You would think the police in Columbus would have better things to do.

That bounds right over the line.

I hope they not only fight that but countersue.  

(Although I have to confess the countersuit wouldn't get too far.)

(still not a lawyer)

Columbus LE do have better things to do. They just don't do them.

C-Bus is the hottest spot in Ohio and they will do just about anything.

Merely offering a tempting opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment, no matter how tempting the opportunity may be.  

The law professor quoted in the article gets it exactly right:

"'The definition of entrapment is police activity that induces somebody to commit a crime that they otherwise wouldn't do,' said Gabriel Chin, law professor at the University of Arizona. 'It's not entrapment to give somebody an opportunity to commit a crime.'

"Chin explains that entrapment involves an officer cajoling and persuading someone who's resistant to the idea of committing a crime. 'Just preying on a predisposition is not necessarily entrapment.'"

If the topless woman had asked people to buy drugs instead of to expose themselves I doubt many of us would argue entrapment.  There's no legally significant difference between the two scenarios.

In your quote of entrapment is this "police activity that induces somebody to commit a crime that they otherwise wouldn't do". Now to think that the guy walking through the park would just normally sit there and expose his penis is wrong. What happened is he saw a pretty woman topless and started talking. They were getting along and have a good conversation. She gave hints of "being interested" such as touching. Then she asks to see his penis. She is topless, flirting, and asks any normal male to show her his penis. That, in my opinion, is the definition of an activity that induces somebody to commit a crime that they otherwise wouldn't do. If it were another woman, not topless, not flirting, and not having a good conversation that asked any normal guy to show her his penis, I think most men would decline.

b-

It will be interesting to see what a court of appeal does with this one.  As indicated in an earlier thread of December 19, entrapment requires government inducement plus a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime.  
    In this case there would seem to be no argument about government inducement.  The lack of predispositon is not as clear.  It's not like the firefighter was scrolling through ads and ran across one that was planted by LE.  He is in a legal place engaging in conversation with a woman who is topless and the conversation leads him to expose himself to her.  The shame of it is that we do not know the extent of that conversation and how much influence the woman (LE) exerted.  The point is that the guy was probably so excited that he forgot where he was.  I'm willing to bet she was a knockout and that she went way beyond a mere request to see his penis (probably a little touching...some kissing maybe?).  Does the excitement of the moment provide a defense?  Well, equally sad is the fact that the court did not give an entrapment instruction and, in essence, took the real meat (pardon the pun) of the case out of the jury's hands.  
    It seems to me that the failure to instruct on entrapment is the essence of the appeal and the point upon which the Appellate Court will focus.  
    What we really won't know is the extent to which this guy's career will be impacted by disciplinary proceedings because he allowed the lower head to control the upper one.
    What a waste of time and resources by the Columbus LE folks, and, like I pointed out before, female LE never work alone.  In this case, they had film and lots of backup...a real shame if you ask me.

that it requires stings, decoys, and videotape???

"Law enforcement officials say that such sting operations are an extremely effective means of lowering crime rates and stopping the criminally minded before they commit worse offenses."

I'm curious, just what are the worse offenses they are expecting to prevent?

While I'm not a lawyer, I doubt that this is entrapment, but just a waste of time and money.  I wonder how much the Columbus PD and the DA's office spent to make sure that this criminal paid his $250 fine?

I have very great regard for Sidone's opinions in matters legal, so I was hesitant to offer a retort until I had a chance to sleep on this issue.

Indeed, the real issue is the predisposition of the alleged perp.

I think a very good case can be made that while it may be kosher for an undercover officer to offer to sell drugs to a person coming into a neighborhood which is known for drug activity, the same can not be said for the case at hand.

I seem to recall that John Delorian of lousy sports car fame was aquitted of cocaine trafficing charges, even though there was no doubt that he did attempt to deal in that drug, because it was clear that the government initiated the sting and he was clearly on the ropes financially and therefore susceptable to being swayed to stray.

It is imperative that people never allow the government the luxury of entrapping a person based upon the offering of opportunity alone.  To allow this is to allow the politicalization of the law. (As was done to Clinton in the Lewinsky affair, although that was not entrapment.)

