# Can probation officers lie to their clients? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 19, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097 "2015-02-19T15:44:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tuxie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ee59a6/32.png) [@Tuxie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuxie)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/1 "2015-02-19T15:44:16Z")
I heard a rumor that probation officers can call up one of their clients, tell them their probation ended early, then later nail them for some violation of their probation if it turned out they were in fact still on probation. Now I know police can lie to suspects and use what the suspect says against them. I’m curious if probation officers can do this too. Think about it- if the client couldn’t even prove the probation officer even talked to him about probation ending early and they did not have anything in writing, I don’t see how they could defend themselves in court if they did something that violated their probation- the P.O. could deny the conversation happened or pointed out verbal confirmation is not legally binding. The defendant wouldn’t have anything on paper by the courts verifying their probation was over. So basically they got 'tricked ’ into thinking they were off their probation so they could be tempted into doing something that was a former violation of their probation, and given a much harsher sentence as a result. Is this even legal? Could a probation officer lie like this? ---
**Author:** ![halfreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@halfreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/halfreal)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/2 "2015-02-19T17:43:51Z")
Obviously they CAN do that, for the reason you explained yourself. How that could possibly be legal is beyond me. Other than in the case of lying to a suspect, that “trick” would not serve to uncover the truth, or facilitate persecution, but to induce illegal behavior (i.e. violation of probation). You are not supposed to make people break the law. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/3 "2015-02-19T17:50:51Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > …Other than in the case of lying to a suspect, that “trick” would not serve to uncover the truth, or facilitate persecution, but to induce illegal behavior (i.e. violation of probation). You are not supposed to make people break the law. What about a sting operation? It’s clearly legit for police to pretend to be drug buyers in order to catch dealers, or pretend to be dealers in order to catch buyers. Could a probation officer (or probation department) hold a probation violation sting operation? E.g. maybe a Pennsylvania probation officer puts his “clients” on the Official Jersey Shore State Tourism mailing list and then waits at the Ben Franklin bridge looking for probationers trying to cross. Or maybe a probation officer slips some Bennigans ads into said clients’ mailboxes, knowing that those clients are not allowed to visit restaurants that server alcohol without first obtaining PO permission. Then, the PO and a bunch of his buddies go to Bennigans to scout for violators. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/4 "2015-02-19T18:01:58Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > What about a sting operation? It’s clearly legit for police to pretend to be drug buyers in order to catch dealers, or pretend to be dealers in order to catch buyers. > > Could a probation officer (or probation department) hold a probation violation sting operation? E.g. maybe a Pennsylvania probation officer puts his “clients” on the Official Jersey Shore State Tourism mailing list and then waits at the Ben Franklin bridge looking for probationers trying to cross. Or maybe a probation officer slips some Bennigans ads into said clients’ mailboxes, knowing that those clients are not allowed to visit restaurants that server alcohol without first obtaining PO permission. Then, the PO and a bunch of his buddies go to Bennigans to scout for violators. In a sting operation the LEOs do not represent themselves as such. In the case of the OP the probation officer seems to be giving official information to the parolee, as if a sting operation was run by uniformed police officers who told criminals that what they were doing was legal. The other circumstances you mention don’t involve lying to the parolee. Dirty and underhanded tactics yes, but the parolee does know he’d be violating parole if he tried to cross the Ben Franklin or go to a bar. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/5 "2015-02-19T18:55:49Z")
I don’t know of any case law pertaining to the scenario in the OP. However it seems to meet the definition of entrapment. There certainly isn’t any reason for a probation officer to do what was mentioned. That’s not their job and they are busy enough with what they have to do already without manufacturing more work. And it is not true that the police can say any lie to further their investigation. There are limits. Those limits vary between states. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/6 "2015-02-19T19:26:30Z")
