What's entrapment, exactly?

Okay. I guess this has always been sort of a problem, but lately it seems like everyone I know is convinced that you can avoid getting busted by undercover cops by simply asking “are you a cop?” before doing anything illegal around them.

They say that legally this would constitute entrapment, so they’re not allowed to lie about being police officers. While I respect the idea that cops shouldn’t be able to elaborately swindle people into doing something illegal so they can be caught, I just can’t believe it’s this simple. I mean, that one phrase can’t be Kryptonite to undercover police, can it?

So what, legally, is entrapment? What would happen if an undercover cop denied that he was, and you smoked a joint in front of him?

I’ve searched the SD archives for “entrapment,” got nothing, then “not a cop” and got way too many. I also realize that the answer may vary with jurisdiction, but I’d like a bit of direction to at least begin researching the topic.

Thanks,
Rob

I think it means actively encouraging someone to commit crime. Example:

Undercover Cop: “Hey man, take a hit of this joint!”

Suspect: “No. That is illegal.”

Undercover Cop: “Come on! It’s awesome. Don’t be a square!”

Suspect: “No.”

Undercover Cop: “I’ll f*cking kick your ass if you don’t take a hit of this joint!”

Suspect: “Ok, ok, alright! Fine.” [takes a hit of the marijuana cigarrette]

Undercover Cop: “You’re under arrest for marijuana use!”

THAT would be entrapment.

This might help.

entrapment is simply a police officer asking someone to do something illegal and then arresting them for it.

Well, this link to a snopes article says “no”:

http://www.snopes2.com/sex/hookers/cop.htm

I even saw exactly this happen in an episode of COPS (no, I don’t regularly watch that atrocity). An old man pulled up to an undercover policewoman acting as a hooker and asked her if she was a cop. She said, “No.” and he was promply arrested after offering her money for sex.

Personaly I think that old men who are going to hookers should be left alone, but that’s a differnet thread.

Definitely not true. This comes up alot on the boards. If this were true, it’d totally negate any undercover or sting operation, assuming the perps were aware of this…and, since this is “common knowledge”, I’d guess many have tried this dodge.

Entrapment is when there is doubt that a crime would have been committed, but for the actions of the police officer. This is why, in prostitution stings, the officer can’t offer sex for money – they must be propositioned, using direct language, for there to be a solid case.

The traditional view of entrapment is that the law enforcement officer must 1.create the intent to commit the crime in 2.a person not otherwise predisposed to do so.

Therefore, if your pothead buddies are approached by a guy who says “hey, you want to possess some narcotics?” entrapment isn’t gonna help them either way cuz they don’t qualify as "not otherwise predisposed.

IIRC, “Creating the intent” must be pretty severe on the part of the cops. Merely asking if someone is interested isn’t enough.

Note that “Cops lying about being cops” is not mentioned. I have no idea where that comes from, but it’s been around a long time.

Each state may interpret and legislate as it sees fit. All bets are off unless you know your state’s entrapment law.

This info comes from my hazy memory and an old (1998) set of commercial law school review outlines. The case for the “traditional view” is Sorrells v. U.S., 287 US 435 (1932).

IMHO: Arguing entrapment is like pleading insanity. It gets a lot of media attention, occasionally works for someone famous, and misleads a ton of normal people.

kdeus, esq. (but not your esq.)