When the police or FBI try to catch online predator type perpetrators, they will will take on a fake identity to lure the suspect into a trap, and perhaps record some dialogue exchanges, after meeting in person, as I understand it. However, how does this not count as entrapment. I read that the police are not allowed to trick suspects into committing new crimes, and then charge them based on that. So is their more to it than that, or how does that not count as entrapment, legally?
Ryan you can't be asking us almost every single law thing. You ask very very detailic things in your research almost on daily basis. I can see you are writing some kind of a story about a crime and its investigation. You know in very detail what kind of things you need. You should simply reach out to those who work in that field. Find the real experts.
http://www.perverted-justice.com/index.php?pg=faq You'll find your answer there under "Answering criticisms and qualms". And the answers to pretty much any question on the topic. They have some forums that you can also look into. If you're writing any kind of story with predator sting operations, that site will be a great resource for you. Though I would advise anyone who is very sensitive to the topics of pedophilia and child abuse to exercise caution if they want to explore the site, you might not like some of the things you find.
It's not entrapment because of who suggests what. Cops won't ever suggest someone doing something illegal, they'll just set up situations where illegal things present themselves. Cop: You can't come here, my parents will know. How about going to a motel? <- Illegal entrapment, suggesting a crime on the predator Predator: Sure. <- Lured into a crime by the police Cop: You can't come here, my parents will know. <- Set up a sting, but don't actually suggest anything illegal Predator: How about going to a motel? <- Choosing to suggest a crime
Okay thanks. I haven't found as many legal experts to speak to about these things, outside of the sight, that email me back about it. But I can keep looking. I'll check out that perverted justice site as well. As for the scenario, where the predator suggests the motel, what is to happen then? If the cops arrest the predator, the predator will only be charged with an attempted crime. Is that satisfactory enough to the cops, rather than trying to charge him with his past crimes, which they will have no proof on? They will only have proof on a current attempted crime.
Here in Sacramento there's a "bait bike" program where bicycles are tagged with a tracking device by the police and left locked up with a simple lock at bike stands. When the bike is stolen, the cops can immediately arrest the perp. I gather that there are similar programs for cars in other cities. Leaving these vehicles out isn't entrapment because the perp was going to steal a bike or a car anyway, and clearly took possession of what wasn't his or hers. A lawyer might make a case that the cops presented an "attractive nuisance" but I doubt if a judge or jury would buy it.
For disclosure, I should post that I'm a software engineer, not a lawyer. My guess is the sting operation that involves meeting a young boy somewhere, that in itself is not a crime. However, if the police are building a case against a predator, they'll need a warrant to search his home / computer. This sting operation would give a judge reasonable grounds to issue such a warrant.
Okay thanks. But I was told before by a real cop in the past while researching that the police are not allowed to bait suspect's into incriminating themselves, in order to get warrants. I can't get a hold of that cop lately, but reading the cops' email from before, this is what he said" "The courts have ruled that the police don't get to gain the benefits of "exigent circumstances" if they create the exigent circumstances in the first place." Wouldn't baiting the suspect into incriminating himself by asking to go back to a motel, count as creating an exigent circumstance, since the police are creating a false character for the suspect to be lured by?
Hi, First, to be clear, I'm not a lawyer. Ok as I understand it, the definition of entrapment is that it encourages or entices someone to do something that they would not otherwise have done were it not for that encouragement / enticement. If a sting crosses that line, it's entrapment. So a commonly reported example on the crime shows is where a partner / wife, hires someone to kill her husband. If the undercover cop had cold called on the wife, said give me lots of money and I'll kill him, that would be entrapment. But that's not what's normally done. What normally happens is that the wife puts out feelers. Word gets back to the cops. They set up a meet with an undercover officer. Said officer will say something like "I can do what you want - for a fee." So he makes a non specific offer in line with what the suspect says she wanted. She takes the bait. Likewise with the cars and bikes mentioned above, there's no entrapment. The cars and bikes were simply there. There was no sign up saying please steal me. Nothing to say the car or bike would be particularly easy to steal and get away with. The one example I can think of of someone claiming entrapment and getting off charges because of it is DeLorean (Yes the car maker) who was saved from jail time for importing heroin because it was shown he was entrapped into carrying out the deed. Exigent circumstances is a different kettle of fish. It means that the officer has reason to believe a crime is being committed or someone is at risk etc, and there's no time to go to a judge and get a warrant. A typical example of it being claimed would be on the cop shows where the detectives are at the door of a suspect, no one answers their knock and they want to get in - at which point one of them will typically say, "I smell smoke". Cheers, Greg.
