If I try to sell drugs to an undercover officer and I ask if he’s a cop, does he have to tell me the truth, or is that only on TV?
No, he doesn’t. Not even TV thinks this is plausible these days.
Even on TV he doesn’t.
IANAL, but…
Entrapment means - the crime would not have happened without the cop trying to make it happen. I wonder how close to entrapment, for example, some of the recent homegrown terrorist case are.
As I understood it, if the cop comes to you and says “sell me drugs”, then you would not have done it without him demanding that you do. If you offer to sell him drugs, then he is just allowing you to do what you intended all along. So to plead entrapment, you have to show that you would not have done it without his involvement.
Not sure how this works in situations where the instigator is a paid informant, like the case of John DeLorean. Some guy was cornered by the feds, said “I can get you bigger fish”, then went and convinced DeLorean who was desperate, to deal drugs. Since he was convicted, obviously the judge didn’t buy the entrapment defence.
The other story is that in prostitution, whoever mentions money first can be charged with soliciting. After all, a girl can stand on the street corner and ask guys if they want a date or want her to come for a ride in their car. Everyone knows what’s going on, but that sort of activity without money changing hands is perfectly legal, just “hooking up”. (Interesting wording). The joke goes that the cop/customer tries to make the hooker talk about money to be sure she’s not a cop decoy, and the hooker tries to make the customer mention money first to prove they are not a cop; not sure how true that is either. I recall a few TV shows where the convesation becomes convoluted.
In Canada, the courts have ruled that inside a car is a private place. Since soliciting money for sex is only a crime in public, it kind of negates the whole thing. Since this is a state jurisdiction in the USA, your mileage may vary by state.
There’s no hard and fast rule to entrapment. The meaning of it is when a police officer or other law enforement agent induces a person to commite a crime, that the person is otherwise likely to commit.
This is the definition of entrapment and as you can see it’s purposely vague. Why? Because it allows the COURT not the police officer to make the judgement.
Here’s an comedic example
Remember in Seinfeld when Elaine’s friend says she can get him a date with Marisa Tomei? Under normal circumstances George wouldn’t cheat on his fiancee. (He’d kill her via cheap glue but not cheat on her :D)
Elaine’s girlfriend is INDUCING George to cheat by dangling something very attractive and unusual in front of him. If it had been an ordinary girl Geroge wouldn’t have thought twice. But George even mentions he’s never been with an Oscar winner and most likely would never have that chance again.
So you see there are no hard and fast rules governing entrapment, because a lot of it depends on a person’s circumstance at the time.
Another example if a cop says “Let’s rob 7-11” that’s hardly entrapment. But if he were to point out plans on how to rob it, how he’s been casing it, how they’d never miss the money, and lists these plans out. Then he says “I know you’ve been looking for a job and you are missing a few teeth, with this money you could get the teeth fixed and no one would know.”
In that case, you could make a strong case for entrapment. The cop is purposely playing off my need for dental care and playing off the fact I have no job, and is purposely going out of his/her way to induce me to commit a crime.
If I went along with it, I might be let off or I might still be found guilty, probably of a lesser charge. It would depend on the judge.
Wait, really? In Canada, prostitution in cars is legal? Would hotel rooms fall into the same category? If that’s true, why aren’t all American bachelor parties in Canada?
There’s a business opportunity here, “party planner” would take on a whole new meaning.
No. The legal questions surrounding prostitution in Canada are many, and there is no single answer to the questions about prostitution in Canada that have arisen in this discussion.
Simply, and off the top of my head since I don’t have time right now to get into the legal research required to fully answer the question, here are a few points related to the discussion:
– Prostitution is technically legal in Canada, in that a crime by that or a similar name does not appear in the Criminal Code.
– “Soliciting” for prostitution or “procuring” it is legal if it is done in private (e.g. by phone). Both are illegal if done in public (e.g. on the street).
– Cars are considered public spaces for the purposes of the above, if they are visible to the general public (as on a public street, mall parking lot, etc.). So nothing can legally happen in or around a car that is out in public.
– Somewhat similarly, hotel rooms would be considered private, as they are not visible to the general public. So you could make an appointment with an escort by phone, and have her come to your hotel room.
– In spite of all of the above discussion about “public” and “private,” brothels are not legal in any form.
Some fast information, but I hope it answers your questions.
Followup question to the OP: You’ve been here for 4.5 years and you didn’t know the answer to that question? Really? 
Yeah, I know. I was fully expecting everybody to trot out the ‘been there, done that’ cites.
Cite?
That was rhetorical. Your post is so factually incorrect it’s astonishing.
It did, thank you. I doubt I’ll use the knowledge, but I appreciate having it.
Unless you’re at the Skydome. 
Its absolutely, positively the truth. Everywhere. If you ask, we must tell. Trust me.
Just a quick update there. John DeLorean was found not guilty due to entrapment on Aug 16 1984.
Watch a few episodes of “Cops,” and you’re likely to come across this exact situation. Unlike drama shows or “reality” shows such as Armed & Famous, I’m pretty sure the action shown in “Cops” is how police business gets conducted in the real world. It’s pretty clear from there that cops don’t have to reveal their true identity until they start to arrest you.
AFAIK entrapment ONLY applies to police officers NOT informants…
Of course we have. Just click on the link in my signature for my favorite thread ever on this. But there are lots of others … Some of which are linked in that thread, IIRC.
I’m guessing it depends on how much the law enforcement agency incited the informant. A person receiving a consideration from the police for their action might reasonably be considered an agent, whether formally in the employ of the department or not. I guess the question is, how much was it up to the law enforcement to incite the accused to commit a crime - that the accused might otherwise not have committed? How much was the incitement of the informant at instigation, or in anticipation of reward from, the police? How much persuading did he have to do to make the accused commit the crime?
I’ll have to go back and read the full details. I vaguely recall the DeLorean case from the news reports.
IANAL, but from my days of getting an AJ degree I recall the rule of thumb was that the state (or its agent) had to put the idea in the “victim’s” head and that it otherwise would have not come them.
The dynamics of every case will be different and the final analysis will depend upon the totality of the circumstances. In DeLorean’s case, it wasn’t very unclear, but it wasn’t crystal clear, either.
This has been asked and answered seemingly hundreds of times here. The answer is always no. If that was indeed the case, I really doubt anyone would be in jail for purchasing narcotics from an undercover agent.