I’ve seen as a plot point in many police dramas where the LEO’s invite a parolee that they want to use or get information from to a meeting. At that meeting is another known felon. One of the conditions of the parolee is they are not to associate with other known felons. The LEO’s then threaten the parolee with having his parole jerked if he doesn’t cooperate. Common plot device. I have no idea if it is ever used IRL. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/7 "2015-02-19T20:41:17Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > I’ve seen as a plot point in many police dramas where the LEO’s invite a parolee that they want to use or get information from to a meeting. At that meeting is another known felon. One of the conditions of the parolee is they are not to associate with other known felons. The LEO’s then threaten the parolee with having his parole jerked if he doesn’t cooperate. > > Common plot device. I have no idea if it is ever used IRL. How could it? The police are causing the violation. That is entrapment. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/8 "2015-02-19T21:10:20Z")
Most criminals know the process involved in being taken off from probation, in fact probation is also called being “on paper”. It’s not just a call from your probation officer telling you so, there are court documents involved that close out your probation. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/9 "2015-02-19T21:28:08Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > How could it? The police are causing the violation. That is entrapment. Not every parolee understands the law or consults an attorney prior to responding to police inquiries. I would suspect that it probably does happen in real life more often than would think. Just because it might be entrapment, doesn’t mean the LEO’s wouldn’t try it to get cooperation from a parolee. If the parolee cries foul, then they just drop it. Empty threats are commonly used by LEO’s. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/10 "2015-02-19T21:30:50Z")
> [@halfreal](#): > > Obviously they CAN do that, for the reason you explained yourself. How that could possibly be legal is beyond me. Other than in the case of lying to a suspect, that “trick” would not serve to uncover the truth, or facilitate persecution, but to induce illegal behavior (i.e. violation of probation). You are not supposed to make people break the law. I think you meant to say prosecution, but in context it seems strangely appropriate. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/11 "2015-02-19T22:05:02Z")
I can’t recall the term for it, but I think there is some principle that allows you to rely on the government’s word in matters like this. What I do recall is that it doesn’t apply to the IRS, just because they say a deduction is legitimate doesn’t make it so. Perhaps for criminal matters it is simple entrapment. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/12 "2015-02-19T22:13:31Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I can’t recall the term for it, but I think there is some principle that allows you to rely on the government’s word in matters like this… [Entrapment by Estoppel](https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=48+U.+Miami+L.+Rev.+627&key=ae0139a5910b39b568b84c5e14773bbf). ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/13 "2015-02-19T22:15:47Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I can’t recall the term for it, but I think there is some principle that allows you to rely on the government’s word in matters like this. What I do recall is that it doesn’t apply to the IRS, just because they say a deduction is legitimate doesn’t make it so. Perhaps for criminal matters it is simple entrapment. I think the general rule is more like this: No matter what screwed up information you might get from the IRS (or any other government agency), you are _still_ required to pay the correct tax, even if that in only determined after the fact. And if you owe tax after the due date, you will still be required to pay interest on it. If all this happened because of bad advice you got from the IRS (and you can prove it – good luck with that!) then you can get out of paying any additional penalties. Hey, it was a big step toward Freedom From The Big Bad IRS when they even agreed to that! ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/14 "2015-02-19T22:18:10Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > [Entrapment by Estoppel](https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=48+U.+Miami+L.+Rev.+627&key=ae0139a5910b39b568b84c5e14773bbf). Thanks, that sounds like it. I think I heard it before as “‘official statement’ mistake of law” that is mentioned there. Wish I could see the rest of the article with the examples. The OP’s case may be “outrageous government misconduct” as also described since it wasn’t an honest mistake. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/15 "2015-02-19T22:19:16Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > I think the general rule is more like this: No matter what screwed up information you might get from the IRS (or any other government agency), you are _still_ required to pay the correct tax, even if that in only determined after the fact. And if you owe tax after the due date, you will still be required to pay interest on it. > > If all this happened because of bad advice you got from the IRS (and you can prove it – good luck with that!) then you can get out of paying any additional penalties. Hey, it was a big step toward Freedom From The Big Bad IRS when they even agreed to that! Yeah, it’s not the taxes due that’s the problem, it’s the interest and penalties that they can toss on. I’ve been a victim. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/16 "2015-02-19T22:20:00Z")
