Entrapment as a Legal Defense
In addition, the collapse defence is only available if the entrapment was committed by a law enforcement officer or someone working with a law enforcement officer. Thus, if a person is compelled to commit a crime by an individual, he or she cannot use the pinching defence. See Henderson v. United States, 237 F.2D 169 (5th Cir. 1956). For example, trapping requires proof that the defendant was unduly motivated or influenced to commit an unlawful act that he or she would not have committed but for the officer`s misconduct.6 An accused with a criminal record may have a harder time showing a trap if the defendant`s predisposition to commit the crime is taken into account. However, other states use a subjective standard to assess trapping. Under the subjective standard, the court or jury evaluates the actions of law enforcement officers against the defendant`s charge of committing a crime and considers what was the main motivating factor for the crime. Therefore, the onus is on the defendant to prove that the actions of the government officials were so presumptuous and extreme that they were the primary reason for the crime, or that the defendant had no prior motivation or disposition to commit the crime. This is often a much more difficult standard to meet than the objective standard. Bob starts arguing with Bill and complimenting him, promising that he will block the door, that no one else will enter, and that there is nothing illegal about their behavior as long as he is “private”. At this point, Bill agrees, starts touching himself, and is arrested. and was clearly trapped.
If you claim that you are trapped in California, you bear the burden of proof that the officer is guilty. but only by a preponderance of evidence.9 “Weight of evidence” is an inferior standard of proof and essentially means “more likely than not”.10 You probably will NOT be able to invoke a trap if the officer: Scenario 3: Undercover agents play a major role in apprehending individuals alleged to have participated in illegal child pornography activities under Section 311 of the California Criminal Code. Police officers posing as minors online, such as in a chat room, will convince someone to ask them for images or videos of child pornography. Readers should note that the police officer`s behavior must be so arrogant that you have been persuaded to engage in criminal activities in order to make a successful argument for the trap. For example, law enforcement officers could set up a stabbing operation to get a suspected criminal to commit a burglary. This could mean that a law enforcement officer poses as a co-defendant and alerts the accused to a soon to arrive camp shipment that is not protected by security forces. If the accused completes the burglary based on this information, it is not a pinch. The officers simply created an opportunity for the accused to commit the crime, and their efforts to do so were completely legal. However, if the undercover enforcement officer threatens that the defendant will have to commit the burglary for him, or that he will be punished, or will show up every day and harass the defendant to commit the burglary, even if the defendant does not seem interested, this could amount to a trap.
This goes beyond providing an opportunity and involves efforts on the part of law enforcement to force the burglary. Since you did not intend to sell drugs (a fact that the prosecutor must prove to convict you of possession of drugs for sale under Health and Safety Code 11351),17 it would be entirely appropriate for you to plead not guilty and claim a trap. Assessing whether a criminal accused has been harassed or forced to commit a crime is a difficult task and requires a thorough assessment of the circumstances. In some states, an objective standard is used to assess the trap, which means that the criminal defendant must prove that the tactics used by government officials were such that any reasonable person would have been led to commit a crime. To find you guilty of a crime, the prosecutor must prove that you are guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is the highest standard of legal proof, and it essentially means that the evidence against you is so strong that there is no logical explanation other than the fact that you committed the crime with which you are charged.8 With respect to the burden of proof, according to the traditional approach, if a defendant attempted to use the trap as a defence, the burden of proof was on the defendant to prove that he had been induced by a law enforcement officer to commit the crime. However, once the accused had shown incitement, the prosecution had to prove beyond a doubt that the accused was indeed predisposed to commit the crime. However, if Agent Sally only contacted John once and asked him to sell his cocaine. although John showed no interest in selling drugs. And he agreed that he would not succeed in enforcing a trapping defense.
Trapping is a comprehensive defense against a criminal charge, based on the theory that “government agents have no criminal intent, implant in the mind of an innocent person a will to commit a criminal act, and then arrange for the commission of the crime so that the government can prosecute.” Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid trap defense has two related elements: (1) state incitement to crime and (2) the defendant`s lack of predisposition to engage in criminal behavior. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the most important. Trapping is often used as a defense in advanced covert operations. However, this will only be successful if you can prove that the police acted inappropriately to persuade you to commit the crime and only did so because you were deceived into doing so. If your defence is successful, your charges must be dismissed because you did not receive due process.
If Bill had reacted immediately and willingly to Bob`s provocative behavior, he would have no right to use the trap as a defense. However, in the above scenario, he only participated in the behavior on the promise that it was not illegal since it was just both. After receiving the magazine, Steve is arrested. The only evidence of child pornography discovered during the execution of Mike`s search warrant in California is the one he accepted.21 The California Trap Act would likely protect Steve in this situation. But. Undercover drug offences are an important part of drug investigations and therefore regularly invite trap charges. Official conduct that constitutes a trap under California law4 – Defense attorneys will no doubt address California`s trap law in almost every covert operation. Especially if they are committed as part of a sex crime. California sex crimes are particularly susceptible to the trapping defense because they involve the primitive instinct of the man, who can be easily seduced. If you manage to prove that you have been arrested by the police, the criminal charges brought against you by the Public Prosecutor`s Office must be dismissed. While this type of legal defense strategy can be difficult to prove, it is possible depending on the crime you`ve been charged with. The defendant`s state of mind is crucial to setting a trap; If the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime, even in different circumstances, the court will not recognize the trap as a defence.
The best way to understand trapping as a viable defense is to apply it in everyday scenarios, as described below. With regard to the criteria required to be able to apply the pinch defence, the courts are divided between the traditional subjective criterion and the more modern objective test. According to the traditional subjective view, a trap exists only if a law enforcement officer created the intention to commit the crime in the mind of the accused and the accused was not predisposed to commit such crimes before being “seduced” by the officer. This test is subjective because the trap depends on what subjectively led the accused to commit the crime. See Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932). For example: covert operations that cause obscene behavior of California Penal Code 647(a) in public allegations to trigger a trap defense almost immediately.18 One of the most common examples of this is when luring masquerades as gay men and attempts to get other gay men to perform “obscene” sex acts in public (most notoriously in public restrooms).
