No misconduct write up

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby Jeffort » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:19 pm

s0ph1e2007 wrote:I would never have stepped inside the door with it though if the proctors had been checking us in outside the room like they're supposed to. Also I don't see how it is acceptable for her to 1. let me take the whole exam 2. use the word "promise" in telling me that I would not be given a misconduct or have my score cancelled.
Also, multiple people were "caught" with hoodies and liquid at the beginning of the test and nothing happened to them. Isn't that why they read the list of prohibited items at the beginning of teh test. so that they can deal with those things?
I was under the impression the only way you would get in trouble for this stuff was if you were caught with them during the test.
I simply decided if I left the phone outside the testing room it would look shady and didn't want LSAC to think I was shady so I thought the best way to obey the spirit of the law and stay above reproach was to hand it to the proctor.
Also, I take classes in that room three times a week. When does it actually become the testing room? Because obviously I'm not permanently banned from ever bringing an electronic into that room.
Don't respond if you have no real information on this and you're just trying to make me upset. Because it will work and you'll be responsible for making a nice girl cry for the next two weeks while LSAC looks into this.


Ok, I'll try to be nice cuz I don't want to make a nice girl cry (typically, girls I interact with make me cry, but that is another story entirely).

http://www.lsac.org/JD/LSAT/day-of-test.asp

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Items Allowed in the Test Room

Test takers may bring into the test room only a clear plastic ziplock bag, maximum size one gallon (3.79 liter), which must be stored under the chair and may be accessed only during the break. The ziplock bag may contain only the following items: LSAT Admission Ticket stub; valid ID; wallet; keys; analog (nondigital) wristwatch; medical or hygiene products; #2 or HB wooden pencils, highlighter, erasers, pencil sharpener (no mechanical pencils); tissues; and beverage in plastic container or juice box (20 oz./591 ml maximum size) and snack for break only.

Items Prohibited at the Test Center

You may not bring into the testing room any of the following: electronic timers of any kind, beeping watches, alarm watches, calculator watches, cellular phones, beepers, pagers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), hats/hoods (except items of religious apparel), books, dictionaries, papers of any kind, calculators, rulers, slide rules, compasses, mechanical pencils, briefcases, handbags, backpacks, earplugs, headsets, photographic or recording devices, listening devices, electronic devices of any kind, weapons, or firearms.

User avatar
s0ph1e2007
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:37 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby s0ph1e2007 » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:21 pm

not helpful
im sorry girls make you cry lol but you dont know me


also, if you haven't noticed, most cases are not that cut and dry

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby KevinP » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:28 pm

While it is a truism that LSAC can do whatever the heck it wants, there are 2 main differences here.
1. She was upfront about the electronic device which shows she had no intention of misusing it. LSAC probably won't buy this argument as it is clearly stated in the prohibited items list.

2. The proctor explicitly told her that she was fine with the electronic device. This is the crucial difference because even though LSAC listed the item as prohibited, the proctor told her conflicting information. The blame is therefore not hers as conflicting information was presented.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby Jeffort » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:30 pm

s0ph1e2007 wrote: UNQUOTED


Your chances of getting into LS are not doomed. Don't stress about that, its not like you got caught cheating. Having brought an e-device that plays music into the test room due to misunderstanding the rules is not something that will register on the moral character and fitness radar once you apply to get a law license and is not something that will make LS's reject you out of hand.

At worst LSAC will cancel your score and if they do they will provide some sort of documentation as to why they did. It's not fatal in any way, it's just a current setback to your plans.

The argument that other people broke the rules and got away with it fails. Not everyone that breaks rules/laws gets caught or cited for it. If that argument was to be accepted as persuasive to get away with breaking rules it would be advocating lawlessness and make the rules pointless.

It's simple, you brought something into the test room that the rules prohibit. I don't see why there is any confusion about that and the application of the test center rules to you.

