WHat exactly is "entrapment" by police officers?
445512
In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, such as in the widely held misconception that policemen must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say "yes" if asked if they are a police officer.
614009
agent provocateur: a secret agent who incites suspected persons to commit illegal acts \n\nEntrapment is illegal in the United States.\n\nThe term is known here in the United States, but it is not widely used. The law enforcement community probably has a more common term that they use for operations which include these types of activities, when they are not prohibited by law.
944677
Hi Carmellav , Seems that at the moment we can as you say "Refuse"  -- "Nothing to Hide - Nothing to Fear" but what happens when you Refuse ?? It does tend to be Irksome , yet another step toward "Big Brothers (Tony Blairs) " Police State , I suppose the next step will be that when we are pulled over we will have a "Chip" inserted somewhere into our bodies , , , I wonder where ???  In reality I have no Objection to this , anything that helps with the war against the ever growing army of Criminals must be a good move -  Good Luck
720779
Actually when I worked for the police dept, it was against police policy to give a "jump" from the police car.  It can seriously damage the electronics in the police car ( 1000's of dollars worth)\n\nAn officer giving a jump to someone could be wrote up, given a day off without pay or more.\n\nThe police officer will call you a tow truck, or other road service,  they will often call someone else that you want called.
227271
Self-incrimination comes into play when you are in custody and subject to interrogation.  If you are in the back of a police car and are talking to yourself, it would be difficult to claim you were being interrogated.  \n\nIf you are in the back of a police car with a partner in crime, whatever the two of you talk about is fair game...again, you are not being interrogated by the police.\n\nIf you are in the back of a police car with a police informant who was put there just to listen to you talk (and did not question you), it's still all fair game because you're not being interrogated.\n\nLong story short: if you're blabbing to anyone (including yourself), without interrogation, you're almost certainly incriminating yourself and what you say is almost certainly going to be admissible at trial.\n\nDespite what others have said, just because you are arrested, handcuffed, and put into the back of a cop car, you may not have been "Mirandized"...I can't remember the last time I gave someone a Miranda admonishment just because I stuffed them into the back of my car after arresting them - and in my state, there is no requirement for me to do so.\n\nNote: some states have strange laws about who can record who and when.  While law enforcement might be guilty of violating one of those laws (though I can't imagine why they would), they are not about the Constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination.
797785
Any time the officer has a reason to have you step out of the car, the officer can perform a limited search of you and your vehicle. That reason can be something as simple as you acting nervous, moving around a lot, suspicious hand movements, aggressive attitude, or even if the officer makes it a standard procedure on every traffic stop he/she makes.\n\nThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the officer has a right to ensure his/her own safety when dealing with any member of the public for any legal reason. That means any time that an officer comes into contact with a person on any type of police call: suspicous person, domestic disturbance, disorderly conduct, traffic violation, etc.\n\nAccording to the Court, the officer can conduct a "pat down" search of the person, checking for weapons. This means the officer can pat down the outside of person's clothing feeling for weapons. If an officer feels anything that, based on his/her training and experience, could possibly be a weapon, drugs, or other illegal item, the officer can then go inside the pocket to determine the true nature of that item. They are looking for weapons, but if they find anything else, it'll stick in court.\n\nThe officer is also allowed to conduct what is referred to as a "wing-span" search of the vehicle to check for weapons. This search covers any area of the vehicle that could be reached by any occupant of the vehicle. If there is more than one person in the car, this will pretty much cover the entire passenger compartment of the car. It does not, however, include a locked glove box or the trunk, unless the inside of the trunk was accessible to a person inside the car (such as if the back seat was laid forward, leading into the trunk). The officer is checking for weapons, but if they find anything else illegal, it will stick in court.\n\nSo to answer your question more simply, yes, a police officer can search your car.
703030
So, let me get this right, you are implying that police enforcing narcotics laws is "harassment"?  Just by what I have read, you sound as if your a drug dealer.  If you don't like being "harassed" then don't sling dope on the street.
464501
It is when a mayor, governer, or President oders the military to act as police officers to disrupt riots, looting, and violence in order to gain control of a situation that has gotten out of control. Sort of like New Orleans after the Hurricanes. But, the miiltary did not have arrest powers. They were there as a watch dog to discourage violence and looting.
