Stings vs. Entrapment

Hrmmmm

HARLINGEN — Three convenience store clerks were arrested over the weekend, as the Harlingen Police Department continues its “sting” operation targeting alcohol sales to under-age customers.

Sonia Marie DeLeon, 22, Gloria Borjas Ortiz, 61, and Ismael Basaldua, 23, were arrested at three separate convenience stores.

They were charged with selling alcohol to a minor, a class A misdemeanor, HPD Capt. Hector Leal said Monday.

Fair enough.

But here is the juicy part:

Decoys, who are under 21 years old, visit businesses, such as liquor stores, convenience stores and gas stations, where they try to purchase alcoholic beverages, while an undercover police office observes, Leal said.

The clerks are supposed to ask for identification, Leal said. In these three cases, none of the clerks asked for identification but sold beer to the teens.

Leal, who is overseeing the project, said that since the program began in July, seven arrests have been made.

“There seems to be a problem out there,” Leal said about store clerks selling alcohol to minors. “We’ll be out there, cracking down until we fix it.”

Wait . . . what?

Decoys, who are under 21 years old, visit businesses, such as liquor stores, convenience stores and gas stations, where they try to purchase alcoholic beverages, while an undercover police office observes

So the police department gets an older teen to buy alcohol (using the city's money, presumably), and then arrests the clerk for selling them alcohol.



First of all, buying alcohol for a minor is against the law. In essence, the police break the law to enforce the law.

Second, how can the officers put the clerk up to it, and then arrest them? That is not logical!

Entrapment is illegal because it is an attempt to induce law-abiding citizens into engaging in crimes that they would not otherwise have committed. It tricks and deceives the innocent into breaking the law and is a federal offense. In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, entrapment “deserves the severest condemnation.”

. . .

The U.S. Attorney General’s guidelines for the FBI are based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions and exist in order to protect the rights of the innocent while convicting the guilty. Those guidelines insist, for example, that sting operations can only be conducted against the “unwary guilty,” not the “unwary innocent.”

To prevent illegal entrapment retail establishments should not be randomly selected. That would not prevent entrapping a clerk who sells “innocently due to a momentary lapse in judgment” as a result of being rushed, from becoming distracted, or other reasonable cause.

“The only way to ensure that only the "unwary guilty" are caught in the trap is to create a history of the cashier in question with the use of surveillance or repeated compliance checks which are not also sting operations.” Since many, if not most of those caught in these sting operations have passed previous compliance checks, which clearly proves that they have no criminal predisposition to make underage sales, they are the "unwary innocent" if induced by law enforcement to sell to an underage person.

It’s important to enforce the law, but it’s also important to follow the law in doing so. Unfortunately, many law enforcement agencies fail to protect the rights of innocent citizens and illegally entrap them in underage alcohol sales stings.

Source

I dunno, man. To me this seems really wrong.


Edit: Source of original story

That's not really entrapment, though.

If a shop worker isn't IDing potentially illegal alcohol sales, then I don't see how the police are facilitating the crime by sending in some random under-ager.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


SHERMAN v. U.S. cites the rules for entrapment. According to these rules, entrapment occurs when:

*the crime is "the product of the creative activity" of law enforcement officials, and,

*prosecution cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was "independently predisposed" to commit the crime before the involvement of law enforcement officials.


JACOBSON v. U.S.
...an inducement to commit a crime should not be offered unless:

*There is a reasonable indication, based on information developed through informants or other means, that the subject is engaging, has engaged, or is likely to engage in illegal activity of a similar type, or

*The opportunity for illegal activity has been structured so that there is reason for believing that the persons drawn to the opportunity, or brought to it, are predisposed to engage in the contemplated illegal activity.



SORRELLS v. U.S
The first duties of the officers of the law are to prevent, not to punish crime. It is not their duty to incite to and create crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it.

. . .

Such a gross abuse of authority given for the purpose of detecting and punishing crime, and not for the making of criminals, deserves the severest condemnation...


Can they prove that they were predisposed to sell to minors?

The checks are random, so I highly doubt that they can build a case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the people arrested were predisposed to sell to minors.

Nevermind the fact that the city provided money to a minor to buy alcohol, which in and of itself is a crime.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
Yeah, different cases here. Now say you've got a clerk who always IDs, and the police go undercover and pressure them into selling by threat of force or some other inducement to act in a way they aren't normally inclined to act.

That would definitely be entrapment - going into the store and watching to see if the clerk IDs to ensure they're complying with the law, then popping them when they don't, isn't entrapment as the clerks were apparently not that worried about checking IDs anyway - business as usual for them to not worry about selling to minors or not, apparently.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Can they prove that they were predisposed to sell to minors?

Yes

By NOT asking for an ID, they themselves PROVED they are predisposed...

It would be entrapment if the police provided the decoy with a fake ID; which they did NOT do..

