# State of California lures parole violators in with offer of amnesty **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2010, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613 "2010-05-16T04:49:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/101 "2010-05-21T20:07:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The cops are permitted to lie to suspects, within certain broad limits. They may lie about intrinsic aspects of the crime, such as evidence and witnesses; they may not lie about extrinsic considerations such that the suspect may be considered to have been coerced into confessing, **such as promises of favorable treatment after confession.** Still pondering this one. How does the promise of favorable treatment after confession differ from the promise of amnesty after turning oneself in? The sting described by the article was probably technically legal, but I’m still troubled by it. I feel that, in the criminal context, the State should be obligated to abide by its promises. “You’ve won a boat!” is not such a promise, but, “You’ll receive amnesty!” sure does feel like one. It doesn’t pass the “smell test”, and as a prosecutor, I believe the State shouldn’t risk even the appearance of impropriety. > [@Bricker](#): > > No attorneys were involved. Clearly. An attorney would’ve advised against it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/102 "2010-05-21T20:16:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Because if the police are allowed to lie about immunity why shouldn’t they be allowed to lie about something else? > > Suppose the police show up at your house and want to search it. They show you a warrant so you let them in. They find whatever evidence they were looking for and arrest you. Then you find out they didn’t have a real warrant; they just printed up something that looked real and showed it to you. You don’t know what a real warrent looks like so you believed it was real. And the police say _“Sucker, it’s your own fault for trusting us and letting us come in and search when we didn’t have a real warrant to do so.”_ Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought people on parole were subject to search without a warrant at the discretion of the parole officer. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/103 "2010-05-21T21:26:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Illegally possessing a forearm, on the other hand, is a crime created when the police entice you to come to the station to turn the gun in. But for their conduct, you’re not guilty of the offense. Now, perhaps you might be guilty of some other offense, like possession of an unregistered firearm. Thanks for the explanation, Bricker. These posts are very helpful for us non-lawyers, but they still leave more questions 😉 How is the illegal possession of a gun “created” when the police entice you to turn it in for cash? You possessed it illegally in the first place, or else you wouldn’t have had it to turn it, no? ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/104 "2010-05-22T03:30:18Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Still pondering this one. How does the promise of favorable treatment after confession differ from the promise of amnesty after turning oneself in? This thread is going around in circles. A confession that is induced on false material promises would likely be a due process clause violation, due to its Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment implications. The result would likely be the preclusion of the confession from trial. There are no such problems with an offer (not a promise) of amnesty, because it does not not implicate any constitutional amendments. It’s a contractual issue. > [@](#): > > Clearly. An attorney would’ve advised against it. Actually, not so clearly. Several attorneys in this thread have found no particular legal problems with it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/105 "2010-05-22T08:54:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Once again, estoppel by reliance would come into play here. In these cases, the people are being told, “Do action X [exchange your drug needles], and we won’t arrest you for doing it, even though it’s illegal.” Can we have a cite for this please? Because it seems the people are not being told any such thing. They are being told that they can exchange their used needles at no cost, but I will need to see your evidence that they are being told that they may then carry those needles with the intent of injecting drugs and not be arrested for possessing paraphenalia. > [@](#): > > The parole violators were not arrested for showing up. They were arrested for actions that happened before the sting began. Right. So if a drug addict shows up, and the police arrest her having used drugs in the past, what is the difference? Aren’t the criminals in both cases being arrested for actions that happened before the sting began? As far as I know it is not an offence to exchange a used needle for a new one. I, as someone who has never used IV drugs, am perfectly entitled to carry a syringe, to the best of my knowledge. I ma also perfectly entitled to swap with someone else. The crime is carrying with an intent to use for administering drugs drugs, AFAIK. And that crime is an action that occure dbefore the sting was et up. So unless you can provide references to the contrary, I don’t think there is any difference between these two scenarios at all. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/106 "2010-05-22T09:03:14Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > It’s their own fault if they don’t take advantage of the government’s real offers. Nobody except you has mentioned “fault”. That;s probably because it’s a rather grade school argument. Who’s “fault” it is doesn’t really matter. What matter si whether it does net harm to society. > [@](#): > > It’s a legitimate tactic to trick criminals into being captured. No, it isn’t. It is probably legal, but it is not legitimate. > [@](#): > > And it is a legitimate program that offers amnesty to less violent criminals for minor offenses. Why should the government be the one to make sure those programs are differentiated? Let those who would partake in the programs do their own damn research Sigh. yet again, if we can put aside the schoolboy accussations of “It’s all his fault”, we can concentrate on the real debate: doe sit harm scoeity. Why should the government be the one to make sure those programs are differentiated? Because if the state doesn’t do that the state loses all credibility, and all citixens will pay through the re-emergence of Tb epidemics. Do you really thing that government actions are direstly responsible for re-introducing Tb to the US is acceptable, so long as it isn’t the government’s “fault”? > [@](#): > > That’s a funny, bitter reply to a legal tactic that works. What, are you disputing that pLanting evidence is also a tactic that works? If not then what is the relevance of whether it works? Nobody but you disputes that it works. > [@](#): > > WTF is wrong with you to make the jump from “program that is good and takes criminals off the streets but makes it harder for real programs to help people” to an illegal coverup and conspiracy? You really don’t get it do you? There is no jump. They are both linked by the very same argument made in the third post. In both cases the tactic works, and in both cases they lead to a dramatic decrease in public trust in the state. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/107 "2010-05-22T15:28:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought people on parole were subject to search without a warrant at the discretion of the parole officer. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I didn’t think you were a parole violater. If not, then when I said the police could show up at your house and lie to you, no parole violations were involved. But this isn’t about parole violaters or criminals or terrorists. This about the police. Do you think the police should follow a set of rules? My answer is yes and I say one of those rules is they should not lie to people about their police powers. And I don’t follow McBain rules, where sometimes you got to bend the rules to get the job done. No, you don’t and I’m speaking as somebody who worked in law enforcement for twenty seven years. The rules work and you can do your job inside of them. Maybe you have to work a little harder but deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/108 "2010-05-22T22:17:12Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Still pondering this one. How does the promise of favorable treatment after confession differ from the promise of amnesty after turning oneself in? Because the confession used to prosecute the person is induced by the promise. No person has an obligation to confess; indeed, every person has a constitutional right to NOT confess. The promise of amnesty is simply a ruse to capture the violator, who has no constitutional right to be free. The fake amnesty offer does not take from any person a right to which they were entitled. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/109 "2010-05-22T22:40:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the confession used to prosecute the person is induced by the promise. No person has an obligation to confess; indeed, every person has a constitutional right to NOT confess. > > The promise of amnesty is simply a ruse to capture the violator, who has no constitutional right to be free. The fake amnesty offer does not take from any person a right to which they were entitled. **Bricker** , a question: substantively, from a legal perspective. is the ruse involving an offer of amnesty any different than an announcement that people have won a big-screen TV? Aside from being more effective if going after illegals. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/110 "2010-05-22T23:08:33Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Can we have a cite for this please? Because it seems the people are not being told any such thing. They are being told that they can exchange their used needles at no cost, but I will need to see your evidence that they are being told that they may then carry those needles with the intent of injecting drugs and not be arrested for possessing paraphenalia. Once they have left the needle exchange program area, of course they don’t have any protection from the promise. But my cite for the general proposition of entrapment by estoppel is _Raley v. Ohio_, 360 U.S. 423 (1959) and its progeny. In _Raley_, three people called to testify in front of a commission were told they could legally invoke their right against self-incrimination. When they did so, they were charged under an Ohio law that forbid the privilege in that circumstance. The Supreme Court reversed their convictions, saying: > [@](#): > > The appellants were informed by the Commission that they had a right to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination afforded by Art. I, 10, of the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Supreme Court, however, held that the appellants were presumed to know the law of Ohio - that an Ohio immunity statute deprived them of the protection of the privilege - and that they therefore had committed an offense by not answering the questions as to which they asserted the privilege. > . > . > . > After the Commission, speaking for the