Ok Folks,
I am setting up a hypothetical situation here:
A week ago, a well known provider gets busted for prostitution. Now, during the course of a few days, the LE decides to make a deal with the provider to bust "johns" for a reduction in her charges.
The provider agrees to the deal.
A few days later, an ad in TER or some other review website shows up and she is ready to accept clients.
I check out this provider and ask a few of the reviewers, all have stated that she lives up to her ratings, for the sake of this example, she averages a 9/9.
Nothing is mentioned about her getting busted, maybe it's because the bust is very recent and possibly only the provider knows this and no one else does.
I setup the day and time of the appointment. I arrive at her room. We chat for a minute or two, then at that point, I am ready to put down the envelope and I ask:
"Are you working for LE?" Then she replies, "No, I am not".
Next thing you know, cops are barging in the room and I am getting busted.
Is that entrapment?
Why or why not? Even if I asked the provider if she was working for LE, does that question make any difference?
Serpius
(Disclaimer: I have never been arrested! Do not assume!)
What you describe is an undercover sting, and it is a staple of LE for prostitution as well as drugs and even terrorism.
The reason it is not entrapment is that you contacted the person and came over and put down an envelope of cash under circumstances that any judge or jury could decide constitutes an offer to solicit prostitution. No police officer whether undercover or not is ever required to tell the truth. To require that would obviate the entire pursuit of undercover work.
To qualify as entrapment, the defendant would have to prove that they were law abiding and had no intent to commit a crime until LE influenced them directly to break the law. Obviously there can be some very fine shades of gray in a matter like this. Research the case of Delorean who beat a cocaine rap based on the entrapment defense.
Many terrorists have also tried that defense when undercover LE recruits them to engage in terrorist activities. They've had a lot less luck getting off the hook, however.
(still not a lawyer)
Your right on about LE not having to say they're LE. I always wondered where that myth came from.
I may be stating a little differently what you said. Entrapment requires the LE to cause the defendant to p to enter into an act he hadn't for which he hadn't otherwise the propensity.
So if you ask a person setting people up if they are LE and they say no then this is a true statement I'm wondering i,f the reason for controlled drug buys or in this situation she wanted a less harsh sentence, they write down serial numbers on money and bust the dealers or LE accompanies the person via wire or other room to get the "John" LE isn't who was asked if they were LE in this situation am I correct? and she isn't on LE payroll so then technically she's not working for them she's trying to help herself only to dumb to know the word would spread of her doing this like a wildfire and she'd go BROKE with a sex crime still on record no job to get at that point you could say KARMA
Mr. F, that's a spot-on analysis of both entrapment and the use of undercover. On the other hand, in California, the accused would only have to prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence so depending on which venue you'd be in and the specifics of the LE conduct, you might make it fly. There are some taxpayers/jurors who would much rather see police resources be put to better use then this nonsense!
That said, rereading the initial hypothetical, that set of circumstances would be very unlikely to succeed as an entrapment defense. The perp in that is being WAY too proactive to make a reasonable claim that the conduct of the police or their agent caused them to commit the crime.
On the other hand, the California jury instruction DOES say that if the "conduct that would make the commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person" it's fits. How good looking was this hypothetical hooker?
Excellent, just came up the name of my book: "The Hypothetical Hooker!"
Mr F It's time for you to go to law school.
I read a news article about someone in Utah ask the undercover cop if she is a cop in a street prostitution sting. He did not agree to money for sex so the police told him to get out of there or else face trespassing.
In most state you can be arrested for asking if the person is an cop. This is manifestation of intention to commit a crime. If there is an sexy ad, you show up to the escorting appointment, and you ask if they are a cop, you are manifesting intention to commit prostitution.
If you ask them that if they are working for law enforcement, then it is possible to get arrested for manifesting intent.
It is possible that the provider can be working for LE for a deal. It happen in Lake Station, IN. Some BP escort operate out of her home. She got busted. She agree to work for LE. Police were able to arrest 5 of her clients.
This case is very rare. If there is a brothel situation in a home, or apartment, you are asking for trouble. In a hotel situation, I never heard of LE making a deal with the provider for a sting.
Why is it rare? LE do not have the time and resources to do this type of sting. If they go after Johns, they will place an ad on the internet to lure them in.