Also, I'm now a little confused. Did LSAC put a hold on your score pending a misconduct/irregularity investigation or not? It's unclear from your posts.
Last edited by Jeffort on Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Adjudicator
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby Adjudicator » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:32 pm

The question here is does this violation require MENS REA (a Latin term which means "guilty mind" or criminal intent) and if so, did she possess the requisite MENS REA????? I submit that she did not!! However if it is a violation involving STRICT LIABILITY then she may be liable irregardless!!!

User avatar
s0ph1e2007
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:37 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby s0ph1e2007 » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:34 pm

on a totally unrelated note,
you all are very interesting and I want us all to go to law school together :)

fosterp
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:09 am

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby fosterp » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:35 pm

Adjudicator wrote:The question here is does this violation require MENS REA (a Latin term which means "guilty mind" or criminal intent) and if so, did she possess the requisite MENS REA????? I submit that she did not!! However if it is a violation involving STRICT LIABILITY then she may be liable irregardless!!!


A jury will decide that!

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby KevinP » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:42 pm

s0ph1e2007 wrote:on a totally unrelated note,
you all are very interesting and I want us all to go to law school together :)

That depends... would you be willing to attend Cornell?

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby incompetentia » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:43 pm

KevinP wrote:
s0ph1e2007 wrote:on a totally unrelated note,
you all are very interesting and I want us all to go to law school together :)

That depends... would you be willing to attend Cornell?

Are you around?

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby KevinP » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:46 pm

incompetentia wrote:
KevinP wrote:
s0ph1e2007 wrote:on a totally unrelated note,
you all are very interesting and I want us all to go to law school together :)

That depends... would you be willing to attend Cornell?

Are you around?

I'm not sure I fully understand the question....

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby CanadianWolf » Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:58 pm

Was it just a music player or a music player & a cell phone one of which was handed to the proctor ?

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby AverageTutoring » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:04 pm

Jeffort wrote:
AverageTutoring wrote:
Jeffort wrote:Since the OP gutted the details I'm not positive about the circumstances so correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's what I got out of it:
OP brought a prohibited electronic item into the test room and got caught with it by a proctor and now the score is on hold due to a misconduct investigation.
OP wants to play lawyer and argue due process to shift blame to LSAC for the way the proctor handled it because a misconduct write up notice was not handed to her by the proctor in the test center.

Am I missing anything pertinent?

If that is accurate, tough luck OP. You broke the rules you knew about, got caught, and should suffer the consequences for doing so. Most of the ~60,000 people that took the October test walked into the test centers holding only their ziplock bags filled with allowed items. If you didn't obey that protocol, why should they cut you a break?


Yes, yes you are missing something important. She was not "caught" with an item. She disclosed the item to the Proctor before the start of the exam, and the proctor was in possession of it during the exam.

She was neither "caught" nor found "in possession of" a prohibited device during the exam, and thus, will have no problem.


Oh, ok. So it's like one of those situations when somebody walks into a police station carrying a bag of weed or coke, discloses that fact, shows it to and hands it over to the desk sergeant before getting the forms to fill out for the report they want to make.

Those stories always crack me up, especially when it is some dude wanting to file a stolen property report because somebody they had over took some of their stash. Those dudes still get charged and prosecuted. Confessing up front to a crime does not negate the crime, but it sometimes generates sentencing leniency and lots of laughs from the officers on duty at the time.


Where's a facepalm emoticon when I need it?

In your half-assed analogy the officer wouldn't have instructed the accused that handing over their bag of weed was okay. In Sophie's case, the proctor did in fact tell her that there was no issue. Not to mention your analogy is absurd, walking into a room with an electronic device != walking into a cop station with an illegal narcotic.

Further, the main point of having the rule of no electronic devices is that LSAC wants to minimize the chance of cheating. If the proctor had the device, there was no opportunity for cheating.

It's going to blow over and be fine.

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby AverageTutoring » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:05 pm

Adjudicator wrote:The question here is does this violation require MENS REA (a Latin term which means "guilty mind" or criminal intent) and if so, did she possess the requisite MENS REA????? I submit that she did not!! However if it is a violation involving STRICT LIABILITY then she may be liable irregardless!!!


