I got busted(three felonies) after talking a bit to a girl on craigs list with an ad in casual encounters. She wanted a date for the night and to "get high" as I came to find out.I pulled up to meet her at a gas station, because she said the house was hard to find, and the cops rushed me, yanked me out of the car without a word and threw me in thier back seat.They had encouraged me to meet at a school initially, but I refused, that didn't feel right at all. Now all I had was a couple grams in the car, hadn't done any yet(that day) and while I had been emailing the girl I said, I was going stay, home and goodnight and good luck, at one point and asked, what about the cops in your town, is it a bust to be out late, at another. they are charging me with possesion, transporting, under the influence, DUI, and solicitation of prostitution. Now without realizing it, I gave them probable cause during the email conversations, but isn't there an entrapment law, being violated here??
I'm just wondering what if anything constitutes entrapment, because I'm fairly sure this is a clear cut case, if it even exists as a defense. Yes, I have retained a laywer(first thing the next morn. in a panic) but he doesn't seem to be helping anything. He sent me to a DMV hearing by myself, and basically told to admit guilt, now is that right? I have now lost my commercial license, along with my job. They have not yet filed against me but he's already talking about taking a plea. They're throwing three felonies at me for having under 2 grams of meth in the car, and nothing else. I have no previous drugs charges EVER, and my only other adult arrests were 15 yrs ago for dui alcohol and driving on suspended. Can anyone help me with any info on this? I am in serious trouble and need some help.
oes entrapment really exist? I got in trouble in Cali. going to meet off CL casual encounters
Entrapment really exists, but it didn't happen to you. You were caught in a typical sting, which is a trap but is not entrapment.
Entrapment involves a lot more than just trapping someone. If the defense had a different name it would probably be misunderstood much less often. It basically means that the police pressured you into commiting a crime you otherwise wouldn't have commited. That's not true in your case. If the woman hadn't been a cop you would have done the same thing.
If undercover cops threaten you or pressure you so much that your resistance is broken and you give in, then you've been entrapped. If all they do is leave out some bait and you take it, then you haven't.
This probably means you have very little chance of successfully defending yourself against the charges. The reason your lawyer recommends pleading guilty isn't that he's being lazy. He's just being realistic.
1. Use only a well known and well reviewed provider.
2. No legitimate provider would ever mention using drugs on the phone, ditto for meeting near a school, or for that matter in the open street. For that matter, no legitimate provider would use drugs while with a client, or accept a client who did.
3. Never bring any contraband with you.
4. Never leave a paper trail of anything that would haunt you later. Never mention any sexual activities either in emails or on the phone (which could be recorded.)
Your situation, as Sidone says, looks bleak, but I wish you the best and hope you get to stay out of prison.
For the rest of us, read and remember.
(still not a lawyer)
Entrapment exists as a defense in California, but it would seem from the facts of your situation, it doesn't apply. It would seem to be a classic sting. Stings aren't entrapment.
Entrapment is an affirmative defense. That means the defendant has to prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt, not just say it was probable. First, he or she has to prove a lack of predisposition towards the crime, that there is no way the intent to commit the crime originated with the defendant. So if a woman is charged with prostitution, she probably shouldn't use an entrapment defense if she was walking the streets at midnight and waving down cars. She probably would have committed the crime anyway, and just happened upon an officer. Looking on Craigslist for sex would strongly argue against lack predisposition towards solicitation of prostitution. Second, the defendant has to prove government inducement, that it was the government actor, the law enforcement officer, who originated the idea of the crime and induced the defendant to commit it. Legally, an officer can suggest the crime and offer an opportunity, which is what happened here. You still voluntarily chose to drive over, which would argue against government inducement. This all is evaluated in the context of the "reasonable person", meaning that the police were so persuasive than an ordinary person would have done it. Entrapment is a fairly high burden to meet, so it rarely is successful as a defense.
This is your first drug charge, so it's probably a new experience. It might not be a new experience to your attorney, so he might be realistic. Still, if you're unhappy with your attorney, get a second opinion from another attorney, not from random people on the Internet.
Sounds like they don't even have to bother charging you with prostitution. The drugs are the gravy.
None of this stuff is what you want to hear, but it looks like they really have you nailed pretty good. They started out as a simple prostitution bust, and ended up getting themselves a drug bust delivered to them for free.
I hope you were smart enough not to exchange any explicit conversation with "her" during your emails or conversations. I'm guessing that there were many "red flags" that went up along the way that you just did not happen to notice.
Being thay Meth is involved, I highly suggest you consider using this as the first step in a path towards never doing that ever again. Meth is really nasty nasty stuff.
Try to consider this your grounding event in life. Hopefully they will take into consideration you non-violent past and you can avoid jail time. But look for the ways in which you can use this episode to improve the rest of your life.
Good luck!
but AFAIK, it requires admitting the facts (ie a guilty plea) and establishing that the cops created a crime that you wouldn't otherwise have committed. Like, what were you doing trolling CL, and where did you get the meth? AFAIK, it's right up there with insanity as impractical and improbable.
Above all else, get yourself GOOD criminal defense counsel. Check your county bar referral, and/or check the state bar online for local criminal defense CERTIFIED SPECIALISTS.
Not a lawyer, just talks like one.
It actually depends on the state whether one can claim entrapment, which means you committed the crime, but should be excused because of entrapment, and still claim that you did not commit the crime. California is one of those states in which you can still use an entrapment defense while claiming not to have committed the crime. However, it's logically inconsistent because you're both admitting and denying, so juries have a tough time keeping the two separate.