two responses saying "it's irrelevant what the situation would be if these were cops doing that, since we are talking about school officials".
High quality legal advice from the stars of the Canadian bar. :lol:
You wouldn't get this from affirmative action recruits, that's for sure. :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 03:14:40 PM
[High quality legal advice from the stars of the Canadian bar. :lol:
Once again I am happy to hear that the bar in Europe is so low as to allow lawyers who only answer the literal questions of their clients and not answer other issues that arise from the questions. Good show!
By the way, you truly fail. Where did he say cops? It was all who are not school officials..... I suppose in Poland everyone is a Cop.
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 03:09:47 PM
The birthplace of Kentucky Fried Chicken could be placed in no other country.
Indeed, although I don't think we should be proud of that. :x
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2009, 03:51:23 PM
Indeed, although I don't think we should be proud of that. :x
Your hatred of capitalism, entrepreneurship, the elderly, Southern cuisine, and factory farming all ANGER ME GREATLY. :mad:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 03:51:16 PM
By the way, you truly fail. Where did he say cops? It was all who are not school officials..... I suppose in Poland everyone is a Cop.
I agree the original post was ambigious, but I thought his reply to Strix made it clear what question he was asking:
QuoteThe 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?
BTW, I assumed SA meant state attorney.
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. :lol:
Nobody likes to wait for anything in that crazy topsy turvy world we now live in. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 03:09:47 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 19, 2009, 03:07:13 PM
I'm not sure that Kentucky counts.
The birthplace of Kentucky Fried Chicken could be placed in no other country.
The funny thing is that I read somewhere that recently a KFC's franchise opened in the UK that can't however use the KFC trademark (but is using some affiliated logo) because they did not meet the chain's "rigorous standards". :D
"Rigorous standards" with regard to cleanliness or something else?
The company does have extremely high standards with regard to cleanliness (typically they exceed local B of H standards), but of course one or two outliers get in the media--the Taco Bell with rats in it in NYC comes to mind--and therefore the public assumes all outlets are filthy.
All this talk made me hungry for hot wings. :Embarrass:
For the record, I do not hate fastfood food - I like an occasional KFC or McDonald's sandwich. I just know it's horribly unhealthy and fattening. So my approach to it is similar to other people's approach to drinking - I only eat at fast food restaurants when I'm with someone and never alone (usually late when going out to a club or coming home from a club or a cinema). :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 03:53:04 PM
Your hatred of capitalism, entrepreneurship, the elderly, Southern cuisine, and factory farming all ANGER ME GREATLY. :mad:
No it is just that KFC is fucking nasty. I tried to eat there the other day (haven't since I was a child and used to order chicken littles) and almost vomited. It was foul.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 04:03:42 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 04:10:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 04:03:42 PM
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. :lol:
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. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2009, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 03:53:04 PM
Your hatred of capitalism, entrepreneurship, the elderly, Southern cuisine, and factory farming all ANGER ME GREATLY. :mad:
No it is just that KFC is fucking nasty. I tried to eat there the other day (haven't since I was a child and used to order chicken littles) and almost vomited. It was foul.
:bleeding: :bash:
Nearly all of the KFCs in Louisville (and as you might imagine there is practically one on every street corner) are paired with either a Taco Bell, a Long John Silvers, or an A&W. On the relatively rare occasions when I eat there I usually get whatever the other brand happens to be in that store. I don't think KFC is bad, but it's typically pretty bland.
Also IMO the Yum! chains are generally the worst at providing speedy service and have among the lowest quality food. My mother in law has been at Yum! corporate for 35 years and they've gone through multiple studies to try to figure out how to improve service speed and accuracy and have never gotten it up to their own internal standards. They just can't get it right. I think part of the problem is that with chains like Taco Bell, there's no standard order of "burger, fries, and a Coke" and so people ask for alot of 'custom' orders which inevitably take longer and get screwed up.
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 04:15:29 PM
I don't think KFC is bad, but it's typically pretty bland.
KFC here is pretty disgusting. I havent eaten there for years but the last time I did the amount of fat on those birds guarranteed I wouldnt go back.
When I was a kid I remember KFC being great and it was a real treat to get it. Either standards slipped or as a kid I didnt mind fatty foods - probably a combination of both.
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?
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 05:05:56 PM
Can somebody explain to me the logic behind deep frying?
It tastes good.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1154%2F769842222_e451de0c62.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=f73cae34f35fc744b55a05dda909d761a7a56f9a)
:mmm:
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 04:03:42 PM
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. :lol:
On the other hand, he's actually a lawyer, unlike you.
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 05:05:56 PM
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?
How could it not? :mmm:
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 05:05:56 PM
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?
There are some great deep fried foods.
Its just that the fast food places dont do it well.
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.
How this turned into a thread about merits of fast food restaurants? :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 04:58:01 PM
When I was a kid I remember KFC being great and it was a real treat to get it. Either standards slipped or as a kid I didnt mind fatty foods - probably a combination of both.
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.
The biggest quality decline for one of Yum!'s stores has been Taco Bell. Taco Bell was like ten times better in every way before Yum! acquired it and proceeded to ruin it. :(
Will this thread be about: deep-fried lawyers?
Quote from: Sahib on November 19, 2009, 05:27:07 PM
How this turned into a thread about merits of fast food restaurants? :huh:
:huh: Beats me.
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 05:17:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 05:36:40 PM
Will this thread be about: deep-fried lawyers?
I think the correct term is "Uzbek lawyers".
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 19, 2009, 05:41:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 05:17:12 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 09:18:13 AM
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 19, 2009, 06:40:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 05:35:52 PM
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).
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 05:05:56 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 12:13:24 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2009, 07:35:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 12:13:24 PM
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. :pirate
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 19, 2009, 08:04:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2009, 08:12:05 PM
Large portions of this would be incorrect in Canada.
You don't have states? :o
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2009, 08:12:05 PM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 19, 2009, 08:29:04 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2009, 10:26:35 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2009, 10:26:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 04:08:23 PM
All this talk made me hungry for hot wings. :Embarrass:
What's the point in hot wings if you don't like hooters?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 04:10:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 04:03:42 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 04:11:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 04:10:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 04:03:42 PM
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. :lol:
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. :lol:
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?
In Mississippi, it is always acceptable to lie to teenagers.
Quote from: Stonewall on November 20, 2009, 12:39:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 07:52:53 AM
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. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2009, 08:21:23 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 07:52:53 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2009, 07:35:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 12:13:24 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2009, 11:42:22 AM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 20, 2009, 12:22:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2009, 11:42:22 AM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 20, 2009, 12:22:22 PM
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.
Quote from: PDH on November 19, 2009, 01:20:09 PM
I have read this thread carefully, and my suggestion to Grumbler is to go on a killing spree.
Once again Peedy wins the thread :lmfao:
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 05:05:56 PM
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?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ficanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2Ffunny-pictures-cat-calls-you-stupid1.jpg&hash=0fcbef09b8fa2a055e50e240cf2c14333f1333c7)