There are a million laws out there.  I don't doubt that I or any of you break at least a half dozen a day.  (Remember Hackman's taunting of a suspect in The French Connection with:  "Did you ever pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?")

Thank goodness for juries and their (hoped for) abilities to curb excesses by the government.

Also thanks all for an excellent thread here.

(still not a lawyer)

-- Modified on 12/30/2007 6:12:57 PM

Regardless of whether or not this is entrapment, the question is where are the elected officials like the mayor and city council members? They have a responsibility to govern the city and that includes the police.  The police are not autonomous; they are under the supervision of the mayor and to a lesser degree the city council. There are a lot of things the police can do that are legal but are not the right thing to do.  That is the reason we have civilian oversight of law enforcement.  I am surprised members of the community haven’t brought this problem to the attention of the mayor and city council and demanded something be done.  The mayor should show some leadership and tell the police chief cease the operation. If the community sits by and allows things like this to happen without getting involved, then they get the community they deserve.

OK, I guess that is understandable.  However, according to the article posted, it is legal.

If someone asks you to expose your manhood in a public place, you are exposing yourself to trouble.

BTW, and with all due respect mrfisher, your comparison with the Delorian case doesn't apply.  There the authorities set up a specific scenario to create, or exploit an existing set of circumstances that would compel the target to break the law.  Planting a topless coed in a park to catch the random firefighter, or you or me, isn't the same.

Still I wonder what crimes the Columbus PD think they are preventing.

It sure seems equivalent.

It would be one thing if the park were notorious for flashers and the police were trying to catch them, but this sting seems to be set up for no other reason than to entrap an otherwise law abiding, (though horny) man.

Being a horny male should not be a justifiable cause to suspect that one is about to break the law.

(still not a lawyer, although I am a horny male.)

in the 1970's.

It was called STRESS (Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets)

It consisted of undercover officers posing as drunks and waving around wads of cash to people on the street.  Should one of the people so much as make a move to take said money, the officer's compatriots would pounce on them, often with guns drawn.  This led to a couple of killings as well as many arrests of people who would not otherwise have been criminals.

It didn't take too long before the citizens of Detroit realized that this had nothing to do with making the streets safer, and after much public demonstration against it, the program was dropped.

(still not a lawyer)

I appreciate mrfisher's kind words, especially given the public disagreement he and I had some time ago on this board.

He is right that the defendant's predisposition is a key issue here.  The problem is that we have no reason at all to believe the woman had to do anything to overcome his resistance.  We can speculate all we want, but the article doesn't mention any evidence of resistance.  The absence of such evidence would justify refusing to instruct the jury about entrapment.  Given both that the article doesn't describe any evidence of resistance and that the judge did not give an instruction which would have been proper had there been such evidence, I think we can reasonably infer that there was none.

That the woman flirted with the defendant makes his actions understandable but not excusable.  If she had suggested that the only way he could keep her interest was by lighting up a joint, he should have said no and could rightfully be prosecuted for going along.  The same is true for any other crime he committed at her request.  The "but I was horny and a topless woman asked me to do it" defense is not recognized in any U.S. jurisdiction.

-- Modified on 12/30/2007 6:21:14 PM

The problem with your analysis is that you mistake tempting someone with inducing him.  The two concepts are not the same.  

When I wrote about about committing a crime he otherwise wouldn't commit, "otherwise" did not mean "but for a tempting opportunity".  Instead, it meant "but for pressure by the police to get him to break a law he would not have broken without their pressure, DESPITE the tempting opportunity."

-- Modified on 12/30/2007 6:23:02 PM

In this context, to "induce" means to pressure, not to tempt.  Temptation alone is never enough.  If the suspect resists the temptation and the police start pushing him, you may have a hard time establishing whether they crossed the line.  But if he jumps at the temptation without any pressure then there is no entrapment.

