How is it possible to bust a drug dealer without using entrapment?

Centrehalf said:

This makes absolutely no sense. In your scenario the cop isn't even present for the "restocking" transaction, and the dealer isn't arrested until he sells to the cop. Therefore, the cop doesn't know whether or not the dealer actually had the drugs on him or not when this scenario started.

Click to expand...

No what I'm saying is that if a cop asks the person to sell them drugs and they have no drugs on them because they just ran out from selling to other people and they have no intent to selling to anyone else that night until the cop comes and asks them to, and then they go and buy the drugs and sell them to the cop only for the sole reason that the cop asked him for drugs then how is that not entrapment?

AndrewC23 said:

No what I'm saying is that if a cop asks the person to sell them drugs and they have no drugs on them because they just ran out from selling to other people and they have no intent to selling to anyone else that night until the cop comes and asks them to, and then they go and buy the drugs and sell them to the cop only for the sole reason that the cop asked him for drugs then how is that not entrapment?

Click to expand...

They are a drug dealer - already established, yes? . . . then they're just doing business as usual - cop or no cop.

If they didn't sell to the cop at some point then they wouldn't be committing a crime.

The notion of selling drugs was already established and up their alley at that point - so it's not like they never ever ever would have done if only that darned cop hadn't approached them posing to be a seller.

The illegal act must (1) Introduced by the officer (2) encouraged by the office (3) withot that introducement or encouragement it would not have happened.

So "I AM a drug dealer and I just ran out - here - let me go get you some real quick" is none of those 3 components.

The illegal act must (1) Introduced by the officer (2) encouraged by the office (3) withot that introducement or encouragement it would not have happened.

It would be those three things, because the idea came from the police officer, obviously once again your average dope dealer isn't going to sell to someone they don't know for this exact reason, so it would have to be a friend who narced the person out who is pretending that the officer is a good friend of theirs. Once again the crime would not have been committed if the cop hadn't asked the dope dealer to go get the drugs, he probably just would have sat on his couch and smoked pot or done something else.

AndrewC23 said:

The illegal act must (1) Introduced by the officer (2) encouraged by the office (3) withot that introducement or encouragement it would not have happened.

It would be those three things, because the idea came from the police officer, obviously once again your average dope dealer isn't going to sell to someone they don't know for this exact reason, so it would have to be a friend who narced the person out who is pretending that the officer is a good friend of theirs. Once again the crime would not have been committed if the cop hadn't asked the dope dealer to go get the drugs, he probably just would have sat on his couch and smoked pot or done something else.

Click to expand...

No - the drug dealer is already a drug dealer. . . .he already had the idea he was just 'out' of his supply.

Yes but the cop only has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is a drug dealer when they decide to make a deal with the person the cop has no way of proving that that wasn't their first drug deal ever.

AndrewC23 said:

Yes but the cop only has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is a drug dealer when they decide to make a deal with the person the cop has no way of proving that that wasn't their first drug deal ever.

Click to expand...

You need to do your homework in reference to consensual encounters. You would do yourself good service to study up on the applicable case law before you opine.

Anytime that a law is broken is a consenual encounter unless someone is holding a gun to their head.

AndrewC23 said:

I'm not saying it's that easy I'm just saying that entrapment doesn't apply when it comes to busting drug dealers even if the situation is entrapment...all I'm saying is that they don't offer drug dealers the same treatment that they would any other criminal that would have claimed entrapment.

So what you're saying is that if a cop asks a person that has no drugs on them to go buy drugs and then sell it to them when they had no intent of selling drugs before the cop asked them to do so then that is not entrapment?

Click to expand...

Are you able to read and understand the three requirements or not?

I read and understand the three requirements and there are certain situations where a cop busts a drug dealer as those that I have described that meet those three requirements.

AndrewC23 said:

I read and understand the three requirements and there are certain situations where a cop busts a drug dealer as those that I have described that meet those three requirements.

Click to expand...

Oh well! Too bad so sad.
There isn't a single judge that would agree with you on that.

If Bait Car has been ruled acceptable then so is 'hey - do you have drugs?'

I'm not saying that a judge would agree with me on that if the courts are okay with breaking their own rules then so be it theres nothing I or anyone else can do about it.

AndrewC23 said:

I read and understand the three requirements and there are certain situations where a cop busts a drug dealer as those that I have described that meet those three requirements.

Click to expand...

No there isn't and that is why we don't see drug dealers getting off due to entrapment over and over. You are making up a twisted scenario that just doesn't work. I think that I am done with this unless you can offer up something a LOT better.

I've already given my situation and I'll repeat myself if you need to. A friend of a drug dealer narcs him out the police officer works with the narc and the police officer poses as a buddy of the narc. After that the narc asks the drug dealer to sell drugs to his friend and as I have stated before your average drug dealer won't sell to a complete stranger so there had to be some persuading there to commit the crime. The drug dealer says okay well I have to go reup real quick can you wait till I get back? He gets back and sells a bag to the cop and gets arrested. Now this situation meets all of the requirements that you have just told me that something has to in order to be entrapment.

