Police Stings and "entrapment" as defense

[ZmanCarlvr]

In my CRJ class I learned that entrapment is used as a defense in court. I also learned that when police do an op on prostitution, and they have an officer pose, they are not supposed to offer, they are supposed to be offered to. Then the bust is made.

my first question is is that correct?

My second question is this: I was watching The Learning Channel a few nights ago. they showed a show that was basically like cops. And it was supposedly real life as well. They had an officer pose as a prostitute, and she walked around offering herself to various motorists taht pulled up. Now rather than waiting for an offer to be made, she gave them a price and offered the sex. My question, is is that particularly legal?? Due to my learnings in class.

If i have a misconception, please let me know. I was just very confused after going to class and then seeing this, it just seemed to contradict itself.

Thank you.

-Dan

[Delta_V]

Officers can do prostitution stings as either the solicitor or the solicitee. The trick (no pun intended) is not to make improper inducements that could be construed as entrapment.

Legally, officers may create opportunities for a person to commit a crime IF the criminal intent originated in the mind of the suspect. According to Jacobson v. U.S., the state must prove that the "defendant was poised, was likely, to engage in criminal activity," in order to overcome an entrapment defense. Officers can't use excessive urging or temptations to get the suspect to commit the crime.

If an officer was posing as a prostitute and a man drove up and stopped, asking her if she 'is looking for a date,' that would not be entrapment. The officer could also initiate conversation with the suspect if he stopped for her. On the other hand, the undercover officer can't run up to a vehicle parked at a red light and ask the driver if he wants to spend $10 for a BJ so she can buy her kid a sandwich. In that instance, the criminal conduct originated with the police, not the suspect. The officer also can't keep pressing the issue if the suspect says no. That would constitute an improper inducement.

[retired]

Zman,

Perhaps this will help.

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

[ZmanCarlvr]

See that is exactly what i learned in class. But what i was watching was the female officer gave the man a price and offered. Then he obliged, and then 5 officers came in and arrested him.

Now granted this was TV, but it is supposedly truthful.

just wondering if that particular case is legit or not.


Thanks for the responses. I really appreciate it.

-Dan

[Delta_V]

That's a tough one and could go either way. The USSC has ruled on five entrapment cases, and the only one that is really relevant here is Sorrels v. U.S. In this case, the court ruled that the government may not be the instigator of illegal conduct. I believe that what the officer did in the show you saw would probably be considered entrapment, however that's not an absolute.

First, the fact that the suspect stopped his car in an area known for prostitution for the purposes of talking to a strange woman could be construed as intent. That's something the prosecutor would have to convince the jury of. Secondly, you don't know what they edited out in the television show. The suspect may have made some incriminating remark before the officer spoke, however the producer of the show may have edited it out for one reason or another.

In practice, it is best to wait for the suspect to suggest the illegal conduct. The case is much more sound that way.