Evidence of entrapment centers on proving that the actions of law enforcement, or their agents, were so compelling that they would likely induce a typically law-abiding person to commit a crime they otherwise would not have. This defense focuses on the conduct of the authorities, not the predisposition of the individual.
To successfully claim entrapment, the defense must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the police conduct created the crime and then enticed an otherwise innocent person to commit it.
Key Factors Constituting Evidence of Entrapment
The core of an entrapment defense lies in presenting facts that illustrate the improper inducement by law enforcement. This includes:
- Undue Persuasion: Law enforcement agents going beyond merely offering an opportunity to commit a crime and instead pressuring, harassing, or emotionally manipulating an individual.
- Repeated Solicitation: Persistently urging or begging someone to commit an offense after they have initially refused.
- Appeals to Sympathy or Friendship: Using a person's vulnerabilities, such as appeals to their compassion, personal difficulties, or a fabricated sense of camaraderie, to induce them into criminal activity.
- Manufacturing the Crime: When law enforcement initiates the criminal enterprise and provides all the necessary means, materials, or environment for the crime to occur, rather than simply detecting existing criminal intent.
- Unconscionable Inducement: Offering such an overwhelming and irresistible enticement (e.g., a massive sum of money, a highly desirable reward) that it would sway an average, law-abiding individual.
Examples of Entrapping Conduct
Evidence of entrapment can manifest in various ways, often involving specific actions taken by undercover officers or informants:
- Creating the Opportunity: Law enforcement actively suggests the idea of the crime and provides the means for its commission.
- Exploiting Vulnerabilities: While the "normally law-abiding person" standard is objective, extreme exploitation of a person's known, common vulnerabilities (e.g., severe financial hardship that might affect an average person) could be presented as evidence of inducement.
- Threats or Coercion: Implied or direct threats, or a pattern of coercive behavior designed to overcome a person's will.
- Providing Contraband: Supplying illegal substances or materials to an individual who did not possess them and was not seeking them, then arresting them for possession or distribution.
Distinguishing Entrapment from Legitimate Law Enforcement
It's crucial to understand that law enforcement is generally permitted to use undercover operations, decoys, and informants to investigate crimes. Merely providing an opportunity for a person with existing criminal intent to commit a crime is not entrapment. The difference lies in whether the police created the criminal intent in an otherwise law-abiding person versus merely facilitating a crime for someone already predisposed to commit it.
Here's a breakdown of what constitutes evidence of entrapment versus legitimate police work:
| Evidence of Entrapment | Legitimate Police Conduct |
|---|---|
| Initiating the criminal idea | Investigating pre-existing criminal activity |
| Repeatedly pressuring after initial refusal | Offering a single opportunity to commit a crime |
| Appealing to sympathy, pity, or friendship | Merely posing as a willing participant |
| Providing all necessary criminal materials | Observing and apprehending after a crime is initiated |
| Inducement would sway a normally law-abiding person | Inducement only appeals to a predisposed individual |
The legal defense of entrapment is designed to prevent law enforcement from manufacturing crime, ensuring that criminal intent originates from the individual, not from overzealous police tactics.
