If a police officer does not acknowledge that he is a police officer, when asked, is that considered entrapment?
Darn your quickness, Garfield! I missed another chance to ask people to click on the link in my .sig quote! 
Throwing in a few points on this subject:
-
Fairly obviously, police nowadays need to be able to go undercover, and the rule would be pretty much nonsensical in light of this requirement… of course, most criminals are too busy to ask EVERYBODY they meet in the course of dirty dealings, “are you a cop,” but still the risks of someone happening to ask it are too high.
-
In line with the first point, entrapment is completely inapplicable if the police do not charge you with any crime. For instance, suppose you’re walking down the street and see a uniformed officer with a badge and everything. For the sheer fun of it, you ask him ‘are you a cop?’ and for whatever his own reasons are, he says no. You continue on your way.
There’s no crime he could have been trying to entrap you into, therefore no entrapment.
(I know that this is a nitpick – usually the way the UL is expressed, though, is that if you ask a cop if he’s a cop and he answers no, and then later arrests you or testifies against you for some illegal activity that you let him participate in or witness, THEN it’s entrapment.)
- Entrapment is, if I understand it correctly, more a question of an undercover police officer instigating or suggesting illegal activities, especially persuading people who had no particular reason or inclination to do those things, and then turning around and arresting them. Hiding their identity from a direct question is pretty much irrelevant to the question.