http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I thought Warp might be interested in seeing a story about why Americans 
think juries are a good idea.  I'm not saying I'm agreeing or not, but this 
is the sort of thing people argue that's a good reason for juries.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

> I thought Warp might be interested in seeing a story about why Americans 
> think juries are a good idea.  I'm not saying I'm agreeing or not, but this 
> is the sort of thing people argue that's a good reason for juries.

  OTOH, how many examples are there where the jury has convicted the
defendant because of prejudice rather than neutral objectivity, or because
of not having sufficient expertise in order to form an informed judgement?
How many have convicted someone lightly because of a sentiment of "I don't
want to be sitting here all day, I'll just agree with the others"?

  I guess that those cases don't often end up in Washington Post...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   OTOH, how many examples are there where the jury has convicted the
> defendant because of prejudice rather than neutral objectivity,

That certainly happens too. It's not like judges and cops aren't prejudiced 
too, tho.

Sometimes a hearing will be moved to a different town because the prejudice 
around the case is too high. I'm not sure you could get away with accusing a 
judge of that.

>   I guess that those cases don't often end up in Washington Post...

As I said, it isn't necessarily the best way of working things. This just 
gives you the reason people are in *favor* of it. I didn't say that 
overwhelms the reasons it's bad.

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

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b5c9e29@news.povray.org...
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
>
> I thought Warp might be interested in seeing a story about why Americans
> think juries are a good idea.  I'm not saying I'm agreeing or not, but
this
> is the sort of thing people argue that's a good reason for juries.

1) The implicit assumption that only a jury would think that way, and the
judge would not, that is, juries have integrity and judges do not, is
unwarranted.
2) I'm not a believer in two wrongs make a right philosophy. I believe both
wrongs should be punished. Convinct the criminal, and then try/punish the
police.
3) Problem with the jury system is pandering by lawyers to essentially
losers of the social strata and driving up costs.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:

I'm not advocating that juries are better. I'm simply pointing out the sort 
of reason people give for juries being better.

A benevolent dictatorship wins over a democracy any day. The problem is 
making sure it stays benevolent.

> 2) I'm not a believer in two wrongs make a right philosophy. I believe both
> wrongs should be punished. Convinct the criminal, and then try/punish the
> police.

Oh, and incidentally, this doesn't work in practice, which is why it's 
illegal to introduce evidence that was obtained illegally, for example.

> 3) Problem with the jury system is pandering by lawyers to essentially
> losers of the social strata and driving up costs.

And I have no idea what this means.

-- 
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 24-1-2010 20:23, Darren New wrote:
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

> 
> 
> I thought Warp might be interested in seeing a story about why Americans 
> think juries are a good idea.  I'm not saying I'm agreeing or not, but 
> this is the sort of thing people argue that's a good reason for juries.
> 

A couple of remarks:
- the judge in our system often catches these things, so it does not 
mean that a jury system is better. IMO
- I think judges are more likely to catch this than arbitrary citizens
- This guy got a decent defence lawyer. How common is that? I have heard 
some people claim that poor people often get lazy ones.
- The whole police operation is absolutely illegal here.

but if the Americans think this kind of exceptions is any justification 
that is fine by me, as long as I don't have to live in such a country. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 01/25/10 11:51, andrel wrote:
> A couple of remarks:
> - the judge in our system often catches these things, so it does not
> mean that a jury system is better. IMO

IMO, that's too much power for a judge to have. At least with a jury,
you have 12 people vs one with a judge.

> - I think judges are more likely to catch this than arbitrary citizens

	This wasn't a legal issue - so why would a judge be more likely to
catch this (beyond simply experience with arguments that often arise in
courts)? He's no more qualified in these matters than an ordinary person
is.

> - The whole police operation is absolutely illegal here.

	You mean stings? I don't have too strong feelings about it. Entrapment,
though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.


-- 
Every hard drive I've ever bought has been larger than all my previous
hard drives combined. And this is without even trying.
--Seen on Slashdot.org

Post a reply to this message

On 26-1-2010 6:48, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/25/10 11:51, andrel wrote:
>> A couple of remarks:
>> - the judge in our system often catches these things, so it does not
>> mean that a jury system is better. IMO
> 
> IMO, that's too much power for a judge to have. At least with a jury,
> you have 12 people vs one with a judge.