Since the question has been answered accurately, I feel free to give this [excellent cautionary video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSDTmJtE-Bc) about what such entrapment might look like in the real world, courtesy of Professors Key & Peele. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/17 "2015-02-19T22:25:48Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Not every parolee understands the law or consults an attorney prior to responding to police inquiries. I would suspect that it probably does happen in real life more often than would think. Just because it might be entrapment, doesn’t mean the LEO’s wouldn’t try it to get cooperation from a parolee. If the parolee cries foul, then they just drop it. Empty threats are commonly used by LEO’s. I guarantee it happens a lot less than _you_ think. I can only think of some weird Hollywood type plots where it could even be dreamed of. There is nothing in it for the probation officer. Around here at least probation does not come into close contact with investigators. In 17 years as a police officer and a detective I have never heard of probation being brought into an active investigation. The only time they are called is as an afterthought when one of their clients violates. I can’t remember when I even met a probation officer last. It is a non-issue. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/18 "2015-02-20T15:42:07Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I guarantee it happens a lot less than _you_ think. Good to know. Not surprisingly, sounds like Hollywood, doesn’t necessarily represent reality. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/19 "2015-02-20T21:36:59Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Thanks, that sounds like it. I think I heard it before as “‘official statement’ mistake of law” that is mentioned there. Wish I could see the rest of the article with the examples. The OP’s case may be “outrageous government misconduct” as also described since it wasn’t an honest mistake. The article cites three cases in particular: > [@](#): > > The three leading Supreme Court cases, which lower courts have read as adopting an “entrapment by estoppel” defense, are Raley v. Ohio, Cox v. Louisiana, United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp. (“PICCO”). > > . . . > > In all three of the Supreme Court’s purported entrapment by estoppel cases, the defendants claimed that a government official’s erroneous advice had misled them. In Raley, an Ohio commission chairman informed the defendants that they could decline to answer the commission’s questions when, in fact, the applicable Ohio immunity statute actually eliminated their privilege against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court reversed the contempt convictions. The Court, characterizing the commission as “the voice of the State,” observed that it had given the defendants “positive advice”, and in so doing had [631] actively misled the defendants. The Court explained that while there was no suggestion that the commission had any intent to deceive the defendants, to sustain the judgments of conviction on such a basis after the commission had acted as it did “would be to sanction an indefensible sort of entrapment by the State - convicting a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State had clearly told him was available to him.” > > Similarly, the defendant in Cox was convicted of violating a state statute prohibiting demonstrations “near” a courthouse even though “the highest police officials of the city, in the presence of the Sheriff and Mayor, in effect told the demonstrators that they could meet where they did, 101 feet from the courthouse steps, but could not meet closer to the courthouse.” The Supreme Court, quoting Raley, reversed the defendant’s conviction on the ground that the Due Process Clause does not permit such “an indefensible sort of entrapment by the State.” The Court noted that "obviously telling demonstrators how far from the courthouse steps is “near’ the courthouse for purposes of a permissible peaceful demonstration is a far cry from allowing one to commit, for example, murder or robbery.” > > Finally, the defendant in PICCO claimed that he relied upon agency regulations that (erroneously) allowed the discharge of industrial pollutants into rivers if the discharge would not impede navigation. As the Supreme Court characterized it, the defendant claimed he was “affirmatively misled by the responsible administrative agency into believing that the law did not apply in this situation.” The Court concluded that “to the extent that the regulations deprived PICCO of fair warning as to what conduct the Government intended to make criminal, we think there can be no doubt that traditional notions of fairness inherent in our system of criminal justice prevent the Government from proceeding with the prosecution.” The Court did not frame its decision in terms of “estoppel,” but favorably quoted commentary using that term. 29Link to the text of the note The Court concluded that “the issues whether there was in fact reliance and, if so, whether that reliance was reasonable under the circumstances [632] … must be decided in the first instance by the trial court.” > > _Bad Advice: The Entrapment by Estoppel Doctrine in Criminal Law_, 48 U. Miami L. Rev. 627. Note to mods: the quoted portions represent about 600 words out of 7000 in the full article. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097/20 "2015-02-22T19:02:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The article cites three cases in particular: Thanks. I appreciate that. Interesting, basic cases, you should be able to rely on statements from government officials. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-probation-officers-lie-to-their-clients/713097.md?page=2)