State, acted as it did, to sustain the Ohio Supreme Court’s judgment would be to sanction an indefensible sort of entrapment by the State - convicting a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State had clearly told him was available to him. > [@](#): > > Right. So if a drug addict shows up, and the police arrest her having used drugs in the past, what is the difference? Aren’t the criminals in both cases being arrested for actions that happened before the sting began? Not sure what this means. What probable cause could the police use to sustain the arrest you describe? > [@](#): > > As far as I know it is not an offence to exchange a used needle for a new one. I, as someone who has never used IV drugs, am perfectly entitled to carry a syringe, to the best of my knowledge. I ma also perfectly entitled to swap with someone else. The crime is carrying with an intent to use for administering drugs drugs, AFAIK. And that crime is an action that occure dbefore the sting was et up. Well, that’s an on-going crime. Every instant you carry the syringe with the intent to use it to illegally administer a controlled substance, the offense continues. So while it’s true that the crime happened before the sting was set up, it is also happening during the sting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/111 "2010-05-22T23:15:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > **Bricker** , a question: substantively, from a legal perspective. is the ruse involving an offer of amnesty any different than an announcement that people have won a big-screen TV? Aside from being more effective if going after illegals. As long as the amnesty does not involve securing some kind of admission or confession of their status which is then used against them, it should pass muster and is no different. Basically, you’ve already got to know that Sven Jorgensson, Juan Garcia, and Pierre Dupard are illegally present and target the amnesty offer to them, not make a wide-open offer to the public. That way, the people responding are already known to be offenders and not convicting themselves by showing up. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/112 "2010-05-22T23:20:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As long as the amnesty does not involve securing some kind of admission or confession of their status which is then used against them, it should pass muster and is no different. > > Basically, you’ve already got to know that Sven Jorgensson, Juan Garcia, and Pierre Dupard are illegally present and target the amnesty offer to them, not make a wide-open offer to the public. That way, the people responding are already known to be offenders and not convicting themselves by showing up. Thanks. Now this will probably go over my legal head, but why can’t LE put out a blanket offer of amnesty to the inhabitants of a county, say, and get those who show up? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/113 "2010-05-24T14:06:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No attorneys were involved. The police did this without the approval of the prosecutors/district attorneys? Aren’t they guilty of impersonating an officer of the court, then, since offers of amnesty have to come from prosecuting authorities? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/114 "2010-05-24T15:29:38Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > The police did this without the approval of the prosecutors/district attorneys? Aren’t they guilty of impersonating an officer of the court, then, since offers of amnesty have to come from prosecuting authorities? I’m sure a prosecutor reviewed the plan. What I meant by “No attorneys were involved,” was “…involved with the actual execution of the event.” And no – merely tendering a false offer of amnesty, without more, does not mean you are impersonating anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/115 "2010-05-24T15:30:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Thanks. Now this will probably go over my legal head, but why can’t LE put out a blanket offer of amnesty to the inhabitants of a county, say, and get those who show up? Because in that case, the people that show up are incriminating themselves at your behest. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/116 "2010-05-24T15:50:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Perhaps I am mistaken, but I didn’t think you were a parole violater. If not, then when I said the police could show up at your house and lie to you, no parole violations were involved. > > But this isn’t about parole violaters or criminals or terrorists. According to the title of the thread, it is. Although you are correct - if things were different, then they wouldn’t be the same. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/117 "2010-05-24T16:38:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sure a prosecutor reviewed the plan. What I meant by “No attorneys were involved,” was “…involved with the actual execution of the event.” > > And no – merely tendering a false offer of amnesty, without more, does not mean you are impersonating anyone. That seems like a shell game to cover up the prosecutors’ violation of the canon of ethics, though. “I can’t lie to them or I’d be disbarred, but you can tell them this and we’ll get’em.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613/118 "2010-05-24T17:53:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Although you are correct - if things were different, then they wouldn’t be the same. What you were claiming I said was different from what I actually said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-california-lures-parole-violators-in-with-offer-of-amnesty/539613.md?page=5)