All our judges are appointed. Trained to see past layers tricks. They 
are assumed to have no link with any political party nor with any 
company. I don't know anyone of them that is a public figure. So I think 
  they are better qualified then me to do justice.

> 
>> - I think judges are more likely to catch this than arbitrary citizens
> 
> 	This wasn't a legal issue - so why would a judge be more likely to
> catch this (beyond simply experience with arguments that often arise in
> courts)? He's no more qualified in these matters than an ordinary person
> is.

Experience indeed.

>> - The whole police operation is absolutely illegal here.
> 
> 	You mean stings? 

yes.

> I don't have too strong feelings about it. Entrapment,
> though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
 > Entrapment, though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.

Entrapment already is illegal. However, buying drugs from a drug dealer 
isn't entrapment.

Entrapment is when the cop tells you to do something you know would 
otherwise be illegal, then punishes you for it. Entrapment would be a cop 
waving you through a red light, then giving you a ticket for going thru a 
red light.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>  > Entrapment, though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.

> Entrapment already is illegal. However, buying drugs from a drug dealer 
> isn't entrapment.

> Entrapment is when the cop tells you to do something you know would 
> otherwise be illegal, then punishes you for it. Entrapment would be a cop 
> waving you through a red light, then giving you a ticket for going thru a 
> red light.

  A cop buying drugs is not entrapment, but a cop *selling* drugs (in order
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).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>  > Entrapment, though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.
> 
>> Entrapment already is illegal. However, buying drugs from a drug dealer 
>> isn't entrapment.
> 
>> Entrapment is when the cop tells you to do something you know would 
>> otherwise be illegal, then punishes you for it. Entrapment would be a cop 
>> waving you through a red light, then giving you a ticket for going thru a 
>> red light.
> 
>   A cop buying drugs is not entrapment, but a cop *selling* drugs (in order
> 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).
> 

Should the police officer posing as a drug dealer take a hesitant
customer, tell them they are a cop and will get busted for buying even
when they haven't, convince the person to buy drugs to do something else
for the cop, and then bust them for buying and what ever else they had
them do; that would be entrapment.

Entrapment is a cop, or another official of the state, convincing a
person to commit a crime by using their position as part of the state to
influence the person. In the case of an undercover cop, no entrapment
because the person is not unduly influenced.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   A cop buying drugs is not entrapment, but a cop *selling* drugs (in order
> 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).

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.

That's my understanding, but as I said, I have nothing more than heresay 
recollections about this, etc.

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

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> Entrapment is a cop, or another official of the state, convincing a
> person to commit a crime by using their position as part of the state to
> influence the person. In the case of an undercover cop, no entrapment
> because the person is not unduly influenced.

  So you are saying that if a cop identifies himself as a police officer
and then lures someone to commit a crime, it's entrapment, but if the cop
does not identify himself as such, then it's not entrapment?

  I don't think that's how entrapment is defined in the US or any other
country.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   A cop buying drugs is not entrapment, but a cop *selling* drugs (in order
> > 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).

> 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.

  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?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26-1-2010 22:12, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   A cop buying drugs is not entrapment, but a cop *selling* drugs (in order
>>> 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).
> 
>> 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.
> 
>   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?

Yes, at least in the US. From your question I assume that this is not 
the case in Finland.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 26-1-2010 22:12, Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>>   A cop buying drugs is not entrapment, but a cop *selling* drugs (in order
> >>> 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).
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> >   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?

> Yes, at least in the US.

  That seems to make the whole "entrapment" notion kind of moot.

> From your question I assume that this is not the case in Finland.

  Recently there was a law proposal to allow undercover police officers to
perform minor crimes (such as pilferage) to keep their disguise while
undercover (the losses to the victim being compensated by the government
afterwards). I don't remember if it passed or not.

