On 01/26/10 13:04, Darren New wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Basically, if he
> says "I'm a cop, and this is OK, I authorize you to do this", then it
> would be entrapment.

	Umm...OK. That's different from what I was thinking in my example.

	The only difference in what you're saying is that he/she states openly
that he/she is a cop.

	I still find it wrong to go undercover, and then /convince/ someone to
commit a crime, and then charge him for it. I think the utility of
undercover cops should be restricted to uncovering _existing_ or _past_
crimes, and certainly not crimes that the undercover person initiated.

	Why should the cops be allowed to do this, and yet ordinary people not?

	Reminds me of a case (in the US) where someone was on trial - accused
of trying to indirectly recruit terrorists by posting fatwas that
advocate violence on his web site (he never _himself_ advocated it, he'd
just post the stuff). All the defense had to do was point out that the
prosecution's own expert witness had the same or similar material on his
web site (for "research" purposes), and ask why he wasn't being tried.
The case unraveled and the guy was acquitted.

	Now, looking up Wikipedia, it seems that the person need not identify
himself as being a cop to make it entrapment:

"Four years later, it did and in Sorrells v. United States (287 U.S. 435
(1932)) unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory
worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated
entreaties to get him some liquor."

	However, reading the rest of the article, it seems that there has been
no definitive criterion in the US for this - often leaving it up to the
jurors to decide.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 26-1-2010 23:19, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >>>   That seems to make the whole "entrapment" notion kind of moot.
> > 
> >> Not really. A policeman cannot say to somebody: "my friend here needs 
> >> weed for medicinal purposes and if you can get him that, I'll look the 
> >> other way" and then arrest. But he is allowed to say "I need it as 
> >> medicine" as long as he is not identifiable as an officer.
> > 
> >   If he says "I'm a doctor and my friend here needs weed", then it is ok?
> > 
> Yes, because he is not giving the impression that he has the authority 
> to arrest but won't. So he can legally arrest the poor guy. (at least 
> that is how I understand US law as a foreigner).

  Even if it's not technically called by the legal term "entrapment", I have
to still assume that it's illegal for a police officer to do that (even if
it's by some other legal term). Else it wouldn't make much sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 01/26/10 10:47, Warp wrote:
> to arrest the people who buy them) would be, wouldn't it? Or a cop posing
> as a prostitute to arrest people who try to buy her services (at least in
> places where that's illegal).

	Oh yeah - that too. How many "gay scandals" have we had as a result of
this?

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Wouldn't that mean that the police can lure anybody to do a crime with
> impunity as long as they don't identify themselves as the police?

Pretty much, yes. It's not so much identifying themselves as a cop as much 
as it is saying "because I'm a cop, I'm using the powers vested in my 
authority to permit you to do something you would not be allowed to do 
without my permission."

If there's a cop in the intersection, he can wave me through the intersection.

A cop is allowed to bring illegal drugs into a classroom to show students 
what they look like, or to bring a gun into a classroom to teach firearm 
safety.  Cops get to do things like that here that average citizens don't.

If a cop says "Look, all the prostitutes know who I am. Take this $50, drive 
over there to ask her for a trick, and if she agrees, I'll arrest her," and 
then he arrests *you* for doing it, that's entrapment.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Recently there was a law proposal to allow undercover police officers to
> perform minor crimes (such as pilferage) to keep their disguise while
> undercover

That's not what's happening here, tho. The cops aren't really selling you 
drugs. They're offering to sell you drugs, and if you buy it, they arrest you.

I don't think an undercover cop is supposed to be shoplifting here, for 
example, to keep up his cover. I don't really know, tho. I imagine someone 
infiltrating a gang has to do some illegal stuff on occasion.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Even if it's not technically called by the legal term "entrapment", I have
> to still assume that it's illegal for a police officer to do that (even if
> it's by some other legal term). Else it wouldn't make much sense.

I think in this particular case, MJ is supposed to be by prescription. So if 
the cop gives you a fake prescription and you fill it, then you're not 
guilty of selling weed. You're guilty of accepting a fake prescription, 
which is probably not illegal unless you knew it was fake.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	The only difference in what you're saying is that he/she states openly
> that he/she is a cop.

Not just that. He states openly that he's a cop *and* that he's authorizing 
you to do that.

In other words, it would be like you being on an airplane, having the cabin 
attendant say "This restroom is broken, go use the one in first class", then 
giving you grief for going into first class.