I am setting up a hypothetical situation here:
A week ago, a well known provider gets busted for prostitution. Now, during the course of a few days, the LE decides to make a deal with the provider to bust "johns" for a reduction in her charges.
The provider agrees to the deal.
A few days later, an ad in TER or some other review website shows up and she is ready to accept clients.
I check out this provider and ask a few of the reviewers, all have stated that she lives up to her ratings, for the sake of this example, she averages a 9/9.
Nothing is mentioned about her getting busted, maybe it's because the bust is very recent and possibly only the provider knows this and no one else does.
I setup the day and time of the appointment. I arrive at her room. We chat for a minute or two, then at that point, I am ready to put down the envelope and I ask:
"Are you working for LE?" Then she replies, "No, I am not".
Next thing you know, cops are barging in the room and I am getting busted.
Is that entrapment?
Why or why not? Even if I asked the provider if she was working for LE, does that question make any difference?
Serpius
(Disclaimer: I have never been arrested! Do not assume!)
If you do not say anything, you are opening the door to manifest intention to commit prostitution. You can manifest intent if you ask about specific sex acts.
Tell the escort you want a massage or modeling only. I have read newspaper article that undercover decoy turn guys down who just wanted massage.
In most state you can be arrested for asking if the person is an cop. This is manifestation of intention to commit a crime. If there is an sexy ad, you show up to the escorting appointment, and you ask if they are a cop, you are manifesting intention to commit prostitution.
If you ask them that if they are working for law enforcement, then it is possible to get arrested for manifesting intent.
It is possible that the provider can be working for LE for a deal. It happen in Lake Station, IN. Some BP escort operate out of her home. She got busted. She agree to work for LE. Police were able to arrest 5 of her clients.
This case is very rare. If there is a brothel situation in a home, or apartment, you are asking for trouble. In a hotel situation, I never heard of LE making a deal with the provider for a sting.
Why is it rare? LE do not have the time and resources to do this type of sting. If they go after Johns, they will place an ad on the internet to lure them in.
I am setting up a hypothetical situation here:
A week ago, a well known provider gets busted for prostitution. Now, during the course of a few days, the LE decides to make a deal with the provider to bust "johns" for a reduction in her charges.
The provider agrees to the deal.
A few days later, an ad in TER or some other review website shows up and she is ready to accept clients.
I check out this provider and ask a few of the reviewers, all have stated that she lives up to her ratings, for the sake of this example, she averages a 9/9.
Nothing is mentioned about her getting busted, maybe it's because the bust is very recent and possibly only the provider knows this and no one else does.
I setup the day and time of the appointment. I arrive at her room. We chat for a minute or two, then at that point, I am ready to put down the envelope and I ask:
"Are you working for LE?" Then she replies, "No, I am not".
Next thing you know, cops are barging in the room and I am getting busted.
Is that entrapment?
Why or why not? Even if I asked the provider if she was working for LE, does that question make any difference?
Serpius
(Disclaimer: I have never been arrested! Do not assume!)
Being arrested for asking a cop if they are a cop...a manifestation of intent of commiting a crime---what crime?? How about "are you a police officer?" because if he/she says yes, I'd tell them there's a shooting two blocks down, which there is. Intent of what?
You found the ad, you were looking to commit the crime, thus it is not entrapment.
Let's say you are on a business trip, and relaxing after work at the hotel bar. A hot lady sits down next to you, gets you all hot and bothered, and one thing leads to another. That could be considered entrapment.
Now, if you sit down next to the lady, ... much closer to cruising the red light district looking for a "date".
I'm not one who can say "but, I'm not a lawyer"
This is really a hard concept. It is difficult to defend a case solely on this defense. The example just given sounds close, but when he claims he wasn't inclined without her action. It becomes sophistry in a competent prosecutors hands Why the $? = Prostitution. He didn't ask her out for dinner or for drinks in his room. (bad idea)
How about his ipropensity to be put into the mood. or was already in the mood. A God fearing moral man wouldn't be or would get away from that kind of women. let alone the church going ladies on the jury---this is brief, but you get the idea, how the prosecution can argue against entrapment in so many situations. Of course, I'd eliminate as many of these possible jurors as allowed, but the judge is in control before appeal.
This is the reason you need to learn not just the pertinent criminal law, but more the practical use. Same with the law regs & the practical ways of le and how they must think.
A class or seminar would help.