  I suppose that tells something about how limited the actions of law
enforcement is.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26-1-2010 22:26, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 26-1-2010 22:12, Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>   A cop buying drugs is not entrapment, but a cop *selling* drugs (in order
>>>>> 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).
>>>> 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.
>>>   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?
> 
>> Yes, at least in the US.
> 
>   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.

We might think that is almost the same, but in the US the concept is 
apparently that in the latter case the person framed would under other 
circumstances also perform this crime.

> 
>> From your question I assume that this is not the case in Finland.
> 
>   Recently there was a law proposal to allow undercover police officers to
> perform minor crimes (such as pilferage) to keep their disguise while
> undercover (the losses to the victim being compensated by the government
> afterwards). I don't remember if it passed or not.
> 
>   I suppose that tells something about how limited the actions of law
> enforcement is.

Sort of the same as here.

Post a reply to this message

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?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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).

Post a reply to this message

On 01/26/10 10:12, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Entrapment, though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.
> 
> Entrapment already is illegal. However, buying drugs from a drug dealer
> isn't entrapment.

	Except, apparently, when the Feds convince you to blow something up,
and provide all the materials, too.

> Entrapment is when the cop tells you to do something you know would
> otherwise be illegal, then punishes you for it. Entrapment would be a

	Sounds like the above.


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

Post a reply to this message

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

On 01/26/10 18:28, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 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.

	Well, based on what I saw in the article, no formal definition has been
specified - it's often left to the juries/judges to decide what
constitutes entrapment.

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

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. 

Right. More generally, I think it's basically a cop getting you to break a 
law that you otherwise wouldn't have broken. I'm just giving the general 
thought behind it, to clarify it's not just "a cop is involved, hence it is 
entrapment."

Selling drugs to someone that you wouldn't sell to were he a cop is clearly 
not entrapment, by that reasoning. :-)

>> 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.

Agreed. I wasn't disagreeing with you. The *easy* case is when the person is 
clearly an officer of the law. Otherwise, you have to defend yourself by 
making clear it wouldn't have happened without the unknown person bugging you.

>>>     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.

Yes, different from the drug case.  And there have been apparently a fair 
number of cops winding up doing stuff like organizing "terrorist" attacks 
and then arresting those who went along with it.

>> 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 understood. I was just clarifying for the others in the conversation who 
asked in the first place.

I think we're in irreconcilable agreement here.

-- 
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 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:09:00 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> Entrapment is a cop, or another official of the state, convincing a
>> person to commit a crime by using their position as part of the state
>> to influence the person. In the case of an undercover cop, no
>> entrapment because the person is not unduly influenced.
> 
>   So you are saying that if a cop identifies himself as a police officer
> and then lures someone to commit a crime, it's entrapment, but if the
> cop does not identify himself as such, then it's not entrapment?
> 
>   I don't think that's how entrapment is defined in the US or any other
> country.

That's pretty much the textbook definition from what I understand.

If I'm a cop and I incite you to commit a crime, then it's entrapment.

If I'm a cop but you don't know it and you elect to commit a crime 
without my urging, then it's not.  So, an undercover cop posing as a drug 
dealer who has a "customer" who freely seeks out the cop and buys illegal 
drugs hasn't been entrapped, because it was their choice.

The bottom line is that it depends on whose choice it was to commit the 
crime.  If it's the cop's choice for the 'target' to commit a crime, then 
it's entrapment.  So, for example, an undercover cop selling drugs to 
willing customers isn't entrapment; the undercover cop ordering a hit on 
someone would be.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:21:20 +0100, andrel 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?
> 
> Yes, at least in the US.

Not as I understand it.  I have a cousin who's a sheriff's deputy, 
though, and I could ask him if he could explain the difference - but from 
having talked shop with him before, I'm pretty sure my earlier 
description is what he'd respond with.

It basically is a question of whose choice it was to commit the actual 
crime being charged.  In the case of an undercover cop selling drugs, the 
buyer has the option to walk away from the deal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> If I'm a cop and I incite you to commit a crime, then it's entrapment.

> If I'm a cop but you don't know it and you elect to commit a crime 
> without my urging, then it's not.

  You only consider two cases: Either the cop identifies himself *and*
incites someone to commit a crime, or neither.

