Entrapment

"RCW 9A.16.070
Entrapment.
(1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that:

(a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and

(b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had not otherwise intended to commit.

(2) The defense of entrapment is not established by a showing only that law enforcement officials merely afforded the actor an opportunity to commit a crime.


Many people in this thread have already accurately defined "entrapment".
========

You are pointing out how it is used for DEFENSE. that is defining it as a DEFENSE, as in desiring to use a LE technique used on you against LE, and the rules one has to follow for using it as a defense. If using that as your legal claim, you have to judge by that criteria. This does not represent how law enforcement (LE) uses it or the legalities LE has to abide by for using it. Based off the erowid link, Entrapment really doesn't have double meanings in court, because using it as a defense rarely works or is taken credibly. Just because there is an RCW on it does not give it legal weight, it just makes it of legal use. That doesn't mean it's going to be useful. There are many unhelpful codes out there used for legal maneuvering that either backfire when used or are so vague/broad that they are weakened by repeated misinterpretations of them.

Some of you are disagreeing with me because you are interpretating entrapment as a defense only, perpetuating the myth that entrapment is always illegal, instead of understanding that entrapment is first and foremost a legal LE technique, and secondly a defense against an alleged illegal force of LE.
 
CuriousCub said:
You are pointing out how it is used for DEFENSE ... Just because there is an RCW on it does not give it legal weight ...
Click to expand...

How can the law not have "legal weight"?

I don't pretend to be a lawyer or some know-it-all, but i think you're trippin..

Do you have any idea what RCW's (Revised Code of Washginton) are? They're ALL THE (wa) STATE LAWS. Each state (to my knowledge) has their OWN set of "Revised Code" which in turn represents that state's definition of whats legal and what's not; hence state laws.

The only "myth" that I know of in relation to entrapment is the "if you ask a cop if they're a cop and they say no you can't get busted" myth.
 
Last edited:
Ah neat input there ChemicalBeauty.

So summed up, entrapment is when the cop gets you to do the crime that you would not have if the cop did not coerce you in whatever manner. A defense on par with claiming insanity (good comparison whoever said that)
 
ChemicalBeauty said:
How can the law not have "legal weight"?

I don't pretend to be a lawyer or some know-it-all, but i think you're trippin..

Do you have any idea what RCW's (Revised Code of Washginton) are? They're ALL THE (wa) STATE LAWS. Each state (to my knowledge) has their OWN set of "Revised Code" which in turn represents that state's definition of whats legal and what's not; hence state laws.

The only "myth" that I know of in relation to entrapment is the "if you ask a cop if they're a cop and they say no you can't get busted" myth.
Click to expand...

go get a free consultation with a criminal defense lawyer and ask him about the credibility of using entrapment for a defense claim. Credibility=weight.

are you aware that theirs laws so outdated yet STILL IN USE in some states that homosexual sex is illegal, or kissing after a certain time period is illegal and other nonsense, etc etc etc? yea, there are many laws that are there for one to USE--to prosecute or defend one, to use as a filing claim, but many of them lack WEIGHT (CREDIBILITY) to be useful. In today's society, such sex laws used to prosecute one would be seen as ridiculous and ancient and would typically not gel with a modern jury. just because there is a law on something doesn't mean it's a strong one, or that it hasn't been weakened by other laws (preexisting or recently enacted) undermining the value of said law.
(an anti-homo sex law could be challenged by a variety of discriminatory laws that have more credibility, for example.)

ultimately, saying a cop forced you into selling drugs when you normally would've sold them to anyone isn't entrapment. saying a cop forced you to do anything goes well beyond the claim of entrapment and is more in the realm of police brutality.

"So summed up, entrapment is when the cop gets you to do the crime that you would not have if the cop did not coerce you in whatever manner. A defense on par with claiming insanity (good comparison whoever said that)"

that's merely the CRITERIA if you were to choose entrapment as a defense claim IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ONLY. Check with your state to see if you even HAVE a law on using entrapment as a legal defense. The entrapment defense claim is not a federal law. It's a federal LE technique, despite that.
This information is not to be confused with how LE is legally able to entrap people, so keep that in mind. The defense claim of entrapment is NOT the same as the LE ability to legally use entrapment as an LE technique. To claim you were entrapped, LE can say they followed their code of conduct in legally entrapping you. Entrapping is legal, you would have to prove--using the said criteria--that they went outside their legal allowance and forced you into being entrapped. Even then, saying you were forced into being entrapped still is not enough weight (this is why i say it lacks credibility) to prove the cops did something illegal. That's why i said if a cop harrasses or forces you into anything, that is obviously way beyond the bound of entrapment and more along the lines of police brutality.

