Two days ago in NYC my friend was fixing his car near a bodyshop when a guy appeared and offered to sell him European Style lights. After my friend has purchased the lights the police arrested him. The same guy who sold him the lights turned out to be an undercover detective. He was taken to the nearest precinct where he was questioned, the cops didn't allow him to make a phone call let alone presented him with a lawyer. He spent the night in that same precinct. Is this a clear case of Entrapment and are they allowed to do this?
Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant Entrapment?
- Thread Starter EliGC
- Start date
- Status
If the case is as you say so, there might be a number of violations of his rights, including a potential entrapment defense. That defense is an affirmative defense (the defendant must prove this) in that "but for the objectionable conduct by the police, the defendant would not have committed the crime." There is a balancing test between the predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime and the police action in causing it.
However, as this seems to be a story that was told to you, I'm wondering whether it's possible that part of it was lost in translation. The fine details could make a significant difference in the outcome of the case.
However, as this seems to be a story that was told to you, I'm wondering whether it's possible that part of it was lost in translation. The fine details could make a significant difference in the outcome of the case.
Simply because a police officer was a seeming seller doesn't mean that his role played a determining factor as to whether the defendant chose to be involved in the transaction. If so, then any time an undercover officer makes such a "sale" it would be entrapment -- and we know it isn't the case.
The easiest way to explain this is, e.g. where someone who has never been involved in using marijuana lives outside of town in a quiet area. An undercover police officer hangs out in front of the defendant's property and waits for him to leave. The person has a friend over and both leave the house. The officer then calls to both and inquires whether they want to buy some leaf. The friend says he'd like to purchase. After discussing business, the friend says he doesn't have enough money and leaves. The officer continues by asking the defendant. Defendant declines. Officer persists and says that nobody will know, it's a remote area, etc. That's closer to entrapment.
In your scenario much depends upon the circumstances, e.g. whether the officer came uninvited onto private property and just solicited merchandise. As stated, however, this is an affirmative defense which means that the defendant must prove how he was "entrapped."
The easiest way to explain this is, e.g. where someone who has never been involved in using marijuana lives outside of town in a quiet area. An undercover police officer hangs out in front of the defendant's property and waits for him to leave. The person has a friend over and both leave the house. The officer then calls to both and inquires whether they want to buy some leaf. The friend says he'd like to purchase. After discussing business, the friend says he doesn't have enough money and leaves. The officer continues by asking the defendant. Defendant declines. Officer persists and says that nobody will know, it's a remote area, etc. That's closer to entrapment.
In your scenario much depends upon the circumstances, e.g. whether the officer came uninvited onto private property and just solicited merchandise. As stated, however, this is an affirmative defense which means that the defendant must prove how he was "entrapped."
- Status
