4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Buren_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Buren_v._United_States > The FBI set up a sting operation and instru

by donatj 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Buren_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Buren_v._United_States > The FBI set up a sting operation and instructed Albo to offer Van Buren US$6,000, but in exchange, to request Van Buren look up a license plate on the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) he had authorized access to, as to see if its registered owner, a stripper, was an undercover officer What ever happened to entrapment being… you know… against the law? Like I'm aware these sorts of stings happen all the time. What I don't understand is why it's generally found to be OK.

jlmorton 5y ago
Entrapment is not against the law, but it is a legal defense at trial against a charge. In any event, this is not entrapment, because it was not coercive. It's not entrapment to offer someone a reasonable amount of money to commit a crime, that's standard police work. It's only entrapment if the person refuses the offer, and law enforcement harasses them, repeatedly suggesting someone commit a crime until they are eventually convinced to do it.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Entrapment has specific requirements to apply, namely, that the person would not normally have committed the crime. Wearing someone down for years with harassment? Threats? Lies like “you have to do this or someone would die?” Entrapment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- donatj 5y ago
  How is that different than offering someone 6 grand? Had no one offered him six grand he never would have committed the crime. Like there's literally no victim here other than the accused.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    He would’ve happily accepted the $6k from someone else who wasn’t part of a sting. That’s why it’s not entrapment. If they had to beg and cajole and plead and coerce, it would’ve been entrapment. Same reason prostitution stings aren’t entrapment.
  - P_I_Staker 5y ago
    If you're willing to take $6k to commit a crime, you're a criminal (in the eyes of the law). On the other hand if you're being coerced, that's not a crime you'd normally commit. There's presumably people willing to offer up money for illegal plate searches, so this isn't really some wacky situation (the price might be high though). I do agree the line is incredibly vague. In theory, you could argue that, oh yes, the criminal would commit a crime if you constantly called them up and threatened their family. That's a bit of a stretch, I think. I don't agree with this interpretation and think entrapment should be more broadly defined, and stings should be very limited... but I also think a lot less things should be illegal and we should reform the criminal justice system, so clearly I'm not the type of person they listen to when writing laws.
TameAntelope 5y ago
Holy shit, it costs $6,000 to look up one license plate? Hollywood has really made this seem like a not-that-bad or not-that-unusual activity. Good that they're cracking down on it, but my expectations and reality are way out of whack on this.
- romwell 5y ago
  Nah, it really doesn't cost $6000. The context here is that the police officer was already trying to shake this guy down for money; perhaps he figured that he's getting what he wanted in the first place, and can do a little favor to smooth things out.
- Godel_unicode 5y ago
  The expensive part is "is an undercover officer" not "look up a license plate".
smsm42 5y ago
The police routinely catches drug dealers by selling them or buying from them drugs. This is no different. Entrapment would only be a defense if you showed that absent police action you'd never do anything like that and they essentially coerced you into it. But if they know an officer is corrupt and routinely sells data to criminals, then to obtain hard evidence by staging a sting sale would be completely ok for them. In this particular case, the officer reached out to the criminal for money, so it'd be hard for him to claim he'd never done it if the police weren't involved.
P_I_Staker 5y ago
Entrapment is absurdly narrowly defined. You practically have to put a gun to someone's head.

by donatj 5y ago

jlmorton 5y ago

Entrapment is not against the law, but it is a legal defense at trial against a charge. In any event, this is not entrapment, because it was not coercive. It's not entrapment to offer someone a reasonable amount of money to commit a crime, that's standard police work. It's only entrapment if the person refuses the offer, and law enforcement harasses them, repeatedly suggesting someone commit a crime until they are eventually convinced to do it.

ceejayoz 5y ago

Entrapment has specific requirements to apply, namely, that the person would not normally have committed the crime. Wearing someone down for years with harassment? Threats? Lies like “you have to do this or someone would die?” Entrapment.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
donatj 5y ago
How is that different than offering someone 6 grand? Had no one offered him six grand he never would have committed the crime. Like there's literally no victim here other than the accused.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  He would’ve happily accepted the $6k from someone else who wasn’t part of a sting. That’s why it’s not entrapment. If they had to beg and cajole and plead and coerce, it would’ve been entrapment. Same reason prostitution stings aren’t entrapment.
- P_I_Staker 5y ago
  If you're willing to take $6k to commit a crime, you're a criminal (in the eyes of the law). On the other hand if you're being coerced, that's not a crime you'd normally commit. There's presumably people willing to offer up money for illegal plate searches, so this isn't really some wacky situation (the price might be high though). I do agree the line is incredibly vague. In theory, you could argue that, oh yes, the criminal would commit a crime if you constantly called them up and threatened their family. That's a bit of a stretch, I think. I don't agree with this interpretation and think entrapment should be more broadly defined, and stings should be very limited... but I also think a lot less things should be illegal and we should reform the criminal justice system, so clearly I'm not the type of person they listen to when writing laws.

TameAntelope 5y ago

Holy shit, it costs $6,000 to look up one license plate? Hollywood has really made this seem like a not-that-bad or not-that-unusual activity. Good that they're cracking down on it, but my expectations and reality are way out of whack on this.

romwell 5y ago
Nah, it really doesn't cost $6000. The context here is that the police officer was already trying to shake this guy down for money; perhaps he figured that he's getting what he wanted in the first place, and can do a little favor to smooth things out.
Godel_unicode 5y ago
The expensive part is "is an undercover officer" not "look up a license plate".

smsm42 5y ago

The police routinely catches drug dealers by selling them or buying from them drugs. This is no different. Entrapment would only be a defense if you showed that absent police action you'd never do anything like that and they essentially coerced you into it. But if they know an officer is corrupt and routinely sells data to criminals, then to obtain hard evidence by staging a sting sale would be completely ok for them. In this particular case, the officer reached out to the criminal for money, so it'd be hard for him to claim he'd never done it if the police weren't involved.

P_I_Staker 5y ago

Entrapment is absurdly narrowly defined. You practically have to put a gun to someone's head.