Obeying the policeman (to a great extent) overrides the breaking of the law.

> 	I still find it wrong to go undercover, and then /convince/ someone to
> commit a crime, and then charge him for it. 

Yes. But that's a different question. :-)

> 	However, reading the rest of the article, it seems that there has been
> no definitive criterion in the US for this - often leaving it up to the
> jurors to decide.

Yep. Basically, the guy wouldn't have sold the booze had the cop not 
browbeaten him.  In *this* case, the guy on the corner was standing there 
dealing, so the cops arrested him after gathering evidence it was going on.

I.e., this wasn't "we tricked this guy into selling drugs."  This was "we 
stood here and watched him sell drugs five times. The sixth time, we 
arranged him to sell it to us, so we could catch him."

If you convinced the jury that the cop was the first person he sold anything 
to, that would probably be closer to entrapment. But again, not being a 
lawyer, I don't think it's very clear-cut.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On 01/26/10 16:22, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>     The only difference in what you're saying is that he/she states
>> openly
>> that he/she is a cop.
> 
> Not just that. He states openly that he's a cop *and* that he's
> authorizing you to do that.

	The reason I quoted the portion from Wikipedia was to point out that
entrapment /doesn't/ require the victim to know he's a cop. In that
particular case, the undercover agent was bugging the guy to do
something illegal, and he did. It was ruled as entrapment, because it
wasn't clear if the person would have done it ordinarily had he not been
repeatedly asked to sell it.

> Obeying the policeman (to a great extent) overrides the breaking of the
> law.

	Again, my point is that entrapment seems to apply to people who are not
clearly officers of the law.

>>     I still find it wrong to go undercover, and then /convince/
>> someone to
>> commit a crime, and then charge him for it. 
> 
> Yes. But that's a different question. :-)

	Different from the drug case, yes. But not different from entrapment.

> Yep. Basically, the guy wouldn't have sold the booze had the cop not
> browbeaten him.  In *this* case, the guy on the corner was standing
> there dealing, so the cops arrested him after gathering evidence it was
> going on.

	I think you misunderstood. I never claimed that the drug case in
question was entrapment. I was merely clarifying to Andrel that I may
find some stings OK, but I don't find entrapment OK. My responses to you
were regarding the definition of entrapment, and that it need not
involve the target realizing that he's dealing with a law enforcement
agent.


-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 26-1-2010 23:19, Warp wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>>   That seems to make the whole "entrapment" notion kind of moot.
>>
>>> Not really. A policeman cannot say to somebody: "my friend here needs
>>> weed for medicinal purposes and if you can get him that, I'll look
>>> the other way" and then arrest. But he is allowed to say "I need it
>>> as medicine" as long as he is not identifiable as an officer.
>>
>>   If he says "I'm a doctor and my friend here needs weed", then it is ok?
>>
> Yes, because he is not giving the impression that he has the authority
> to arrest but won't. So he can legally arrest the poor guy. (at least
> that is how I understand US law as a foreigner).
> 

That would be a real borderline case. The cop is posing as someone with
the apparent authority to make that a legal request in some states. If a
person believes they are acting lawfully and under the advice of state
authority, I think that would fall into entrapment by estopple. And
since the cop is posing as a doctor, which would be practicing without a
license (major crime) I don't think that would ever be upheld.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	The reason I quoted the portion from Wikipedia was to point out that
> entrapment /doesn't/ require the victim to know he's a cop. In that
> particular case, the undercover agent was bugging the guy to do
> something illegal, and he did. It was ruled as entrapment, because it
> wasn't clear if the person would have done it ordinarily had he not been
> repeatedly asked to sell it.

That is an interesting case, too. In one part, the opinion of the court
was "The Circuit Court of Appeals reached the conclusion that the
defense of entrapment can be maintained only where, as a result of
inducement, the accused is placed in the attitude of having committed a
crime which he did not intend to commit, or where, by reason of the
consent implied in the inducement, no crime has in fact been committed."

However, the conclusion was that the error was in the initial court not
allowing the defense to argue entrapment before the jury, not that it
was actual entrapment. The end result was that the case was sent back to
the initial jurisdiction, and I would have to search around more to see
if that resulted in a new trial or just a dismissal. That case, by it
self, set no legal wording for what entrapment actually is.

Post a reply to this message