When you receive a ticket from a police officer, the first thing most people think is, “how can I get out of this ticket.”  One defense that is often used is that of entrapment.  What entrapment means is that a law enforcement officer, or someone working with him, has induced the defendant to commit a crime.  There are two basic ways in which a defendant can prove entrapment: the “predisposition” test and the police conduct rule.

What Is The Predisposition Test For Entrapment?

In almost every state, and the U.S. Supreme Court, the rule is that entrapment exists, “when the criminal design originates with the officials of the Government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute.” What this means is that the government has to start the criminal endeavor and try to convince someone to commit the crime, that the defendant is just an innocent person dragged into the crime, and finally that the defendant was not predisposed to commit that kind of crime.

For example, if Dillion creates meth in a back storage shed and, George, a federal narcotics undercover agent, tells DIllion that he wants to participate in the manufacture and distribution of meth, that he has suppliers lined up for the necessary ingredients and hard-to-get supplies and that he can get it all at a discount.  Dillion, always looking for a good deal, agrees to show George the meth operation with their own suppliers, but likes George’s prices and agrees to do a deal with George.  George then arrests them for creating meth and distributing the drugs.  Here, Dillion was already predisposed to commit the crime because he was already creating meth and had suppliers already set up.  He would not be able to claim he was entrapped.

What Is The Police Conduct Rule For Entrapment?

In some states, a defendant can use the defense of entrapment if that entrapment exists where the government agents originate the crime, and their participation is such as is likely to induce unpredisposed persons to commit the crime, regardless of whether the defendant himself is predisposed.  Obviously this is a bit different from the predisposition test since it wouldn’t matter if the defendant already wanted to commit the crime.

For example, if Bob is a rifle dealer is approached by  Cindy, a 17-year old, who requests to purchase a particular weapon.  Bob states that he cannot sell a weapon to anyone under the age of 18.  Cindy, really wanting the weapon says she’ll have sex with Bob if he will sell her the weapon.  In the state it is not illegal for an adult to have sex with a 17-year old minor, but it is illegal to sell a firearm to someone under the age of 18.  After several long conversations and constant begging from Cindy, Bob makes the same.  Right after the sale, Cindy reveals that she is actually a federal agent and arrests Bob.  Here, because Cindy was actually a federal agent, Bob may be able to use the entrapment defense.

What Do You Think?  Is it fair for the police to entrap someone into breaking the law?  Should it matter if a person is already predisposed to committing a crime?