Is there a time limit on entrapment? For example, say I’m a cop and I walk up to you and say “I’ll give you $100 for an ounce of pot.” You pull out a baggie and I arrest you. That as I understand it is entrapment (I’m sure it’s more complex than that really, with many references to “reasonable suspicion” and the like, but for my purposes I’m trying to keep it simple).
Now, say I say “I’ll give you $100 for an ounce of pot” and you say no, but a day or a week later you see me and pull out a baggie to sell me, and I arrest you. Is that still entrapment or is the intervening time such that entrapment is no longer an issue?
I’m confused as to why you think the first example is entrapment. Obviously you were a drug dealer or you wouldn’t have offered pot in exchange for money.
I think his point was that he didn’t offer pot in exchange for money. He was offered money if he would supply pot. The difference is that he was the one approached, not the reverse.
Making the example even more simplistic, suppose a policeman walked up to a random person and said “I’ll give you a million bucks for an ounce of pot.” Assuming the person believed the cop he might be tempted even if the thought of dealing had otherwise never crossed his mind. Not being a lawyer I’ve always thought a key component of entrapment was the idea that the sting may well have induced someone to commit an illegal act even though they had no prior intention to do so.
You suprise me. You have given many accurate descriptions of legal issues. However, this time you are completely off the mark. It is not entrapment when a cop (undercover, even lies that he is not a cop) asks for a bag, and you sell it to him. Today, tomorrow, next week , next month etc… To establish the defense of Entrapment you must prove that had it not been for the actions of the police officer, you would not have done the act with which you are charged. This means if the state can establish that you would have sold to someone whom you knew was not a cop, then selling to a cop is not Entrapment.
gcarroll seems to be saying that this case is entrapment because the cop made the first approach. I can’t see anything in the hypo that makes it entrapment. (FYI, IAAL, though with no special expertise in criminal law.)
OK, well, I said I was going for a simplistic scenario. The question, however, remains unanswered. So posit a scenario where in example one it’s entrapment. Posit the same scenario with a week interposed between the police officer’s act and the target’s act. Is it still entrapment? Does the criminal act have to be immediate or does the passage of time negate the officer’s act?
It’s hard to work without a hypo but I’ll try. There’s nothing in the definition of entrapment that would preclude a defense of entrapment due to the passage of time. However, it might be harder to show that the person did not have the intent to commit the crime because she would have had plenty of time to think it over and form the intent. Changing your mind later on makes it look like you simply formed the intent in the interim rather than acted in response to pressure from the police.
I must disagree. She is down on her luck. Lost her job after 12 years do to her company moving to Mexico. Her deabbeat x is not paying child support. She knows her neighbor sells pot, but she does not buy, sell or smoke it. Officer approches her and offers her money for pot. She says NO, but later thinks about her hungry children. She borrows some pot from her neighbor to sell to the officer.
PS: pot should be legal and taxed.
(FYI IAAL as well) When I said gcarrol was correct I was focusing on the last sentence
while not technically correct I felt it conveyed the concept that entrapment required that a State actor induced one to commit an act that he would not have commited in the absence of the inducement by the agent of the State.
Unfortunately, I skimmed over the initial statement which incorrectly implied significance to whether the state agent offered to purchase as opposed to sell. Not being able to edit my post I chose to let it go.
But it should be noted that in the scenario given, an argument for entrapment could certainly be made in light of the astronomical amount offered of 1 million dollars. Though admittedly the defendant would still have to prove that absent the inducement of a million dollars he would not have engaged in the activity.
The defendant would probably not be able to succesfully assert the defense of entrapment. It was he unfortunate circumstances which led her to sell the pot. The narc merely provided the opportunity. We can always hope for jury nullification.
Maybe so. U never know how a trial will turn out. She only thought about it after the offer to buy for 1,000,000 was made. She should go free, it was entrapment, but she may get 10 years and have her chirlren taken away. This would make the x lass likly to be sued. Justice??
To answer the GQ, and not be tempted down the path of discussing the morals and should-bes of the law when we know that such discussion is the province of our neighboring forum Great Debates…
I don’t think time makes a particular difference. To establish entrapment, you might argue that the passage of time made it less likely that the accused was responding to the government’s inducement, or you might argue that the passage of time showed that the accused was not predisposed to commit the crime, but only undertook it at the behest of the government, and required time to acquire the contraband before reselling it.
Facts matter. The million dollar example makes a good case for entrapment, because it’s easier to convince a finder of fact that the temptation offered by the government was so great that the accused succumbed to it. But if the accused already had baggies of pot on his person, pre-packaged for sales convenience, it’s probably not too relevant that a huge amount of money was offered.
I still think the case could be made that my first hypothetical is or could be entrapment. You’re assuming that the guy with the drugs is a dealer and has the drugs packaged and ready for sale. But what if the guy with the drugs was a purchaser who had bought the bag for, say, $10. No interest in selling the drugs or giving them away or doing anything else but consuming them on his own. But as he’s walking home from his dealer he’s approached by the cop who offers him $100 for an ounce. This puts the thought into the purchaser’s head that he hadn’t previously had to sell the bag for 10 times what he paid for it. He agrees. It’s as much entrapment, potentially, as offering $1,000,000.
I realize that I’m adding circumstances to the scenario after the fact, but I really was trying to keep this simple. Not that I’m averse to a wider discussion of entrapment beyond the time-sensitive issue…
Otto, it’s not entrapment. I thought that explanation I copied made that pretty clear. The cop provides the opportunity to commit the crime, and the person readily excepts. No pressure, coercion, etc. Someone who is not predisposed to sell drugs does not engage in drug sales at the drop of a hat. I think the problem is you’re focusing on the issue of when the intent to commit the crime formed, but that’s not the question with regard to entrapment.
Not sure where you are going with this. Maybe she should go free, maybe not. But the fact that you believe it to be unfair does not make it entrapment. I was under the impression that the discussion was about Law not Justice. These are two seperate and distinct things that are often at odds. In case you missed the point of my jury nullification comment, I was admitting that I felt that under the circumstances given I believe a conviction would be legal but that there is a chance that a jury would nevertheless return a verdict of Not Guilty, that is what jury nullification means.
Except that “pressure, coercion, etc.” is not part of the explanation you posted. A person who wouldn’t otherwise have intent to commit the crime (which I posited in my revised hypo) commits the crime at the inducement of the police, which is what happened in my revised hypo. But fine, I’ll add a couple of "no"s to my hypo. The target, who has bought drugs for his personal use but has never sold or shared or considered selling or sharing, is approached by the cop who offers $100 for the bag the guy has just bought for $10. He says no, but the cop pesters him for a few blocks until he gives in and sells the bag. Is that sufficient detail for you to concede at least the possibility of entrapment?
We should keep in mind the distinction between black letter law and the real world. I think the DeLorean case is a classic example. If he could succesfully assert Entrapment, then otto’s plaintiff should be able to as well. As long as she has as much money to spend on attorney fees as Delorean did.
But back to the Hypo, Otto I do not think it matters at all whether your defendant originally obtained the pot for personal use, or that she had never sold pot, or that she never intended to sell pot. Unless she can establish that she would not have sold it in this instance, but for the actions of the cop, she is probably going to get convicted. It is not fair, but who said life was fair? I think the original Hypo with the million dollar offer is the best option for an Entrapment defense.