Dude, why are you quoting my grade 11 law text? LOL

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby CanadianWolf » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:06 pm

It is unclear as to whether the OP took one or two electronic devices into the testing room. One may have been a music player & the other a turned off cell phone which the OP was reluctant to leave in the hallway.
It is also not clear as to whether or not the OP's October LSAT score is being withheld.
It is difficult to offer meaningful advice without more information.

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby incompetentia » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:13 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:It is unclear as to whether the OP took one or two electronic devices into the testing room. One may have been a music player & the other a turned off cell phone which the OP was reluctant to leave in the hallway.
It is also not clear as to whether or not the OP's October LSAT score is being withheld.
It is difficult to offer meaningful advice without more information.

I can tell you that the answer to the latter is that it is. Unsure about the other

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby JazzOne » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:15 pm

OP: The thing is, you broke the rules. Whether or not you brought it to the proctor's attention before the test started, you had access to the rules (prior to the test), which prohibit you from bringing that item into the test room. It becomes a test room when the proctor's are present and prepared to begin the testing procedures.

I don't think OP should get into trouble over this. I hope LSAC exercises its discretion. However, it is really disingenuous to make the arguments OP is making: But, I admitted my violation up front!!! But, everyone else was breaking the rules!!!! But, the proctor told me it was ok that I broke the rules!!!!! But......

But, you never should have brought that device to the test center without a plan for where you would store it before entering the test room.
Last edited by JazzOne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
s0ph1e2007
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:37 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby s0ph1e2007 » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:16 pm

incompetentia wrote:
CanadianWolf wrote:It is unclear as to whether the OP took one or two electronic devices into the testing room. One may have been a music player & the other a turned off cell phone which the OP was reluctant to leave in the hallway.
It is also not clear as to whether or not the OP's October LSAT score is being withheld.
It is difficult to offer meaningful advice without more information.

I can tell you that the answer to the latter is that it is. Unsure about the other


it was one electronic device lol
score is being witheld although i didnt hear a word about it till the 30th in the morning

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby CanadianWolf » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:25 pm

Was the complaint written or verbal ? If written, did you receive a copy ? If yes, does the complaint allege that you or your phone caused the disturbance ?

User avatar
s0ph1e2007
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:37 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby s0ph1e2007 » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:32 pm

It's a little wild and a little strange
To make your home out on the range
Mount your horse and come along
Cause you can't get a ride if you can't hold on.
Last edited by s0ph1e2007 on Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby JazzOne » Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:40 pm

Just chalk it up to a lesson learned. When you start learning about local court rules, you have to follow them TO THE LETTER, even if you think they're stupid or unfair, even if you think others have committed more serious violations without reprimand, even if you think the court's criteria for sanctions are arbitrary. The field you are trying to enter is driven by rules. Get used to following them without waiting for someone else to tell you that you're out of line.

By your own admission, you broke the rule. Whatever happens from here, the story begins with you ignoring a clear rule.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby Jeffort » Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:37 pm

AverageTutoring wrote:
Jeffort wrote:
AverageTutoring wrote:
Jeffort wrote:Since the OP gutted the details I'm not positive about the circumstances so correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's what I got out of it:
OP brought a prohibited electronic item into the test room and got caught with it by a proctor and now the score is on hold due to a misconduct investigation.
OP wants to play lawyer and argue due process to shift blame to LSAC for the way the proctor handled it because a misconduct write up notice was not handed to her by the proctor in the test center.

Am I missing anything pertinent?

If that is accurate, tough luck OP. You broke the rules you knew about, got caught, and should suffer the consequences for doing so. Most of the ~60,000 people that took the October test walked into the test centers holding only their ziplock bags filled with allowed items. If you didn't obey that protocol, why should they cut you a break?


Yes, yes you are missing something important. She was not "caught" with an item. She disclosed the item to the Proctor before the start of the exam, and the proctor was in possession of it during the exam.