Then I would tend to believe if there has to be enough "pressure" by LE to get someone to break a law it would basically have to be by gunpoint to be considered entrapment. If a half naked police officer who is flirting, touching, and making any normal man feel as if he may have a chance to have sex asks said man to show his penis to her, that is entrapment in my opinion. As for lawyers arguing it out in court, well since I am not one and haven't studied the law, I can't comment.

It is sounding like "entrapment" would mean that a person would have to "forced" by police to break the law. Please show me an example of entrapment that is not "just tempting". In any case I am not trying to be argumentative, I guess I am trying to learn what is and what isn't entrapment.

b-

Ok let's say she asked him and he said no. Then she continues flirting and asks again and he says no. Then she starts talking dirty and arousing him and asks again and he does it, is that entrapment? Is that enough pressure? He can continue to say no 1 time or 1000 times.

So asking once isn't pressure enough but asking 2+ times is enough pressure? What would it have taken to be considered entrapment? Again, just trying to learn I am very interested in this.

b-

and I thank you for letting us beat this horse senseless, but it's not quite dead yet.

Speaking just personally, I find it appaling that the police would ever spend time trying to tempt the unwitting public with any type of illegal activity unless there was a very serious problem with the general public being harrassed or otherwise subjected to abusive behavior by persons bent on illegal behavior.  (Crooked politicians come to mind, hence the famous abscam stings of congressmen some years ago.)

I suppose that is what the jury is system is for.  Sometimes a jury will acquit despite overwhelming evidence of illegal behavior if the jury (or even just one juror) believes that the government was improper in its pursuit of causing one to act criminally who would seem to otherwise not behave criminally.

In this respect, the jury is not acting unlike a judge who will throw out an entire case if the judge finds that the evidence is tainted in any way (e.g., the search warrant was obtained improperly, etc.).

I know the underlying law is different, but the result and the philosopy is similar.

Again, thank you for your indulgence.

There is no bright-line rule, but there would have to be some evidence of the sort you describe.  The more the defendant resists and the more the police push, the better the entrapment argument will be.  The news article says nothing about the defendant resisting at all, so for all we know the guy willingly complied with the young woman's request.  It doesn't matter how hard she worked to tempt him before that point.  For purposes of showing entrapment, all that matters is what happened after.

The point is that the pressure has to come AFTER the suspect shows some reluctance to break the law.  Steps taken before the suggestion essentially don't count.

Actually, if the person never showed a proclivity to do an illegal activity PRIOR to the "enticement' it absolutely IS entrapment.
I can't stand on the corner with my tits out, ask men to touch them then slap on the handcuffs. I mean, I COULD, but it IS entrapment.
HUnter

(not a lawyer, but ex husband is  lol)

Jury selection will be the deciding paramount.Forget the legal vagaries about entrapment. I cannot imagine any hetero male could ever vote to convict another man for showing his willy to a half naked woman,no matter how convincing the legal arguments for his conviction.

The law aside, juries are made up of ordinary people. I hope he gets one made up of TER members.

By your logic every sting operation would be entrapment.  That isn't how it works.

Entrapment is an affirmative defense so it is the defendant rather than the government who bears the burden of proof.  The government need not show proclivity.  Instead, the defendant must prove the lack thereof.  A defendant who willingly commits a crime when presented with a tempting opportunity can't do that.

Your example fails because the conduct you describe isn't a crime.  Touching a woman's body with her express consent is perfectly legal.  But if you told the guy he could touch you only on the condition that he paid and then he did so willingly you would have an ordinary sting, not a case of entrapment.

-- Modified on 1/2/2008 6:20:07 PM

Every defense lawyer's dream...a jury made up of TER members.  I wonder if that is one of the questions to be asked on voir dire (the selection process)
   In reviewing this thread, we still don't how the police report read or whether or not the female LE was wired which I think is key to how strong the defense request for an entrapment instruction would be.  If she wasn't wired, I could see the defendant firefighter putting forth some strong testimony as to the pressure exerted by the female LE to reveal the one-eyed trouser trout.  If she was wired, then the jury would know the extent of the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime.  Most LE don't wire in these situations...this seems like a good case to use a wire to thwart off claims of entrapment.