  That was not the question. The question was if a cop incites someone
to commit a crime but does not identify himself as a police officer.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  I'm talking about the cop, not about the person who commits the crime.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> If I'm a cop and I incite you to commit a crime, then it's entrapment.
> 
>> If I'm a cop but you don't know it and you elect to commit a crime 
>> without my urging, then it's not.
> 
>   You only consider two cases: Either the cop identifies himself *and*
> incites someone to commit a crime, or neither.
> 
>   That was not the question. The question was if a cop incites someone
> to commit a crime but does not identify himself as a police officer.
> 

He didn't say that, in the first case, the cop identified himself.
Still, it is an edge case. It depends on whether the judge or jury
decide that the suspect would have committed the crime without the
urging of the state officer.

Technically, the person inciting does not have to be a police officer or
state officer. An individual citizen, acting on behalf of the state, can
still cause it to be entrapment. I think the case I heard was where a
person notified the police about something, a drug buy or what ever, and
directed someone to buy from an undercover cop. Because she notified the
police first, and acted with their consent, it was entrapment. If she
had just heard about an undercover cop selling drugs in a certain area,
and directed a buyer there, it would not have been entrapment because
the state officials had not been involved in convincing the person to
commit a crime. But separating those gets really far into constitutional
law, which is an absolute mess.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:57:10 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> If I'm a cop and I incite you to commit a crime, then it's entrapment.
> 
>> If I'm a cop but you don't know it and you elect to commit a crime
>> without my urging, then it's not.
> 
>   You only consider two cases: Either the cop identifies himself *and*
> incites someone to commit a crime, or neither.
> 
>   That was not the question. The question was if a cop incites someone
> to commit a crime but does not identify himself as a police officer.

If the person is given no choice in committing the crime, then it's 
entrapment.  If the cop says to the second party "kill that guy or I kill 
you" and then arrests the second party, that's entrapment.  If the second 
party has a reasonable chance of declining to participate, then it's not.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:58:09 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   I'm talking about the cop, not about the person who commits the crime.

It's not illegal (in general, there are exceptions) for a cop to use 
deception in a sting, investigation, or questioning.

That's why it is generally best when dealing with the police to say 
nothing; there's no requirement that if they say "we're not investigating 
you" that they be telling the truth.  Cops are trained professionals, and 
not just trained in physical skills, shooting, and the like - they also 
have training in conducting questioning sessions and getting people to 
say things they don't want to say.

Jim

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27-1-2010 22:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:58:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>   I'm talking about the cop, not about the person who commits the crime.
> 
> It's not illegal (in general, there are exceptions) for a cop to use 
> deception in a sting, investigation, or questioning.
> 
> That's why it is generally best when dealing with the police to say 
> nothing; 

One of the reasons some policeman here hate it when during an 
investigation they meet US citizens. They will often start acting as if 
this is the US. Saying nothing and demanding to see a lawyer when they 
just want to ask you something is not really helping the police here.

Sometimes even Dutch citizens that have watched too much US crime movies 
do the same.

> there's no requirement that if they say "we're not investigating 
> you" that they be telling the truth.  

That is the problem from the other side. For me this is an inconceivable 
idea. Here the police has to conform to higher standards than the 
general audience. Of course in under cover operations they might lie a 
bit not to blow the cover, but if it is wearing a uniform it won't lie. 
As simple as that.
If they do the case is closed and if it was a big lie, they get prosecuted.

BTW Did someone answer Warp's question already: can cops be prosecuted 
for 'entrapment'? (at least I think he wanted to know that)

> Cops are trained professionals, and 
> not just trained in physical skills, shooting, and the like - they also 
> have training in conducting questioning sessions and getting people to 
> say things they don't want to say.

Well, lying an torture are not part of the tools of a Dutch policeman, 
they often seen to be able to do their job regardless.