She was neither "caught" nor found "in possession of" a prohibited device during the exam, and thus, will have no problem.


Oh, ok. So it's like one of those situations when somebody walks into a police station carrying a bag of weed or coke, discloses that fact, shows it to and hands it over to the desk sergeant before getting the forms to fill out for the report they want to make.

Those stories always crack me up, especially when it is some dude wanting to file a stolen property report because somebody they had over took some of their stash. Those dudes still get charged and prosecuted. Confessing up front to a crime does not negate the crime, but it sometimes generates sentencing leniency and lots of laughs from the officers on duty at the time.


Where's a facepalm emoticon when I need it?

In your half-assed analogy the officer wouldn't have instructed the accused that handing over their bag of weed was okay. In Sophie's case, the proctor did in fact tell her that there was no issue. Not to mention your analogy is absurd, walking into a room with an electronic device != walking into a cop station with an illegal narcotic.

Further, the main point of having the rule of no electronic devices is that LSAC wants to minimize the chance of cheating. If the proctor had the device, there was no opportunity for cheating.

It's going to blow over and be fine.


Seriously?

The analogy is about walking into a place with contraband (that you know is contraband) and voluntarily handing it over to the authorities that are employed to enforce the rules against possession of such contraband while confessing that you are in possession of it.

Get it?

Geeze, I guess you did choose an appropriate username. You do have the word average in it...

Your claim about what a desk officer or any other police officer would do or say in the type of situation I described betrays reality.

If you don't believe me, take a shot and try it out yourself. Grab a bag of weed or coke or meth or something illegal, head into your local police station, hand it over and see how things go. Once they release you let us know how the conversion went while doing it.

I'll narrate a short fictional version of one way it could go:

Person: Hey officer, I'm here to fill out some important paperwork, can you get me the forms and booklets please.
Officer: Sure, grab a seat while we get the papers ready, it'll be a couple of minutes.
Person: Ok. Also, I know I'm not supposed to have this here with me (bag of something prohibited to possess). Can I just give it to you to hold while I work on reading the stuff and filling out the forms?
{person throws a baggie onto the counter}
Officer: {looks at it and recognizes that it is contraband} Sure, that's fine, I'll take it and hold onto it for you. Thanks, things will be okay. We'll work on the paperwork for you right away.
{officer takes the bag, starts writing out reports, alerts another officer that he needs assistance, etc.}

Does that work for you to paint the picture better?

Aside from all this nonsense, Sophie is pretty stressed out about her situation and seems to realize that she made a mistake that, all things considered, is pretty minor, but that was still a rule violation. Her life is not over, she didn't cheat or attempt to cheat, she tried to do the right thing once she realized her mistake and got burned for confessing. Her LS acceptance chances are not destroyed but I think at the moment her emotions are suffering some trauma.

If this thread is going to continue, lets derail it into discussing actual legal issues and concepts about criminal law and procedure since that's the direction many of the posts have gone.

fosterp
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:09 am

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby fosterp » Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:56 pm

If you walk into a police station to hand over drugs, you aren't going to to get charged with anything.

If you walk into a police station for some other reason, and your bag of drugs "slip" out of your pocket, yeah they are going to get a good laugh and then arrest you.

That said, the testing center is not a police station and the proctors are not police officers.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby clintonius » Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:30 pm

Comparing this situation to walking into a police station to hand over a bag of drugs is completely stupid.

That is all.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby James Bond » Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:32 pm

clintonius wrote:Comparing this situation to walking into a police station to hand over a bag of drugs is completely stupid.

That is all.


Ya, the amount of 0L's playing lawyer is laughable.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: No misconduct write up

Postby clintonius » Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:33 pm

James Bond wrote:
clintonius wrote:Comparing this situation to walking into a police station to hand over a bag of drugs is completely stupid.

That is all.
Ya, the amount of 0L's playing lawyer is laughable.
I also haven't seen anybody apply the Mathews test to the due process claim.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tazewell and 5 guests