Oops! :smack:
Should be:
“A backpack is unusual (when left on a street)…”
No, they can’t. You’re exactly right – the elements of larceny include an attempt to permanantly deprive the owner of posession. As long as the people can claim they were going to turn the backpack in, it’s hard to imagine a case sticking. In fact, a bit of further research reveals the DA dropped almost all cases after reviewing the evidence. The one case that will apparently procede to verdict is where the arrestee immediately volunteered that he knew he was tealing the backpack and that he knew it was wrong.
However, note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with entrapment.
In CA, yes, having GPS or another tracking method lead LEOs to a residence or vehicle gives probable cause to search. It actually gives probable cause for an immediate, warrantless search because these types of operations are conducted in real time and they’re considered “hot pursuit”; no warrant necessary.
Where is the line drawn?
Hypothetically say the police drop a $100 bill on the sidewalk. I doubt there is a person in the Untied States (or world), including police and lawyers, who wouldn’t stop to pick that up if they saw it while walking by.
Seems to me, in that case, the police are enticing people to do something they ordinarily wouldn’t do (i.e. take money that does not belong to them).
For entrapment to apply do the police have to actually persuade you to commit the crime?
So you call the cops, tell them what you saw and drop it. Give them a call back the next day if no one’s been out to check on it. It’s not yours to investigate. And breaking into the trunk? Guess what, if there’s a dead stripper in there, she’ll still be dead in a few days, you prying the trunk open isn’t going to bring her back to life. Now, if you heard thrashing or muffled screams coming from the trunk, that would be different. It sounds to me (based on what you said), that these were two busy bodies that were in over their heads.
If you ever see my car with it’s headlights on, just let the battery die…please don’t break into it.
A dead battery is much easier to replace than a broken window or a lock damaged from being jimmied.
What does this have to do with what I wrote? I didn’t even mention the ACLU.
Yes, the police actually have to persuade you, in such a way as to overcome your will and convince you to commit a crime you were not otherwise predisposed to commit.
The Supreme Court first recognized the entrapment defense in Sorrells v. US, 287 U. S. 435 (1932). In overturning a liquor conviction, the Court said:
Although there was a concurring opinion that would focus on instigation, the majority view, which has survived to the present, is an inquiry into the predisposition of the accused.
Yes, you are possibly right here. We usually don’t charge people who are busybodies with grand theft auto though.
Until they break into a car and pry the trunk open.
Well, what are you going to charge them with? Aggravated busybodying?
:smack: Poor phrasing on my part. Of course I’ve never broken anything. Rather, I’ve reached through an open window, or even opened an unlocked door, to turn off the lights.
I haven’t done it in over a decade, though, out of fear that someone will misinterpret my actions.
Again, :smack:
Two conservatives with the name mag post in a thread. The first one makes a foolish statement. Someone asks him, “Did you read the thread?” Then the other one responds to that question with “I did read the thread, and…” And I got the two conservative mags mixed up. Mea culpa.
Oh, so we all look the same, huh? 
When you start answering questions posed to the other mag you do 
I’m not even sure I’d call them busybodies. The car was in front of their home right? It wasn’t like they were trolling the city for an abandoned car.
It’s all silliness.
Not that one should be allowed to break into cars parked in front of their home, but seriously, do people actually steal cars from right in front of their home? Or call the police about a car before they try to steal it? Seems odd to me, but then again, I don’t know much about these things. Can’t the police use a teeny-tiny bit of common sense or logic?
Guess that was another ill-founded assumption on your part then. I swear, you people…
Thus mea culpa, magiver.
Well done.
For one of them.
This case (the couple that open the trunk of a car and are charged with grand theft auto) seems to be a perfect example of entrapment then. They obviously had no predisposition to steal the car. They had no predisposition to even open the car. The entirety of their actions were caused by the actions of the police.
No.
You’re confusing two issues.
Remember: “…merely afford[ing] opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution…”
The police simply put the opportunity in front of them. They didn’t urge them or even communicate with them in any way that pushed them into trying to open the trunk. So there’s no entrapment.
BUT.
At the same time, if you believe their story, there’s no crime here either (at least not the crime of attempted grand theft). They had no intention of stealing anything. In order to be guilty of attempted grand theft, they would have had to intend to commit grand theft, take a substantial step in furtherence of that intent, but fail to complete the crime.
Because intent can’t be definitively proved until we invent the Mind Reading Machine, we must infer intent by actions: people are assumed to intend the ordinary outcome of their actions. The prosecution theory of the case is that they planned to steal the car, and broke into the back to further their plan. Their theory is that they had no felonious intent at all, and were makign sure no one was in need of help.
It’s for the jury to hear their testimony, weigh their credibility, and decide if they believe the story the accused tell.