Post a reply to this message

On 27-1-2010 5:17, Darren New wrote:
> 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. 
> 
> Right. More generally, I think it's basically a cop getting you to break 
> a law that you otherwise wouldn't have broken. I'm just giving the 
> general thought behind it, to clarify it's not just "a cop is involved, 
> hence it is entrapment."
> 
> Selling drugs to someone that you wouldn't sell to were he a cop is 
> clearly not entrapment, by that reasoning. :-)
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Agreed. I wasn't disagreeing with you. The *easy* case is when the 
> person is clearly an officer of the law. Otherwise, you have to defend 
> yourself by making clear it wouldn't have happened without the unknown 
> person bugging you.

I think I even know a Dutch case along this lines: a random guy in a 
(probably flashy, if I know him well) car is followed by two under cover 
policeman that think he might be a person that will drive to fast. 
Indeed he does and after an hour they put him to the side of the road, 
charge him with speeding and confiscate his car because he is driving 
more than 50 kilometer per hour too fast.
The case comes for a judge and the guy defends himself saying: i have 
seen these two guys already in that town 100km from the place where they 
arrested me. I have seen them repeatedly and of course I was speeding, 
two dodgy looking guys were following me all this time.
The guy gets cleared, gets his car back and the police gets new 
instructions. I don't remember if he got compensation, in cases like 
this it is not unheard of.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/27/10 09:50, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>   I don't think that's how entrapment is defined in the US or any other
>> country.
> 
> That's pretty much the textbook definition from what I understand.

	I thought one of the outcomes of this thread was that in the US, there
is no textbook definition.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 01/27/10 13:11, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>   You only consider two cases: Either the cop identifies himself *and*
>> incites someone to commit a crime, or neither.
>>
>>   That was not the question. The question was if a cop incites someone
>> to commit a crime but does not identify himself as a police officer.
> 
> If the person is given no choice in committing the crime, then it's 
> entrapment.  If the cop says to the second party "kill that guy or I kill 
> you" and then arrests the second party, that's entrapment.  If the second 
> party has a reasonable chance of declining to participate, then it's not.

	I think that still isn't covering all the angles Warp is talking about.
What if it's an undercover cop who convinces (but doesn't coerce)
someone to commit a crime?

	I'd call that entrapment, as well. The usual criterion is "Would the
person have been predisposed to commit the crime had the cops not
approached him about it?"

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

Post a reply to this message

On 01/27/10 14:34, andrel wrote:
> One of the reasons some policeman here hate it when during an
> investigation they meet US citizens. They will often start acting as if
> this is the US. Saying nothing and demanding to see a lawyer when they
> just want to ask you something is not really helping the police here.

	Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US, when
you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.

	At least that's the case with federal groups (FBI, etc) - may be
different in some states for the local law enforcement.

	(I know this because I once *needed* to know this).

> BTW Did someone answer Warp's question already: can cops be prosecuted
> for 'entrapment'? (at least I think he wanted to know that)

	I doubt it over here. Cases can be thrown out, but in the US, there's
no solid definition of entrapment. Perhaps he could be sued, though, and
the department may choose to discipline (although I think that's unlikely).

> Well, lying an torture are not part of the tools of a Dutch policeman,
> they often seen to be able to do their job regardless.

	You're making it too black and white. Yes, Jim mentioned lying, but
there are plenty of ways to trick you into saying stuff without actually
misleading/lying. It's a fine line where you go from acceptable to
unacceptable.

	Furthermore, there are elements at stake that the police can exploit
without even realizing it - and only recent research has shown those
biases (e.g. issues in lineups and identification in general).

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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:34:50 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> It's not illegal (in general, there are exceptions) for a cop to use
>> deception in a sting, investigation, or questioning.
>> 
>> That's why it is generally best when dealing with the police to say
>> nothing;
> 
> One of the reasons some policeman here hate it when during an
> investigation they meet US citizens. They will often start acting as if
> this is the US. Saying nothing and demanding to see a lawyer when they
> just want to ask you something is not really helping the police here.
> 
> Sometimes even Dutch citizens that have watched too much US crime movies
> do the same.

There's a cultural aspect to this for US citizens, I think; the ideas 
about law and justice are rooted in the UK justice system, but with 
significant modifications because of issues that contributed to the 
revolutionary war.  At least that's how I remember my history (but I 
never claim to have a solid grasp of history, either <g>).

