It just seemed like you are continually trying to correct my understanding of the law when each time I’ve not been trying to comment on the law at all, or you’re “correcting” what I already understand to be the case. I’m trying not to get hostile about it but it’s really wearing on me.
It’s only recently that this has occurred to me. I’m just not sure on my feelings about it. Until recently I would not have even considered this a breach in any way.
I disagree with courts a lot, but after some time to think, some opinions read, etc., I come to agree with them. This may be such a case.
I have explained twice: once with the con, once with the paramedic. Now I yield to you: what would constitute a breach to you? How big of a check can they write?
For example, could they get married? Own a business? I have illustrated my problem as best as I can, and you don’t think it amounts to anything. Fine, we disagree; I have nothing else to offer. But if there is a limit, beyond which they shouldn’t pass in this way, what is it, to you?
If they have a good reason, they can already get a warrant. This is already outside those bounds.
The point of a sting is that it is not supposed to involve pushing anyone into anything. That’s when it becomes entrapment. Done properly, the cops are supposed to create a false opportunity for the suspect to commit a crime he already wanted to commit.
You keep protesting that you don’t want to hear about the legal issues, but then you turn around and assert a belief in a legal conclusion.
Yes, I get it. You have an opinion. It’s an opinion relatively peculiar to you and unsupported by actual law. For this reason, you want to keep the debate away from actual law.
I too have an opinion. My opinion is that Helen Hunt should come to my house and give me a massage. I realize the “current law” does not compel that result, but in my opinion it should.
From a paper I read today on this topic, it seems I am not alone in this aspect.
I understand what the law on this matter is well enough. For this reason, such a discussion is unproductive. I think we should consider changing the law. What advantage is there in discussing the way things are, if what I am proposing is some kind of change?
I suppose one could turn this around and play “burn the stinger” with the narcs. if that guy who’s always offering or hitting you up for drugs or whatever seems hinky, call the cops on him yourself. Also, spread your suspicions with your friends so they don’t fall for Grassy Mc Grasserson’s line.
After all, only a Straight Citizen would notify the authorities when such dealings are going down.
That’s a paper on undercover operations in the Netherlands. Could you quote some persuasive passage that supports your view, applicable to this country?
The things you think I think are in question are different than the actual things I think are in question.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I thought we were discussing the aspects of fraud in relation to sting operations.
[QUOTE=erislover]
Of course it is, it has every single trapping of defrauding someone—acquiring goods or money through deceit. But as a society, we don’t yet call it this.
[/QUOTE]
I was showing how it’s not fraud. That the acquisition of goods or money is not really relevent to the sting operation, it’s only relevent to criminal activities, just like in any other arrest. If you weren’t arguing what you are quoted as saying above, I can move on to something else.
Marley23 also said some good things on this issue.
Some criminals are not stupid, or at least can be considered crafty. Some times, you see them consorting with drug dealers and have reason to suspect they are supplying those dealers, but don’t have enough for a warrant. Some times, you got a warrant but, because you didn’t know how they were bringing the drugs into the country or where they were stashing them, your warrant was for the wrong place, and you found nothing. you don’t yet know how and where they are operating. (Most of them aren’t taking ads out in the classifieds detailing how they are getting drugs into the country or where they keep them.) And some times the drug lord is careful to never be near the drugs even when he is totally running the operation; you’re not going to catch him by getting a warrant for any property he owns or anywhere he’s actually been, and you need to be crafty to catch him.
So, you watch them. Then, since you suspect they are guilty of bringing in boat loads of drugs, you really want to establish evidence for a pattern of criminal activity, and not just catch them for selling drugs one time. You want evidence of several criminal activities all leading up to the conclusion that they run a criminal enterprise. Often, it’s really hard to get that crafty drug lord to agree to sell you drugs, even once… And not because he isn’t a drug lord, and you have to entrap him into selling drugs… Just because he doesn’t want to get caught. He carefully cultivates relationships with those he is willing to supply. You have to become one of those he is willing to supply if you want to catch him.
All of that gives society good reason to want to watch some people for long periods of time and get close to them to witness their criminal activities.
If all you want is some one to sign off on the operation and the scope of it, I’m willing to agree.
But, it often doesn’t initially rise to the level of getting a warrant. They need more information first, which is why they want to run the sting. I’m willing to give that authority to the police chief to monitor sting operations. But, the fact is, when the case comes to trial, they have to justify the operation anyway, and so, they are usually careful to stay within the guidelines of the law or the case gets thrown out.
[QUOTE=erislover]
Presumably the police are investigating people they suspect of a crime in some capacity. If they literally fishing around then I am definitely sure they have overstepped their moral authority, even if the courts disagree.
We were. You said it was the aspect of crime that makes it a crime. That is trivial. If we legalize killing people, then there is no murder, because it is the crime that makes it a crime. I don’t care why the con does his thing, the removal of property under false pretenses is a con, even if there are secondary benefits to the activity. Cops can kill people without it being murder, as murder is unlawful killing. And cops can con people without it being a crime, too.