AndrewC23 said:

Anytime that a law is broken is a consenual encounter unless someone is holding a gun to their head.

Click to expand...

Again, you do not even appear to comprehend the basic legal concepts of individual encounters with government agents. Based on you inability to understand said concepts, you are woefully overstating your abilities when you claim

AndrewC23 said:

…I would probably do a better job than a public defender considering they aren't payed[sic] jack squat...

Click to expand...

So let us analyze your scenario outlined

AndrewC23 said:

I've already given my situation and I'll repeat myself if you need to. A friend of a drug dealer narcs him out the police officer works with the narc and the police officer poses as a buddy of the narc. After that the narc asks the drug dealer to sell drugs to his friend and as I have stated before your average drug dealer won't sell to a complete stranger so there had to be some persuading there to commit the crime. The drug dealer says okay well I have to go reup real quick can you wait till I get back? He gets back and sells a bag to the cop and gets arrested. Now this situation meets all of the requirements that you have just told me that something has to in order to be entrapment.

Click to expand...

Case Facts:
1. An associate of a known drug dealer informs the government of existing illegal activity…

2. The associate introduces the government agent to the known drug dealer as a friend and requests a drug transaction…

3. The known drug dealer says “okay well I have to go reup real quick can you wait till I get back?”…

4. The known drug dealer leaves for an undisclosed period of time, only to return and sells to the government agent and summarily is arrested.

The argument against a claim of entrapment by evidence provided by the defense:
1. Based on the facts presented, the investigation was generated by a report of existing criminal activity to the government by an independent witness.

2. Based on the facts presented, the initial encounter with the defendant was consensual.

3. Based on the facts presented, the defendant made a direct statement of his willingness to engage in the illicit trade.

4. Based on the facts presented, the defendant left the area of the government agents control and returned willingly to complete the transaction.

5. Based on the facts presented, the defendant was free to disengage from the transaction at three distinct points: the defendant could have refused to engage in discussions about illicit transactions in the presence of the government official without harm; the defendant asked the government agent to “wait till I get back” rather than to decline or suspend the transaction, based on the facts presented but defense this was after a single request and therefore would not meet the standards of coercion established by precedent cases; once out of the presence of the government agent, the defendant was under no duty to return and thereby the transaction was not compelled.

Based on the facts you outlined, it is no more than bad luck on the part of the offender and bad legal advice to present omissions of guilt in open court as a part of your defense strategy.

Based on everything you just said doesn't change the fact that it is entrapment?

AndrewC23 said:

Based on everything you just said doesn't change the fact that it is entrapment?

Click to expand...

The key to entrapment is that the person is lead or pushed to do something they *never would have done otherwise*

Drug dealers deal drugs - however personally hurtful it might be to you - it's NOT entrapment.

Yes and like I said they have no way of knowing that the drug dealer was doing it without "entraping" them into selling drugs to an undercover police officer. They have no way of proving that it was not their first drug deal ever without having actual physical evidence that they have before. An associate of the drug dealer narcing the person out is something that is called "hearsay".

AndrewC23 said:

Yes and like I said they have no way of knowing that the drug dealer was doing it without "entraping" them into selling drugs to an undercover police officer. They have no way of proving that it was not their first drug deal ever without having actual physical evidence that they have before. An associate of the drug dealer narcing the person out is something that is called "hearsay".

Click to expand...

In your little example a few posts back you said that "he was selling drugs - but ran out of his supply - the cop came along and asked if he had some - the guy said he was all out and went and got more"

For that entire encounter to be entrapment this is how it wold have to have happened:

1) The dude wasn't a drug dealer, he was just walking home
2) The cop came along undercover and asked if he sold something
3) The dude says "no," he doesn't sell
4) The cop asks again
5) Dude says no
6) Cop suggests that the guy go find someone who sells it and then bring some ot him for him to sell

See - the dude *being* an admitted drug dealer is the key.

Being out of an item temporarily regardless of what your 'business is' does not temporary make you *not a seller* o that Item.
A porn shop might run out of lube - but they're still a porn shop.
A jeweler might run out of gold - but they're still a jeweler shop.


See?

Pre-existing conditions already existed . . . running out of a supply and going to get more is a routine part of busines that happens *all the time*

You can argue that your example is entrapment all you want - but the courts have ruled on so many entrapment cases. There are similar situations that have happened and were ruled acceptable because being a drug dealer is part of said person's function already. A gap of time - a day - an hour - does not make that any different.

AndrewC23 said:

I've already given my situation and I'll repeat myself if you need to. A friend of a drug dealer narcs him out the police officer works with the narc and the police officer poses as a buddy of the narc. After that the narc asks the drug dealer to sell drugs to his friend and as I have stated before your average drug dealer won't sell to a complete stranger so there had to be some persuading there to commit the crime. The drug dealer says okay well I have to go reup real quick can you wait till I get back? He gets back and sells a bag to the cop and gets arrested. Now this situation meets all of the requirements that you have just told me that something has to in order to be entrapment.