It is ALWAYS the burden of the gov;t or accuser to prove their case, not the accused to prove their innocence. From what I understood of these stings in a park, it wasn't about prostitution, it was about catching ppl having sex in the park?
A woman ASKING to be molested by having her tits hanging out, then gets what she's looking for, and then slaps handcuffs on someone? Sorry...
Entrapment is when the person showed no prior proclivity to do so. Not that it matters, but I have watched "Cops"  with undercover women officers asking men to come to their motel for money. They asked one man EIGHT times. He kept saying no. So BOTH the bitches (there was two) start rubbing allover him, and he follws them to the room, where cops were hiding in the shower. LOL  He said NO EIGHT times.
Just because they get an arrest doesn't mean it will stick. and NO, I am not wrong.
HUnter

I'll stick to advice from real lawyers. Lack of "prior proclivity" is not enough to argue entrapment successfully. You can argue it, but if that is the only basis for your argument, you won't be arguing it succesfully. By your argument, anyone without a prior conviction could get off via the entrapment defense if caught up in a sting.

The woman was not a member of LE. I do agree that this case does seem to cross the line.

The article obviously is not a complete version of the facts, but on the surface I would find it difficult to believe that a jury of his "peers" would unamimously vote to convict him given the facts presented in the aticle.

I also took offense to the article referring to the suspects in the sting as "perverts". If showing your willy to a half naked woman is perversion, what exactly is "normal" behavior?

According the §314 CPC the mere exposing of the private parts is not a crime unless someone sees the exposed private parts and is offended.

“Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:
1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Therefore, according to the law, she would have to be the victim.  She would be the first witness to testify in a criminal trial and I wonder how she could convince a jury she was offended or annoyed when she was bare breasted and suggested he expose himself.  Any run of the mill defense attorney could destroy her on the stand and that would be the end of the case.  Of course, this is the law in California and the incident occurred in Ohio so I don’t know what the law says about indecent exposure in Ohio.

I don't know the exact law regarding "indecent exposure" in Ohio either, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I would suspect regardless of the exact wording of the statute in Ohio it would be an extremely difficult case for the state to win. Even if Georgia, with a jury packed with bible thumpers, getting a unamimous finding of guilty seems unlikely. (I hope so at least)

It's unwise to try to learn the law from watching TV.  It's even less wise to insist that what you think you learned from TV is correct when a lawyer explains why you're wrong.  What you have learned is very incomplete, and your mistaken belief that you understand the issue completely may get you into serious trouble someday.

The prosecutor must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  You're right that the defendant does not have to do anything on this point.  However, if he argues an affirmative defense (a claim that he is entitled to a verdict in his favor even if all the facts alleged by the prosecutor are true) then he is the one who has to prove it.  That's what affirmative defenses are -- defenses which the defendant must prove.

I've never watched "Cops", but my understanding is that it deals with investigations and arrests rather than courtroom procedure.  You should not think that you understand the entire system based upon such a slanted portrayal of part of it.

Under Oprah law, women are right, men are wrong.  Period.

Here, you have an LE agent/informer specifically asking a person to commit the same sort of violation she is doing.

So HE's the pervert.  They are out looking for the "criminally minded", ie, thoughts are now crimes.  If you can control yourself, you're still a criminal because you had the thought.

Whoops, I'm a criminal because I'd like to assfuck the idiot who came up with that one, with a pepper-stick!!

Fucking nazi assholes.

Look I walked into a call one night and the guy was fully dressed.  No man wears a belt and sneakers in his own home.  When I asked to see his house (in a nice way because I liked to check out all rooms) - he refused and said he wanted a drink.  No man is going to refuse letting me see his bedroom to have me sit on his couch.  Then the bozo starts asking me what he's going to get for his money.  I told him there had been a mistake and I got up to leave.  The guy grabs me by the arm and says "oh no you're not going anywhere".  He lied and said I had said yes because he didn't want to look bad at me leaving.  I for a good lawyer and got it dropped.  The moral of the story is that you might get popped for doing nothing wrong - bottom line.  Then again if you worked at 7/11 you might get robbed.  That's just life in the city folks.