This goes on all over the country and has been challenged by MANY courts and always upheld...

Checking the ID is the law.. They did not do it, they got arrested.. End of story

Semper

reply to post by Praetorius


Difference is that the cops sent someone in. They did not just observe. They created the situation.

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

Can they prove that they were predisposed to sell to minors?

Yes

By NOT asking for an ID, they themselves PROVED they are predisposed...

So If I forget to use my turn signal once, I am predisposed to never use my turn signal.

That is not logical at all.

It would be entrapment if the police provided the decoy with a fake ID; which they did NOT do..

How does that even matter?

This goes on all over the country and has been challenged by MANY courts and always upheld...

There are times when it is upheld, and times when it has been over-turned.

Checking the ID is the law.. They did not do it, they got arrested.. End of story

Ahh. Okay. Sorry that the SCUSA does not see it like that. There is a fine line between stings and entrapment.

It just does not sit well with me.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
JACOBSON v. U.S.
...an inducement to commit a crime should not be offered unless:

*There is a reasonable indication, based on information developed through informants or other means, that the subject is engaging, has engaged, or is likely to engage in illegal activity of a similar type,

Well, there you have it.

If the police are getting reports that a shop is selling age-restricted products illegally, then sending teenagers in to attempt to illegally purchase these items - under the observations of a police officer - is not inducing a crime to be committed.

As for the police intentionally overseeing a crime, in an attempt to stop or prevent another crime taking place, then that's just the way it is. Police regularly and knowingly commit driving offences while on their way to a crime scene. Perhaps police should stick to 30mph speed limits when responding to an armed robbery?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Difference is that the cops sent someone in. They did not just observe. They created the situation.

How are the police supposed to observe a crime they don't know is happening? That's the whole point of a sting.

Just like with prostitution stings, having a cop dressing up like a hooker and putting her on the street to catch johns looking for a good time isn't inducing those johns to do something they wouldn't have otherwise, it's just giving them a verifiable opportunity to implicate themselves.

Now, have someone pay (or promise to) a random guy on the street $10,000 if they'll go pick up a hooker, and you've got entrapment. Totally different things here - one's catching someone doing what they do, the other is getting them to do something they normally wouldn't otherwise.

Good luck ever getting the "entrapment card" here in the USA anymore.

That is long over and done with.

Now, you are just busted. No ifs ands or buts.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

If the police are getting reports that a shop is selling age-restricted products illegally, then sending teenagers in to attempt to illegally purchase these items - under the observations of a police officer - is not inducing a crime to be committed.

The article does not say anything to the sort. In fact, the article makes it sound like it is random.

As for the police intentionally overseeing a crime, in an attempt to stop or prevent another crime taking place, then that's just the way it is. Police regularly and knowingly commit driving offences while on their way to a crime scene. Perhaps police should stick to 30mph speed limits when responding to an armed robbery?

The only crime being prevented is one set up by the officer

So the decoy is just some kid off the street? Is he/she trained in the art of coercing the clerk to sell the alcohol by appearing older, or more mature?

What do these decoy's look like? Attractive women? Overly hairy for their age men? Older looking young people?

And, if anyone doesn't get the whole premise of entrapment, do the research.

This is 100% entrapment and every single clerk should hire a lawyer and sue as a group. Obviously this is enough to warrant a court date and we can talk all day about the law. If these clerks don't stand up for themselves, it's a moot point and they deserve anything they get.

reply to post by sbctinfantry
You've got a possible argument there - this is why most of our local shops, at least, have a policy of ID'ing anyone who appears to be under 27 years of age.

If it was a case where the minor definitely appears to be well of legal age, I would push a case on the courts, but otherwise the clerks brought it on themselves as they know the law and are either ignorantly assuming that minors will never try to buy what they shouldn't or simply don't care about complying - which affects their employer, as well.

Personally, I would ID damn near anyone who could possibly be that young for exactly this reason were I in this situation.

Originally posted by Praetorius

How are the police supposed to observe a crime they don't know is happening?

I dunno. Actually do their job maybe?

You can't tell me that they can't investigate crimes that have happened in the past. No, they have to go create them.

It is illogical.

Just like with prostitution stings, having a cop dressing up like a hooker and putting her on the street to catch johns looking for a good time isn't inducing those johns to do something they wouldn't have otherwise, it's just giving them a verifiable opportunity to implicate themselves.

Johns != cashiers at a store, or waitresses.

Now, have someone pay (or promise to) a random guy on the street $10,000 if they'll go pick up a hooker, and you've got entrapment. Totally different things here - one's catching someone doing what they do, the other is getting them to do something they normally wouldn't otherwise.

Exactly. And the something they would not do otherwise was set up by the police!

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
The article does not say anything to the sort. In fact, the article makes it sound like it is random.

