3 ms·

1) Not quite. A person leaving a message on a suspect's answering machine can be called back without a warrant for them (as the original warrant/search would s

by rprasad 14y ago

1) Not quite. A person leaving a message on a suspect's answering machine can be called back without a warrant for them (as the original warrant/search would still be valid on the original suspect). But a separate warrant would be required to intercept (EDIT: removed impersonate) that caller. EDIT: They can impersonate a person without a warrant. 2) Yes. Emails cannot be searched without a warrant, but police can fake emails without a warrant. However, if they attempt to entrap another person by faking emails, they run into the classic entrapment defense. Furthermore, if they cause harm to a person's reputation, etc., through the impersonation, they are usually liable for crazy damages.

grecy 14y ago
> However, if they attempt to entrap another person by faking emails, they run into the classic entrapment defense. So they can do it with a cell phone (in the article), but not an email?
- rprasad 14y ago
  No, they run into the entrapment issue either way. But it's easier to show entrapment with email because the fake emails are recorded. With a phone call, it is not necessarily a given that the call was recorded (as the police may not have had proper gear set up), so it usually becomes a he-said-cop-said problem. Cops usually choose not to record calls unless they need to, because for evidentiary reasons (for the prosecution) it is better to make the dispute one of credibility.
  - grecy 14y ago
    In the article it's made very clear they entrapped multiple people by faking text messages, that didn't seem to be a problem.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Journalists do not understand the law very well... In this case, the police hit up a bunch of people they suspected of being the dealer's customers and asked them if they wanted to buy more drugs. The callees who were arrested agreed to buy more drugs without persuasion. That's not entrapment. Left out of the article, because they were not relevant to the opinion, is those people the police texted who chose not to buy drugs from the dealer being impersonated.
    - grecy 14y ago
      > The callees who were arrested agreed to buy more drugs without persuasion. That's not entrapment. It seems I'm confused about what constitutes entrapment. If an officer walks up to me on the street and offers to sell me drugs, is that entrapment? (I see that as exactly the same as sending a text message, or email)
aidenn0 14y ago
Entrapment is a hard defense though. The burden shifts to the defendant to show that he/she was not willing to commit the crime. For example: Cop: Hey, want to buy drugs? Defendant: Sure!" Not entrapment. Contrariwise: Cop: Hey want to buy drugs? Defendant: No way! Cop: Come on, you could make lots of money reselling it Defendant: It's not worth it man Cop: I know it's risky, but you could send your son to college! Defendant: I guess... okay Maybe entrapment

by rprasad 14y ago

grecy 14y ago

> However, if they attempt to entrap another person by faking emails, they run into the classic entrapment defense. So they can do it with a cell phone (in the article), but not an email?

rprasad 14y ago
No, they run into the entrapment issue either way. But it's easier to show entrapment with email because the fake emails are recorded. With a phone call, it is not necessarily a given that the call was recorded (as the police may not have had proper gear set up), so it usually becomes a he-said-cop-said problem. Cops usually choose not to record calls unless they need to, because for evidentiary reasons (for the prosecution) it is better to make the dispute one of credibility.
- grecy 14y ago
  In the article it's made very clear they entrapped multiple people by faking text messages, that didn't seem to be a problem.
- rprasad 14y ago
  Journalists do not understand the law very well... In this case, the police hit up a bunch of people they suspected of being the dealer's customers and asked them if they wanted to buy more drugs. The callees who were arrested agreed to buy more drugs without persuasion. That's not entrapment. Left out of the article, because they were not relevant to the opinion, is those people the police texted who chose not to buy drugs from the dealer being impersonated.
  - grecy 14y ago
    > The callees who were arrested agreed to buy more drugs without persuasion. That's not entrapment. It seems I'm confused about what constitutes entrapment. If an officer walks up to me on the street and offers to sell me drugs, is that entrapment? (I see that as exactly the same as sending a text message, or email)

aidenn0 14y ago

Entrapment is a hard defense though. The burden shifts to the defendant to show that he/she was not willing to commit the crime. For example: Cop: Hey, want to buy drugs? Defendant: Sure!" Not entrapment. Contrariwise: Cop: Hey want to buy drugs? Defendant: No way! Cop: Come on, you could make lots of money reselling it Defendant: It's not worth it man Cop: I know it's risky, but you could send your son to college! Defendant: I guess... okay Maybe entrapment