"Even with the finding of obvious inducement, Skakie (defendant) wasn't off the hook. Courts that recognize the 'subjective' entrapment view require that a defendant go further and disprove that he or she was not predisposed to commit the crime. If this can't be done, even in proven circumstances of coercion and threats, the entrapment defense fails."
http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm
 
Last edited:
in a previous post i denote the abbreviation in this line:
"This does not represent how law enforcement (LE) uses it or the legalities LE has to abide by for using it."
I was hoping people catch it there so i wouldn't have to keep denoting it like i am doing now.
So, law enforcement=LE.
 
Does anyone know of any cases in which someone was successfully prosecuted, and unable to prove entrapment, in which the police/LE actually showed, or gave, the defendant drugs before arresting them? I.e., is supplying a suspect with actual banned substances at their request, but without any monetary transaction, considered "outrageous government conduct", or is it legal entrapment?

I am wondering if one insulation against a drug buyer being legally entrapped is to say to the seller/informant "You show/give me the drugs first, then I'll buy them", or "Give me a little sample first before I buy it."
 
Seeing illegal substances is not illegal (cover your eyes men!) but on a similiar note, you can get charged similiarly if your just around it. I know of a guy busted for 7K lbs of bud simply because he was at the farm at the time. (he drove a motorcycle first day out of prison and lost his leg!)

I don't understand what you mean by "legal entrapment". Entrapment is a defense, similiar to insanity, to be used in court (5 years for entrapment young man!-yea right). Giving drugs is just as bad as selling with intention to make profit. The charge is DISTRIBUTION, and that includes gifts, giving, selling, dropping on the ground so people find it, et cetera. I don't think there really is any way to protect against an informant.

Which is scary.
 
A simple Scenario would be...
Someone you think is a friend is really a narc or a cop.That "friend" comes to your home,maybe tells you where some drugs are,gives you money for drugs so you guys can make some money...then busts you for selling the drugs...

or...an old lady asks you to carry her bag acroos the street and after she gives you her bag...the cops come running up and bust you for carrying a cag full of e-pills,and the old lady worked for the cops..
Just really far fetched scenarios that most cops would have way more sense than to try to do if they really want to get a conviction.And thats what all cops want...to put you in jail and keep you there.
This is why people go to school for years and years to learn all this stuff to become good lawyers.Unless your a lawyer and even if you are,there are so many thousand of laws with clauses and legal loopholes for cases.
I beleive the greatest legal advise ive ever heard that i would recomend to everyone, is to never talk to the cops when they are arresting you till you gget to talk to your lawyer.Your lawer will tell you the best thing to say to the cops and nobody else will tell you what is in your own best interest.And a cop will do/say anything to get you to talk before you see your lawyer.They depend on it.This is why they read you your rights and tell you you have the right to free legal representation Before you are questioned.I know this has nothing to do with entrapment but im saying no one should ever think they'll get off that easy...so be smart...dont think your smart.
 
^^ That is indeed the single greatest advice. My whole drug case probably wouldn't have made it into court if I hadn't talked to the cops first. :\ No matter how appealing and easy they make it sound, how much like they seem to have your best interests at heart, or how horrible you feel about getting arrested in front of your boss, your mom, your girlfriend, whatever, it's better than confessing, trust me.
 
Cops are like salesmen. They try to seem like their your friends, or care about you, but they don't. They want to suck out the most confessions from you, so they don't have to do all the work to bust you later. The more you confess, the less work it is for them.
 
its always worth bearing in mind when considering legal statutes that they are subject to interpretation and precedence. This is what often leads to different results for similar circumstances. A statute of law is nothing but words which need to be interpreted by a judge using various principles.

If you want to find an accurate description of entrapment, try looking through related case law as opposed to trying to interpret an act of law yourself. Unless of course you have an excellent legal brain and can shed some light on the acts meaning for the benefit of his lordship in the judges chair


(L.L.B. (Hons) G.D.L L.P.C D.I.P lp, just incase you were wondering);)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top