Click to expand...

Drug dealers sell to complete strangers all the time, take if from a guy that has known more than a few drug dealers. Like I said, this goes to your age and experience. I have far more experience and you also have a cop and a lawyer telling you that you are wrong in this thread. Give it up already.

AndrewC23 said:

I have a question for all of you anti-drug people how is it possible to bust a drug dealer unless you catch him red-handed and in the act without using a term called entrapment?

Click to expand...

You have a very loose interpretation of the term entrapment. The drug dealer was not lured by police to commit a crime seeing how the drug dealer is already in the process of dealing drugs.

AndrewC23 said:

Yes and like I said they have no way of knowing that the drug dealer was doing it without "entraping" them into selling drugs to an undercover police officer. They have no way of proving that it was not their first drug deal ever without having actual physical evidence that they have before. An associate of the drug dealer narcing the person out is something that is called "hearsay".

Click to expand...

Oh my god... Dude, if they have drugs and are ready to sell, then they are a drug dealer. It really isn't that difficult of a concept. If a guy comes to me and asks to buy drugs I would tell him I am not a drug dealer or to take a hike and I would not go and get him drugs to sell. I am not a drug dealer.

The idea that a cop would go to some random person, me, ask to buy drugs and then this random non-drug dealer guy, me,and then I go out and buy drugs to sell to the cop is utterly stupid and naive. That would be entrapment if the gave me the idea and if it met the other two requirements... but if that has happened once in the history of the world I would be shocked. Non-drug dealers don't sell drugs.

The idea that a cop would go to a drug dealer and ask to buy drugs and then be sold drugs means that the guy was a drug dealer and that there was no entrapment.

AndrewC23 said:

An associate of the drug dealer narcing the person out is something that is called "hearsay".

Click to expand...

Sorry, you are incorrect on this as well.

Your stated facts of the scenario implicate the government’s witness as a “friend of a drug dealer”, who has enough firsthand knowledge of the defendant’s criminal operation to facilitate an interaction between the defendant and the government agent. Based on the facts of the scenario you presented the government agent was present during all stages of the transaction and thereby has direct knowledge of the events transpired.

Hearsay is an evidentiary rule, which this case would easily be overcome. For purpose of clarity I will only use what you have provided as the means for questioning the “friend” and answers provided .

The prosecutor asking evidentiary questioning of the “friend”: (establishing questions aside)
1.Prior to today, did you know the defendant? yes …established by your fact

AndrewC23 said:

A friend of a drug dealer narcs him out...

Click to expand...

2.On the date and time in question, did you have occasion to have contact with the defendant? yes (follow up) At that time was there anyone else present? yes, officer X ...both established by your fact

AndrewC23 said:

…the police officer poses as a buddy of the narc. After that the narc asks the drug dealer to sell drugs to his friend...

Click to expand...

3.Did you ask the defendant anything? yes, to sell drugs to officer x …established by your fact

AndrewC23 said:

the narc asks the drug dealer to sell drugs to his friend...

Click to expand...

4.Did the defendant leave you and officer x alone at any point? yes (follow up) Prior to leaving did the defendant make any statements? yes (follow up) What did the defendant say? He said, “okay well I have to go reup real quick can you wait till I get back?” ...each established by your fact

AndrewC23 said:

The drug dealer says okay well I have to go reup real quick can you wait till I get back?

Click to expand...

5.No further questions at this time, however the witness is subject to recall.

The witness only testified to personal knowledge and observation so no hearsay exclusion of the testimony. The prosecutor would then present additional case information with what officer X observed, additional witnesses if they exist) and subsequent laboratory analysis of the substance.

1) Find drug dealer
2) Wait for drug dealer to sell drugs to some random drug buyer
3) Take photos.
4) Drink beer.

AndrewC23 said:

Yes they did because the narc is a government agent and if they request that the person sell them drugs that is entrapment...That is really the most basic form of entrapment if it isn't then what exactly is entrapment...The same could be said if they are tracking the persons phone calls and text messages. and it doesn't have to be a government agent in order for it to be entrapment Police officers are essentially government agents, and if they are working for the government then they are a government "agent"...maybe not in the technical sense that you are thinking of but in a literal sense. Yes they did provide the "willingness" maybe not to commit the crime in other scenarios that do not involve government agents, but if an agent is requesting drugs from a dealer then they are providing the "willingness" because if the government agent never requested the drugs in the frist place there would be no "willingness" to begin with that they arrested them for.

Click to expand...

Sorry Andrew but like most drug users you don't know what you're talking about.

AndrewC23 said:

I have a question for all of you anti-drug people how is it possible to bust a drug dealer unless you catch him red-handed and in the act without using a term called entrapment?

Click to expand...

I don't think they believe in entrapment anymore. See the "to catch a preditor" stuff? That was so clearly entrapment, but we don't seem to care. They do the same thing with prositution.