There’s a new show on Court TV called Bait Car. Basically they leave a vehicle in a high crime area, usually with the keys in the ignition. The car is equipped with cameras and an engine kill switch that is remotely activated. Obviously the people that drive off in these cars made a conscious choice to take a car that isn’t theirs. Could a good lawyer make an argument that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime?
FTR, I think the entrapment argument is BS, I’m just wondering if any case could be made by a crafty attorney.
I’m not sure how they could. How is it inducing a person to commit a crime? I think that I’m pretty average, ethically speaking, and I certainly wouldn’t steal a car no matter how easy it was.
This is true, but people have gotten away with solicitation of prostitution by using an entrapment defense no? I would never do either, nor do I think that any reasonable person would (both being illegal in this case). Yet, people get away with these sorts of things somehow. I’m sure the conviction rate is approaching %100 for the Bait Car scenarios, but I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two people weaseled out of it.
Well, Marion Barry got off the most serious charges against him, mainly because as he was smoking crack, he was complaining that it wasn’t the pot he asked for and didn’t really like crack.
If you can spin up a plausible enough story, you can get out of anything.
Remember? “Not my glove, the cops planted the blood, I was sleeping…”, etc.
I would presume the “bait car” is merely sitting there unattended, and is not winking at passers-by, motioning them over, and saying “hey, baby, you looking for a date?”
IANAL (or a cop), but my guess would be it would require more than leaving an unattended car with its keys in it, which even the dullest imbecile knows does not fall under the “finders keepers” rule, to be considered entrapment. Maybe if the undercover cop said “hey, you wanna make some quick cash?” pointed out the bait car, and gave the would-be thief directions to the nearest chop shop…
On the rare occasion the argument works it usually involves an overly aggressive rookie officer. They come on too strong and the defendant can prove it in court. Often there is a tape of the actual conversation and DA’s have been known to dump cases after listening to the tape.
So, the cop screwed up and created a situation that a reasonable person couldn’t easily resist? At least the case had a slight doubt, and the charges were a waste I’m guessing.
I can only address this using TV lore. How applicable this is in real life, I couldn’t say.
The key seems to be who mentions money first – in order for it to be prostitution, the prostitute has to demand money for services. If the cop offers money first, that introduces a degree of uncertainty about whether meoney would have ever entered the conversation.
Well, remember, at least in CA, it is mainly the solitication that is the crime. So, if the decoy/cop solicits the john, and the john just sez “Sure, why not?” then it makes a case the john never solicited anyone. Which is why the decoy is supposed to act coy enough for the john to make the solicitation- aka “mention money first” as Boyo Jim sez.
In the case of the car, it would seem to my non-lawyer mind to be difficult to encounter entrapment. But I suppose if they had a decoy undercover cop standing there and suggesting that they steal the car together, then entrapment might occur.
On an episode of COPS I saw several years back (I don’t remember where they were filming), one officer was running stings on male prostitutes. He explained beforehand that the suspect has to be the one to offer some form of sex in exchange for money. He specifically says that if he (the officer) makes the offer and the suspect simply says ‘ok’, then he won’t be able to get a conviction.
When he ran the sting, however, the pickup just sat there in the car saying nothing but ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and making the cop do all the talking, until finally, the cop just asks him “how about we go have some fun and I’ll give you $50?” The pro said sure, and the arrest was made.
In court, the defense attorney asked the officer to state the criteria he needed to meet to avoid entrapment, and he repeated exactly what he’d said to the COPS crew before the sting. The attorney then asked him what he and the defendant had said to each other, and he repeated what I wrote above.
I don’t know if the defense specifically said that this was entrapment, but the judgment came back as not guilty. (COPS didn’t show the defense argument, they simply added that the defendant “got off on a technicality.”)
To reiterate what has been said by some above, entrapment is a viable defense only when a person, who would not have otherwise committed the offense, does so due to state (most usually police) influence (most usually coercion). Regarding the prostitution example offered by dnooman, it is frequently offered as a defense, and is very rarely successful. The court will likely suggest a difference between enticement to have sex and an enticement to pay for it.
An additional cite is available if one enters “entrapment” in the search engine at
Depends on the state, but in Texas, at least, operating a vehicle that is not yours without permission from the owner is a felony. The state does not have to prove intent to steal or that you were in the act of stealing.
CHAPTER 31. THEFT
SECTION 31.07. UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE
At least in Texas, when it was explained to me when I took part in a grand jury, if you are caught in a car that inside a car that is not yours and you ain’t got permission from the owner, you are in deep caca.
I think all of the posters collectively have answered your questions. I will summarize:
The “bait car” is not entrapment because, while a key in the ignition would certainly be tempting, it would not entice a person otherwise unlikely to steal a car ( a felony, which is important) to do so in this situation.
A prostitution sting where a female undercover is trying to get a male john to solicit her is a more nuanced situation. An argument could be made by a good attorney that said john was just a horny guy who was looking to get laid. He didn’t want to pay; just engage in legal, anonymous sex. When said undercover told him “$50 for a half and half”, he lost it, his lust overtook him, and agreed to it because of entrapment.
On the flip side of this, when the male john makes the money proposition first, they have got him because he knowingly engaged in soliciation without prompting. The fact that he approaced the undercover officer with an offer shows that he had prostitution on his mind, and not an easy lay.
As another poster said, the “first offer” of prostitution is very important, and a rookie female plant can mess up.
If an undercover male john solicits a real female prostitute, she has less of a legal defense. Get one or two of her co-whores to flip that she really was a prostitute would show that he didn’t “intice” her to do something that she “ordinarily wouldn’t do”.
In contrast to the first situation with keys in the ignition of an unlocked car (which would be unusual). In the prostitution situation #3, you are presenting a very usual and real situation.
It’s a fine line, and that’s why lawyers make the $$$!
The idea of a “bait car” is that it’s offering an opportunity to commit a crime but, because there’s nobody except the potential thief involved, there’s nobody else to suggest the idea of a crime. So if he steals the car, he can’t claim that somebody else put the idea in his head.
What if an individual saw the car had the keys in the ignition and took them out fearing the car would be stolen by someone else but then didn’t have time to stand around and wait for the owner so just walked off? Would this be theft?
I wouldn’t think so. Actually, it’s something I might do myself – take the keys, write down the plate number, and go call the cops. I think they would be very hard pressed to prosecute you for an action that could credibly be claimed as trying to prevent a theft.
If I had a cell phone, I would do that. Or if there was a phone booth immediately at hand.
Having thought about it some more, leaving my name address and phone number on a note saying, “I took your keys so no one would rip off your car” would, I think, pretty much guarantee that no one would prosecute me.