589101
I think TV cop shows have sucked the brains out of most of the posters here. How sad that most people don't know how their rights work.\n\nIn short, the basic rule is that they need to read you your rights ONLY if you are under arrest (or the equivalent restraints are present) AND they question you. Equivalent restraints means a situation which would lead someone to believe that they are under arrest. (Sitting in the back of a patrol car with cuffs on).\n\nAs far as just not being free to go, the answer is no, they still don't have to read you your rights. You are not free to go during a basic traffic stop, nor are you free to go during a DUI investigation. In both cases, the police do not have to read you your rights. The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that any pre-arrest questioning during a DUI stop is legal and there is no need to read someone their rights at that time. \n\nThe thing most people overlook is the questioning. If you are arrested and they don't question you about anything relevant to the crime, they probably won't read you your rights. It's not needed.
985496
ask a judge or police officer to explain it.
191286
yes, it is a standard procedure. When a cop is putting a suspect into the back of his / her patrol car, they put their hand on the suspect's head to keep them from (possibly) losing their balance and hitting their head on the car, and either claim police brutality or flat out negligence in an effort to either A) escape the charges against them, or B) sue the department for a lot of $$$. Several members of my family back east are police officers, and I have gone on numerous ride alongs with them and some of their fellow officers, and the procedure is the same.
73743
First, my expertise.  I'm a lawyer and I used to work for a firm that did liquor license litigation.\n\nIt's not entrapment for law enforcement to send minor decoys into a liquor store to see if the clerk will sell them alcohol.  It would only be entrapment if the minor decoy used extraordinary means to convince the clerk to sell alcohol to him.  The test is, was the clerk predisposed to commit the crime of selling alcohol to minors.  If the decoy just says to the clerk, "Oh, come on!" and the clerk gives in, the clerk was already predisposed to commit the crime and it's not entrapment.
112478
You know; I have always wondered this myself.....What I found out when I asked a cop about it was that there is no stated quota, but there is an unspoken expectation.  If you fall below it you know you have.  If you go way over it, your fellow cops hate you because it's like you've ruined the curve.  \n\nAt least this is what I've been told.
1073718
Pursuit driving is a double edged sword on one hand their are public safety issues. But on the other hand you have the issue that if you allow people who are committing crimes to drive off it will not be long before no one is stopping for the police. As far as using police helicopters they are wonderful tools if your department is big enough to afford one. The bottom line is if you pursue you are putting the public at risk BUT if you don't pursue and allow criminals to drive off haven't you  just put the public at risk also? Some food for thought it is not the officer that initiates the pursuit. The officer initiates a traffic stop the criminal by choosing to run initiates the pursuit.
120801
Police may use any valid (read: lawful) combination of the same tricks and techniques we used to get stuff from our parents. They can tell white lies, say they will try to help you, pretend to be your friend, threaten to be unhappy with you, etc.\n\nThe lines get crossed at physical abuse, mental abuse, denial of access to an attorney, violation of due process (basically, being really unfair), or refusing to take no for an answer (see: Miranda violations).\n\nKeep in mind, however, that courts define interrogation as "asking questions, or other conduct designed or intended to elicit a response". It's not interrogation if they just sit and stare at you, or leave you alone with nobody to talk to.
912378
Folks flee from police and get clean away every day.  It's no major accomplishment - usually just good judgement on the cop's part not to chase some idiot who'll probably get himself or someone else hurt in the chase.  It's really amazing that the cops, who are encumbered with heavy equipment, unfathomable rules of engagement, and an almost totally hostile operating environment, ever catch anyone at all - especially young, healthy, and nimble kids who know the terrain.  My personal favorite tactic is to arrest the friends of the guy who runs and make sure I load them up with charges so that they'll kick the crap out of the runner later.
27449
as pointed out different state different laws.. \n\nmy gut tells me that if you are taping your property.. you can do as you please.. your post doesnt say "what" you are taping these guests doing.. for whatever reason you are taping them for.. whether it be a babysitter sneaking around looking for money.. or a wild night.. i suggest that you and only you view that tape.. \n\nthere could be some legal repricussions if you distribute it... but then again.. your post doesnt really specify a purpose for taping to begin with.. so i wont go in to defamation of character and extortion laws at this time..\n\ntaping police officers?.. i think a better issue to address is why police officers feel the need to frequently visit your house.. i stand by my answer that you can tape anything you want on your property.. but trying to "catch" police officers in the act of doing something can have some bad repricussions.. if there is in fact something illegal (excessive use of force) being done at the hands of police.. i think you should discuss this matter with internal affairs before you start setting up cameras.. \n\n>>but i still dont understand why police officers are coming in your house.. i think you need to weigh in your own credibility as well... i think there is a lot more to this story that can be put on this forum..