The article doesn't suggest whether the businesses are targeted randomly or not.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
The only crime being prevented is one set up by the officer

No, the crime is being committed by shop workers not IDing underage customers, thereby committing the offence of selling alcohol to minors.

The police are just observing this crime taking place.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
The article does not say anything to the sort. In fact, the article makes it sound like it is random.

The article doesn't suggest whether the businesses are targeted randomly or not.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
The only crime being prevented is one set up by the officer

No, the crime is being committed by shop workers not IDing underage customers, therefore committing the offence of selling alcohol to minors.

The police are just observing this crime taking place.

Just observing?

It says in the article they set it up, and then observe.

How can they prove that a crime would have taken place if they did not set it up?

Hence, the predisposed thing.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Praetorius

How are the police supposed to observe a crime they don't know is happening?

I dunno. Actually do their job maybe?

You can't tell me that they can't investigate crimes that have happened in the past. No, they have to go create them.

It is illogical.

Just like with prostitution stings, having a cop dressing up like a hooker and putting her on the street to catch johns looking for a good time isn't inducing those johns to do something they wouldn't have otherwise, it's just giving them a verifiable opportunity to implicate themselves.

Johns != cashiers at a store, or waitresses.

Now, have someone pay (or promise to) a random guy on the street $10,000 if they'll go pick up a hooker, and you've got entrapment. Totally different things here - one's catching someone doing what they do, the other is getting them to do something they normally wouldn't otherwise.

Exactly. And the something they would not do otherwise was set up by the police!

So, you're telling me that clerks never sell tobacco or alcohol to minors and johns never pick up prostitutes where prostitution is against the law unless the customer or hooker is working with the cops?

Come on, now. There's a clear difference between giving someone enough rope to hang themselves as compared to stringing them up against their will, as least when working with proper definitions of these terms and not the murky world of court ruling on questionable cases.

Right and wrong and police never go together. They can and will lie to you, but it is illegal for you to lie to them. Yes this is entrapment. Had the police not instigated it, it would not have happened. But that doesn't mean it's not allowed and called something else. No definitions apply anymore. Words mean what people want them to mean and nothing else counts.

It's like this thug cop we had around town in the 80's. He'd sell people weed, then after he'd made his money bust a ton of his buyers for possession. That made him look like a good cop and now he's the chief of police for a small town he runs. He was and is still a criminal who loves to set people up so he can look good. It's the same thing that the piggies are doing with teen drinking. They set up a bunch of clerks who are just trying to survive so they can appear to be doing something about the problem. They look good and that is all that counts.

reply to post by Ookie

Right and wrong and police never go together.

There ARE some good police out there who walk and work honorably.

They can and will lie to you, but it is illegal for you to lie to them. Yes this is entrapment. Had the police not instigated it, it would not have happened.

Because crime doesn't normally occur? This is just silly. Some people will willfully not act according to the law of their own accord.

But that doesn't mean it's not allowed and called something else. No definitions apply anymore. Words mean what people want them to mean and nothing else counts.

There's a difference between catching someone doing something wrong even if you give them the opportunity, and inducing someone to do wrong when they would not have done otherwise. One is entrapment, the other is not.

It's like this thug cop we had around town in the 80's. He'd sell people weed, then after he'd made his money bust a ton of his buyers for possession. That made him look like a good cop and now he's the chief of police for a small town he runs. He was and is still a criminal who loves to set people up so he can look good. It's the same thing that the piggies are doing with teen drinking. They set up a bunch of clerks who are just trying to survive so they can appear to be doing something about the problem. They look good and that is all that counts.

There ARE also bad ones out there, granted. That doesn't make them all bad, nor does it make all stings entrapment. If an undercover cop asks me to sell them drugs and I gladly do it, then I was caught in a sting. If an undercover cop gives me some weed and begs me to sell it because someone will kill her if she doesn't come up with money, that's entrapment and an inducement for me to do something I would not have done in normal circumstances.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION -
I'm speaking of stings & entrapment in general terms based on the discussion in-thread, and not to the sources cited in the OP. As source states, a bearded man with receding hairline was sent in, making this highly questionable and merely lapse of judgement in those cases. Valid stings and entrapment both definitely occur otherwise.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


That's fine, as long as it's OK for the FBI or IA guys to come in and set up stings to see how many PDs and Sheriff's deputies will accept bribes from cartels to guard "la plaza". Or give them all drug/(on duty) alcohol tests he he he ....

Additionally, audit how much evidence, e.g. drugs and guns have disappeared from the evidence lockers. Audit their whole system. So many dirty ones would be flushed out with a little fairness, i.e. daylight hitting the dark little corners.

But that would endanger "mission security", right?! Maybe even "national security"!

BTW the FBI and IAs need auditing as well. Citizen's committees need to be formed to get this stuff cleaned up.

Not likely to happen soon I guess.