An official misrepresentation of the law occurs when an official, acting as an agent of the state, represents what is legal or not in an erroneous or misleading way. Should reliance on such misrepresentations excuse one from criminal responsibility? American courts presently recognize two official misrepresentation defenses: Entrapment by Estoppel and Public Authority. However, there is disagreement about what constitutes these defenses and what their limits are. Part of the confusion surrounds why these defenses are justified at all, especially given the general principle ignorantia juris non excusat. We propose an answer to this justification question: these defenses are justified because official misrepresentations preclude knowledge of the illegality of the acts in question. It is not simply that someone on the receiving end did not know; they could not know. We develop this account, linking it to due process and fairness, and then use it to clarify Entrapment by Estoppel and Public Authority and argue both should be subject to important restrictions.

当一名官员作为国家代理人以错误或误导性的方式表述合法或不合法的内容时，就会发生官方对法律的错误表述。依赖这种虚假陈述是否可以免除刑事责任？美国法院目前承认两种官方歪曲防御：圈套不容否认和公共机构。然而，对于这些防御的构成及其限制存在分歧。部分混乱围绕着为什么这些辩护是合理的，特别是考虑到一般原则ignorantia juris non excusat. 我们对这个正当性问题提出了一个答案：这些辩护是正当的，因为官方的虚假陈述排除了有关行为的非法性的知识。不仅仅是接收端有人不知道；他们不知道。我们开发了这个帐户，将其与正当程序和公平联系起来，然后用它来澄清禁止反言和公共权力的陷害，并认为两者都应受到重要限制。