>> there's no requirement that if they say "we're not investigating you"
>> that they be telling the truth.
> 
> That is the problem from the other side. For me this is an inconceivable
> idea. Here the police has to conform to higher standards than the
> general audience. Of course in under cover operations they might lie a
> bit not to blow the cover, but if it is wearing a uniform it won't lie.
> As simple as that.
> If they do the case is closed and if it was a big lie, they get
> prosecuted.

Here's the thing.  In some parts of the US, there is a problem with drug 
trafficking.  There's a stretch of I-80, for example, between Omaha and 
Nebraska where the cops wait for cars with out of state license plates.  
They can't pull you over for having out of state plates, but they can 
pull you over for any infraction - like drifting out of your lane, or 
failing to signal for 100 feet before changing lanes (I know this because 
I've been pulled over 3 separate times on that stretch of freeway while 
driving at night).

They don't really care about the minor infractions.  But because of the 
drug trade that takes place along that stretch, they want to "get their 
nose in your car" (as my cousin - who's a sheriff's deputy - put it).  
The minor infraction gives them probable cause to stop you - and you will 
get a warning for the infraction.

Often times, they'll ask the driver if they can search the car.  Most 
people will respond by saying "sure, why not, I've got nothing to hide", 
and the idea is that this puts pressure on someone who does have 
something to hide to do something.

But here's the kicker.  Suppose they're *not* looking for drugs.  
Suppose, instead, they're investigating a double homicide, and a car 
matching your car's description was seen leaving the scene of the crime.  
A perp described as a blond male, mid-to-late 30's, wearing a leather 
coat driving the car.  (Hey, that's me!).  I'm not wearing the coat while 
driving, but have it in the trunk or the back seat under some stuff where 
they can't see it.

I consent to let them search the car.  They find the coat; I match the 
suspect's description, drive a car that vaguely matches the description 
of the car leaving the scene - now I'm a suspect in a double homicide.  
Just for drifting out of my lane.

That's why US citizens who are smart will not answer any questions - 
because even if the cop says they're investigating an accident and think 
you might've been in the area, you don't know for certain if in fact that 
is what it is.

Similar situation - you get pulled over for speeding.  First question any 
cop will ask you is "do you know how fast you were going?" - most people 
want to be honest, at least to some degree, so they'll say "Maybe 68-70 
MPH" - if it's a 65 zone, congratulations, you've just confessed to 
speeding.  You get a ticket, and if you go to court to challenge, the 
cop's notes will reflect that you said you were going 68-70.  When you 
pull away after being pulled over, the cop gets back in his car and sits 
there.  He's writing down everything from the conversation in case you 
decide to challenge the ticket.

So say you get pulled over, but you've got the cruise control on and 
you're doing less than the speed limit.  Cop's radar gun is 
miscalibrated, and he clocks you at 75 when you're doing 65-66.  You get 
pulled over, maybe you sped up to pass another car; you assume that he 
saw you pass the other car, and you decide that since he caught you for 
speeding, he must be right and you must be wrong, so you say 67 MPH.  Now 
you have no recourse to challenge the ticket because you confessed.

Once a month I meet with our local police liason officer (in fact, I meet 
with him tomorrow night) as part of our local community organization.  He 
often will tell stories after the meeting to those who are sticking 
around about the dumb things people confess to.

> BTW Did someone answer Warp's question already: can cops be prosecuted
> for 'entrapment'? (at least I think he wanted to know that)

I think it depends on the circumstances.  I can't think of any such 
prosecutions offhand, but I don't follow the news that closely.

>> Cops are trained professionals, and
>> not just trained in physical skills, shooting, and the like - they also
>> have training in conducting questioning sessions and getting people to
>> say things they don't want to say.
> 
> Well, lying an torture are not part of the tools of a Dutch policeman,
> they often seen to be able to do their job regardless.

Torture isn't a tool US cops use either (unless they're bad cops), but 
psychological misdirection is a tool that I would expect any member of 
any law enforcement agency in the world would use as a tool in their 
fight against crime.  "Lying" often may be too strong of a word, 
"misdirection" might be a better word to use, because it's not "lying" if 
you let someone believe something that isn't true.