Without it, the evidence presented at someone’s trial would not be the same. Without it, the money, boats, houses, and other goods seized could not go to the government. I don’t think it makes any sense to pretend like the goods or services in question during a sting are incidental. They’re the point! (Except in information-gathering undercover work. Nothing like a secret police to make us feel free.)
Is there something I have said that leads you to believe this is in dispute? So they cannot get a traditional warrant. So what? They’re about to invade someone’s life for an extended period of time. Anything they see can be used as evidence. If they can’t get a normal warrant for this nonsense, then we’d damn well better come up with a new kind of warrant.
But let me guess, it’s not really selling drugs, because selling drugs is a crime and this is not a crime?
I don’t know if this is what I want, but at the moment I believe this would satisfy me. They are searching, and they have full intention to seize, and they know damn well what they’re going in for. If we need a new kind of warrant to cover stings, so be it. Wiretapping presented different warrant needs too, as I recall. We seemed to manage that without shredding the fourth amendment to pieces, until someone decided that pesky fourth amendment was really bothering them and we began warrantless wiretapping, itself already a tragedy.
We have laws for getting information, like covert surveillance. In my view, you don’t get to violate the fourth amendment just cuz those darned criminals are so wily and secretive. There are a few exceptions, but overall it seems the courts have agreed several times over.
I do not know the exact edges of sting operations, but if you are allowed to inject yourself into someone’s personal life in order to gather evidence against them without a warrant, I just don’t see what kind of line there could be to overstep.
No, I don’t count it as applicable to this country.
The “befriending operations” are detailed in your link as follows:
This was a surprise to me. This is different than what you’re complaining of: in this instance, the author explores problem in operations where * an undercover agent befriends a suspect and tries to build up such a relationship with him that the suspect confides his guilt of a prior crime.* It’s quite a bit different than pretending friendliness so as to be in a position to observe a current crime, isn’t it?
Could you be suggesting that the study shows that in the United States we’ve used “befriending operations” to uncover past crimes? I delved a bit deeper.
The reference works mentioned as being sources for undercover “befriending operations” are:
[ul]
[li]Choo, A. L. T and Mellors, M. (1995), ‘Undercover Police Operations and What the Suspect Said (or Didn’t Say)’, Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 2: 8–10[/li][li]Maguire, M. and John, T. (1996), ‘Covert and Deceptive Policing in England and Wales: Issues in Regulation and Practice’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 4: 316–34[/li][li]Smith, S. M., Stinson, V. and Patry, M. W. (2009), ‘Using the ‘‘Mr. Big’’ Technique to Elicit Confessions: Successful Innovation or Dangerous Development in the Canadian Legal System?’, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15: 168–93[/li][/ul]
The second and third clearly study cases in England, Wales, and Canada.
So the first must be the one that hits the United States, I guess?
Nope. Turns out Manda Mellors is a Research Student in Law at the University of Leicester, and Andrew Chhoo is a Reader in Law at the University of Leicester, and the cases they examine are English cases also.
So again I would ask: what test in that link of your refers to the United States and has specific portions that support your view? It’s certainly NOT the “According to some, during those operations, the safeguards applying to the interrogation of a suspect are skirted,” business, because as I have just shown, those operations are English, Welsh, or Canadian, but NOT American.
Did you just miss that, or did you know it already?
And, just to clarify: My problem is not that it is a con. My problem is that I think it skirts the fourth amendment, and I think the courts or the legislature should step up to correct this situation.
These kinds of “secret police” tactics ensure that people are not secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from the government. Since I agree with all parties that stings in principle—and likely most of them in practice—are a useful police technique given the nature of some crimes, I think that they don’t have to violate the fourth amendment. If police have good reason to set up a sting, then we need to relax warrant requirements in order to accommodate this.
With respect to information-gathering stings, especially confidence games designed to get people to confess to a crime, I think that a person’s rights are plainly violated and I don’t see a way out of this particularly. I guess wiretapping warrants could make an analogy here, but it is kind of a stretch as wiretapping is passive, while information fishing is active. But it plainly sidesteps the fourth and fifth amendments, as well as a suspect’s Miranda rights, and a host of other protections (for both law enforcement and citizens) surrounding police interviews. I am willing to stipulate that still such “secret police” tactics are necessary but just because we need to do this doesn’t mean we get to ignore the Constitution. There are lots of crime-fighting techniques that would be quite effective, but for the Constitution, and subsequent interpretations of it.
Again, I understand this is not how the courts have interpreted the Constitution. I can only hope the courts or the legislature tries to put some kind of restraints on these operations.
By “confess,” do you mean commit? Or is there some example you’d like to share, in the United States, of an undercover operation being used to elicit a confession to a past crime?
