To answer the OP, ‘bait cars’ began to be used regularly last century. The province of BC had a fleet of them in use by 2002. I’m sure that in the 16 years since then, more than one defense lawyer has tried the ‘entrapment’ argument on a Judge & Jury. Obviously, it doesn’t work, otherwise police wouldn’t still be using this technique.
As far as the “just moving it to protect the owner” argument, that’s used frequently by people caught. But the video of their actions while taking the car, and that they drove it for miles, and that they made no effort to report it to authorities, don’t know who the owner is, etc. all undercut this excuse.
(I do recall one episode of this where they had the bait car positioned with the keys left in the ignition, where an older black man took them, went into the business there, left the keys with the manager, came out and left a note under the wiper telling the owner where the keys were. He was the minister at a local church, just passing by. The cops filming all this were both pleased that there were honest citizens about, and frustrated that he had spoiled their bait car operation.)
Yes, it’s illegal in Vic.Aus
Towing the car away is mostly legal here. If you can demonstrate that you had a legal right, were not stealing it, and were not going to hold it to ransom or use it some other way. So there is clearly some room for argument.
(But that’s not what the OP was about, which was, assuming it’s illegal, could you get out of it anyway?)
Off topic: “borrowing” or 'looking after" a horse used to have the same kind of strict liability that using a car does now.
They should have tried the “mysterious dude” defense. Just say you met a mysterious dude a couple blocks away who said, “I’m too drunk to drive home; I’ll give you $5 to go get my car and come pick me up” and then you couldn’t find the dude again. If they doubt your story, just produce the $5 bill and that should settle the matter. Even though this car clearly doesn’t belong to the mysterious dude, they can’t prove that you knew that it was the wrong car.
IANAL … but my understanding of entrapment is when the LEO says it is legal … then arrests you because it is, in fact, illegal …
So in the bait car situation, we’d need a (uniformed?) police office standing next to the car and telling the person “It is lawful for you to drive this car” … any subsequent arrest for auto theft would be dismissed because of entrapment … what specific shade of grey used in these cases probably depends on the local jurisdiction and local courts … but just the police providing opportunity to commit a crime isn’t entrapment, there has to be some manner of police telling the person it is lawful to commit the act …
While it’s possible for an LEO to entrap someone by telling them an act is legal, it also might provide an out because they wouldn’t have Mens Rea. That may or may not be a valid defense against all crimes, but it certainly would be against some. Again, 11 years later, IANAL.
But since that’s not how most cases of entrapment work it’s not really relevant to the bait cars.
No. Let’s use a prostitution sting as an example. Just having an attractive female officer stand on the corner isn’t grounds for entrapment. She would have to say something to try to induce a person to solicit like, “Ya’ got some time and money, honey?” Just being there isn’t an inducement.
That isn’t grand theft auto ! Its just petty theft, or denial of the use of the car.
The law on auto theft is USING the car without reasonable excuse.
Clearly the thiefs intent to return the car (in five weeks or in five hours or in half an hour or in five minutes ) cannot be a reasonable excuse for borrowing a car.
So there is no need for the prosecution to show there is a profit to be made in stealing the car, and then working out how many taxi rides the theft saved and evaluating that… thats not important… its the use of the vehicle…
So the answer is that stealing the keys , with the intent to never give them back perhaps assumed until shown otherwise, is going to count as a misdemeaner and a fine at that. So there is a difference in severity… AND in your case intending to give them over to the owner or to the police or something, may well avoid the charge totally…
The key to the entrapment defense is “would not otherwise have engaged” … something your citation doesn’t really explain … my apologies for not making clear what I mean when I say “shades of grey” …
If they leave the car running, are they really catching the car thieves? Or just the idiots who are opportunistic? On the show they say they put the bait car in areas which have high rates of auto theft, but I would assume those stolen cars don’t have the keys in it. I would assume that the car thefts they are trying to stop are from more organized people who seek out certain cars rather just wandering around looking for cars with the keys in the ignition.