But it would never surprise me if you had two suspects who knew each 
other for a cop or prosecutor to tell each suspect that the other guy was 
cutting a deal at that very moment and this was his last chance to tell 
anything they should know.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:18:17 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 01/27/10 13:11, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>   You only consider two cases: Either the cop identifies himself *and*
>>> incites someone to commit a crime, or neither.
>>>
>>>   That was not the question. The question was if a cop incites someone
>>> to commit a crime but does not identify himself as a police officer.
>> 
>> If the person is given no choice in committing the crime, then it's
>> entrapment.  If the cop says to the second party "kill that guy or I
>> kill you" and then arrests the second party, that's entrapment.  If the
>> second party has a reasonable chance of declining to participate, then
>> it's not.
> 
> 	I think that still isn't covering all the angles Warp is talking 
about.
> What if it's an undercover cop who convinces (but doesn't coerce)
> someone to commit a crime?
> 
> 	I'd call that entrapment, as well. The usual criterion is "Would 
the
> person have been predisposed to commit the crime had the cops not
> approached him about it?"

Yeah, I would as well - your description is closest to what I was trying 
(and failing) to say.  That predisposition is an important part, I think, 
of the determination.  It's not a really clear definition (to me).

I may ask my cousin about that - I know he's on leave right now, but when 
he gets back in a couple weeks, I may drop him a line and ask him.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:15:45 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 01/27/10 09:50, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>   I don't think that's how entrapment is defined in the US or any
>>>   other
>>> country.
>> 
>> That's pretty much the textbook definition from what I understand.
> 
> 	I thought one of the outcomes of this thread was that in the US, 
there
> is no textbook definition.

Well, I'm sure there is a 'textbook' definition, but reality is often 
different than the textbook.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US, when
> you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
> having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.

And you're free to leave if you're not being detained. :-)

-- 
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 01/27/10 18:49, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>     Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US, when
>> you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
>> having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.
> 
> And you're free to leave if you're not being detained. :-)

	Well, yes. That's what I meant by "refuse to answer".

-- 
He's got a magnet!!!  Everybody BACKUP!!!!!!!!

Post a reply to this message

On 01/27/10 16:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Here's the thing.  In some parts of the US, there is a problem with drug 
> trafficking.  There's a stretch of I-80, for example, between Omaha and 
> Nebraska where the cops wait for cars with out of state license plates.  

	How can you be between Omaha and Nebraska?

> I consent to let them search the car.  They find the coat; I match the 
> suspect's description, drive a car that vaguely matches the description 
> of the car leaving the scene - now I'm a suspect in a double homicide.  
> Just for drifting out of my lane.

	I would think that your matching the description, as well as your car,
would be sufficient enough reason to stop, but am not sure.

> That's why US citizens who are smart will not answer any questions - 
> because even if the cop says they're investigating an accident and think 
> you might've been in the area, you don't know for certain if in fact that 
> is what it is.

	Refusing to allow them to search your car is usually within your right.
However, it can lead to an inconvenience. I remember years ago
reading/being told that if you refuse, they have the right to hold you
there until sniffing dogs come and sniff. The following seems to concur:

http://flexyourrights.org/supreme_court/illinois_v_caballes

	Although it implies a limit to how long you have to wait.

	I should add that the site actually encourages you to decline a search.

> Similar situation - you get pulled over for speeding.  First question any 
> cop will ask you is "do you know how fast you were going?" - most people 
> want to be honest, at least to some degree, so they'll say "Maybe 68-70 
> MPH" - if it's a 65 zone, congratulations, you've just confessed to 
> speeding.  You get a ticket, and if you go to court to challenge, the 
> cop's notes will reflect that you said you were going 68-70.  When you 
> pull away after being pulled over, the cop gets back in his car and sits 
> there.  He's writing down everything from the conversation in case you 
> decide to challenge the ticket.

	I think that's quite fair - I don't see a problem in that.


-- 
He's got a magnet!!!  Everybody BACKUP!!!!!!!!

Post a reply to this message