entrapment

Understanding Entrapment Laws and Defenses

Entrapment is a complex legal concept that essentially boils down to law enforcement improperly inducing someone to commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t have. It’s a defense that defendants can raise if they feel police manipulated them into breaking the law.
But what exactly constitutes entrapment? And what are some key things to know if you want to claim you were entrapped? Let’s break it down.

The Legal Definition

Legally speaking, entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer or agent induces a person to commit a crime they wouldn’t have otherwise committed, just to arrest them for it later.
The key thing is that the idea and intention to commit the crime originated with the police, not the defendant. As one court put it, a defendant has to be “an unwary innocent” rather than an “unwary criminal” to claim entrapment.
There’s no entrapment if police simply gave someone an opportunity to commit a crime they were already predisposed to committing. So it really comes down to whether the defendant showed willingness to break the law before police got involved.

Proving Entrapment

The burden of proof is on the defendant to show they were entrapped. This means if you try using this defense in court, you’ll need strong evidence that:
Police induced you to commit the crime
You weren’t already willing to commit this type of offense
Police tactics that can constitute entrapment include:
Intimidation
Threats of harm
Pleas based on sympathy or friendship
Offers of excessive amounts of money
If police used such unsavory tactics, it helps indicate they improperly induced you into committing a crime.

Entrapment vs. Providing Opportunity

Simply giving someone an opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment. Police are allowed to use decoys and provide opportunities that could tempt those already engaged in or considering criminal activity. Examples include:
An undercover officer posing as a prostitute to catch potential solicitors
An officer posing as a drug dealer to catch drug buyers
An officer leaving an unlocked car as “bait” to catch car thieves
The key distinction is that in these scenarios, the defendants were already willing to commit the crimes. Police merely created an opportunity they willingly took advantage of.

The Predisposition Test

Courts often look at whether a defendant showed a “predisposition” to commit the type of crime they were charged with. Essentially – were you already willing to break this particular law?
If so, then entrapment likely can’t apply since police didn’t actually implant a criminal idea in your head. They just gave you a chance to act on an idea you already had.
Predisposition can be shown through:
Prior related arrests or convictions
Statements you made before committing the crime
Your behavior and reactions when given the opportunity to offend
For example, if you jumped at the chance to buy illegal drugs from an undercover officer, it shows you were predisposed to buy drugs. But if you resisted and only bought them after the officer begged, threatened you, or offered you a ridiculous amount of money, it helps show entrapment.

Subjective vs. Objective Standards

Courts take different approaches when evaluating entrapment defenses. Some follow a more “subjective” standard focused on the specific defendant’s willingness to commit crimes. Others use a more “objective” standard focused on whether police conduct could induce a hypothetical average law-abiding person.
The federal system and states like California follow the subjective approach. The question is whether this particular defendant was predisposed to commit this type of offense. Their unique personality and tendencies are taken into account.
Other states like New York follow the objective approach instead. The question is simply whether police tactics exceeded reasonable standards and created substantial risk of entrapping innocent people, regardless of the defendant’s predisposition.

Entrapment by Estoppel

This related defense can apply when government officials wrongly tell you certain conduct is legal and you reasonably rely on that advice. For example, if a police officer tells you it’s fine to carry a certain weapon and you get arrested for it later.
This isn’t technically entrapment – because officials didn’t encourage or induce you to commit a crime. But it’s still unfair for them to prosecute you after explicitly approving your actions.

Talk to a Lawyer About Your Defense

As you can see, entrapment claims rely heavily on the specific facts and evidence in each case. Many considerations come into play. Without solid proof you were manipulated and pressured into breaking the law, this defense likely won’t succeed.
Every case is different too. Make sure to consult an attorney if you believe you have an entrapment defense. They can properly investigate your claim, gather supporting evidence, and argue it effectively in court. Don’t leave it to chance if your freedom’s at stake.