# Do undercover cops have to identify themselves? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 25, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-undercover-cops-have-to-identify-themselves/73792 "2001-07-25T21:06:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![liebfels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/0ea827/32.png) [@liebfels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/liebfels)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2001, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-undercover-cops-have-to-identify-themselves/73792/21 "2001-07-27T14:18:09Z")
Let’s consider one state’s rules on entrapment. This is what I mean when I use the word. > [@](#): > > § 8.06. Entrapment > (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. **Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.** > (b) In this section “law enforcement agent” includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2001, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-undercover-cops-have-to-identify-themselves/73792/22 "2001-07-27T14:35:05Z")
Wait a sec, back off for entrapment for a sec. I’ve heard and it probably is a myth, that you had to say yes if you were a police officer. Of course, as my story said it, you had to be specific. “Are you a cop?” didnt pass legal mustard. I remember (in the myth, like i said) that you had to say “Are you a law enforcement officer or have any affiliation with a law enforcement agency?” Id love to know if this is true too. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2001, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-undercover-cops-have-to-identify-themselves/73792/23 "2001-07-27T14:56:57Z")
Just a thought. Perhaps this (probably wishful) misconception arises from the, I believe, true case that anyone claiming to be a law enforcement officer must provide identification if asked. ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2001, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-undercover-cops-have-to-identify-themselves/73792/24 "2001-07-27T16:30:02Z")
> [@](#): > > A prostitute out looking for a john is looking to commit a crime. If the police find such a prostitute, start talking to that prostitute, then the offense of prostitution occurs, there is no entrapment. The problem is that, absent some other evidence, there’s no good way to prove intent. Unless you have a roomate who’ll testify “yeah, she said 'I’m going out cruising for tricks”, how do you show that she wasn’t just a sluttily-dressed woman who got propositioned by a cop? I’m sure it’s been done, but I don’t see a good way–entirely within the law, such that a good defence lawyer wouldn’t get it thrown out–to show this. Or put it this way: how do the _Law & Order_ guys nail em? ---
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2001, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-undercover-cops-have-to-identify-themselves/73792/25 "2001-07-27T19:08:55Z")
OK, my turn. I was along on a few undercover drug and prostitute busts when I was a police beat reporter (generally, I stayed in the van and listened to the wired officers). This is what I was told. I never checked it’s validity because it never came up in a story. The cops said they were permitted to lie in an undercover situation as long as they did not initiate an illegal action. However, all of the officers that were undercover that I listened to or observed, never did lie to the question, “Are you a cop?” Generally, they deflected it. They said things like, “Do you think I look like a cop? Do you think I look like a cop? Jeez, What’s the world coming to. That’s the last time I go to that barber” or “Yeah, sure I am, and you’re the f\*\*king Queen of England. Anyway, how do I know you’re not a cop?” Things like that. It worked on every bust I was along on - drugs, picking up hookers, and johns. TV ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2001, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-undercover-cops-have-to-identify-themselves/73792/26 "2001-07-27T20:00:08Z")
To clarify things here, hopefully: “Being a prostitute” is not a crime. Prostitution is. If a police officer walks up to a scantily-clad woman in the red-light district and says “Will you give me a blowjob for fifty bucks?”, and the woman accepts, then the police officer has suggested the idea for that particular crime: Giving him, in particular, a certain sexual service, in exchange for that set amount of money. If the woman happens to be the sort of person who is more inclined to accept such offers, that’s irrelevant: The cop still suggested the illegal act. If, on the other hand, and which I suspect is far more often the case, the cop says “Hi, there”, and the woman replies “I’ll give you a blowjob for fifty bucks”, then the cop has not suggested any illegal activity, the prostitute has, and it’s an entirely different situation. ---
**Author:** ![Road\_Rash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@Road\_Rash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Road_Rash)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2001, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-undercover-cops-have-to-identify-themselves/73792/27 "2001-07-28T05:15:38Z")
I see a lot of debating on the “prostitute” issue. There are other issues involved. Of course an undercover cop does not have to reveal himself. To do so would eliminate the very reason of being undercover. To do so in certain situations could put the undercover cop in incredible danger. In a drug deal, the dealer asks “are you a cop.” “Gee, I cannot lie according to law, I am,” the cop replies. I fail to see any policeman doing this, even if it were the law. That statement could get him killed! There is the body language aspect that can not be ignored. Some people are better liars than others. Some people are better at picking liars in the act than others. A sharp crook could read body language and tell they MUST be a cop by saying “no” to the question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-undercover-cops-have-to-identify-themselves/73792.md?page=1)