I was about to dive into the pit thread about undercover cops busting high schoolers but I think it would have been starting a whole new angle and it wasn’t bitchy.
Here’s the thing. If the cops think you’re a bad guy, and they bring you down to the station for questioning, even against your will, they are not permitted to question you for weeks on end, coaxing you to give up the info they’re looking for. Even more than a few hours is, as far as I know, already unacceptable.
But if you’re a vice cop, undercover, you get weeks. If you’re an FBI agent looking to snag a terrorist, you’ve got at least a year. If they were in an interview room, at any point the individual could stop and ask for a lawyer. If they were at his door, the individual could calmly end the discussion and go inside. But if they’re undercover, all bets are off, and they can probe you for days, and weeks, and months, and…
I think this is wrong. This kind of fishing expedition in statistics would get you laughed at in the journals. Even if it isn’t entrapment I believe we need to rethink this aspect of law enforcement. It’s one thing to know where johns pick up prostitutes and throw an undercover there. I think prostitution should be legal and all, but this is not particularly shady action by law enforcement. But, it’s another to perform a long sting operation in a high school, coaxing individuals and fishing around for weeks just to see.
I must end this thread with the admission that I do not have a good opinion on what to do about it, because I am not saying all long-term sting operations are necessarily shady—and I don’t even know if this case in particular really was conducted in a shady fashion or if this student was targeted for good reason etc. But it seems to me that law enforcement has a responsibility to do better than fish for weeks to get a high schooler to sell a bag of pot.
I don’t think they’re inherently wrong because I don’t see a good alternative for handling conspiracy-type crimes. I am concerned about the FBI operations that snare all these idiot wannabe terrorists- they seem to have that down to a science at this point, and while even an idiot wannabe can ocasionally pull off an attack, it also seems like the FBI is able to put these things on autopilot and catch guys who are much more willing than able. But I’m not sure about a good alternative there either.
There may be some moral culpability in sting operations where cops disguised as fences purchase stolen goods. How many people got mugged or robbed because there was a ready market for their merchandise?
There is no such thing in this country as taking a person in for questioning against thier will. If they refuse to go, they need to be arrested and that requires probable cause and no PC exisits for refusal to go, so it must be another charge, etc. There is no such as taking a person in for investigative detention only. At one time in the country it was Constitutionally permitted, emphasis added, but no longer.
Not sure how you mean the words “confidence game,” but to the extent you’re talking about extended sting operations, as a general rule the courts have disagreed with you: they are not unreasonable.
I agree with the prevailing caselaw. Unreasonable stings happen when someone’s will is overborne; the mere fact that a sting operation lasts a long time has nothing to do with its reasonableness.
No, because element #4 - “… and thereafter his/her money and property,” is typically missing. A confidence game refers to a swindle, an effort to gain the confidence of a target so as to defraud him him and thereby steal money or property.
In a police sting, the goal is to assemble evidence of criminal activity, not to steal money or property.
Remove money and tangible goods from any typical vice case and there is no case. Illegal gun sale without guns? Are police hypotheticals enough to prosecute people now?
Even if long-term stings were technically a confidence game - and I agree they are not - who says fooling criminal suspects is always bad? Police are allowed to use deception in doing their jobs, since a lot of policework would be almost impossible without it.
I am allowed to lie to people, too. But I am not allowed to lie to people in order to acquire goods or money based on those lies. I think that the police can do this is questionable.
First, that wasn’t part of the definition. Would a con be legal if the thief gave all proceeds to his poor old grandmother? Second, if they didn’t want to keep and use it, it couldn’t count as evidence.
That’s still the thief’s own use. Cops don’t get to use evidence that way (if they do, it’s a major violation).
I said “for their own use,” not “keep it” and not “use it.” Something that goes into an evidence locker isn’t used personally by the cops, it’s used by the state in a prosecution. That makes it different from something acquired in a con.
Of course tangible goods are often part of the case – although they don’t have to be. A conspiracy is an agreement between people to violate the law. It’s absolutely possible to be guilty of conspiracy to sell illegal guns without there being a single tangible gun or dollar bill in the picture.
But even then, the critical element in a confidence game is the ultimate goal of TAKING money or property. It’s not that a confidence game merely involves money or tangible goods: the goal of the confidence game is to steal money or tangible goods from the target. The goal of a police investigation is to document criminal activity.
Doesn’t matter what he does with it after he steals it – his crime is complete the moment it’s stolen. And the police may acquire evidence, but not by theft. The cops buy a bag of marijuana; the seller willingly sells it, getting money for it, just as they would with any other customer.
Lots of things don’t have to be. I don’t have to work at my job, and cops don’t have to engage people in sale of drugs to arrest all criminals of all kinds ever. But, can you for the moment, please, entertain the cases in which what we’re discussing actually applies?
…by taking money or goods from the target (in exchange for goods or money).
The con man doesn’t acquire property by theft either, his marks are willing participants. But we call it theft.
I ask because while I suppose it’s true that the mark willingly hands over his property, it’s typically because he thinks he’s getting something more valuable in return, but the con man does not deliver on that promise. In contrast, the officer delivers on his promise, paying money for drugs just as agreed.
So I’m curious to know what type of confidence game you’re picturing. I’m thinking of things like the pigeon drop, or the gypsy “cursed money” scam. What are you picturing?
The point is that the police are not intending to defraud. The intent is not to take anything from the suspect that is theirs by right. They are looking for evidence of criminal activity. If that includes money and property, it is taken as evidence. If that money or property were illegally acquired by the suspect, it is confiscated. It isn’t theirs anyway. If that money or property was theirs lawfully, but still constitutes evidence, it is held as such. And they could petition to have it returned after the trial. They could get it back! Unless it was something like a gun that was used in the commision of a crime, in which case, even though it was theirs legally, it can still be confiscated.
But the point is the police intent is not typically to defraud.
Oh, and this too.