Rangers taking pictures of plates?

[BISCUT]

I came back to my car after a day of hiking to find the car next to me with their keys in the door. Yes in the outside door. It was a nice car that could have found its way to a lovely chop shop if it wasn’t for the extremely honest person who saw the keys. I put them in the console and left a note that wasn’t readily seen from outside. Although I did leave my number, I never heard from them. My integrity is worth more than a car.

That is the way it is suppose 2 be! Glad you took the time to do the right thing. It will come back to you twofold.

 

[David Metsky]

Moderator Note
How about we just don't climb on the soapboxes to start, OK?

"OFF SOAP BOX"

 

[Raven]

No, it really doesn't. No court would support this defense in a situation like this.

How an individual court would rule may differ court to court and judge to judge. I am speaking to the definition of entrapment. If the item being left on the front seat is valuable enough to induce someone to open that door and take it, then it falls well within the definition of entrapment. If the item does not induce the crime, then it would not be entrapment. The value of the item being left out as bait would be a key piece of evidence. IMO, if that item is a gold bar, the 'criminal' walks. If it's a $20 bill, then I suspect a conviction. The key question is whether or not LE induces someone to commit a crime who otherwise normally would not.

 

[TJsName]

How an individual court would rule may differ court to court and judge to judge. I am speaking to the definition of entrapment. If the item being left on the front seat is valuable enough to induce someone to open that door and take it, then it falls well within the definition of entrapment. If the item does not induce the crime, then it would not be entrapment. The value of the item being left out as bait would be a key piece of evidence. IMO, if that item is a gold bar, the 'criminal' walks. If it's a $20 bill, then I suspect a conviction. The key question is whether or not LE induces someone to commit a crime who otherwise normally would not.

My understanding of entrapment is that it must be actively induced. Just leaving something in a car wouldn't qualify as it is passive.

 

[nartreb]

My understanding of entrapment is that it must be actively induced. Just leaving something in a car wouldn't qualify as it is passive.

"Active" or "passive" have very little to do with it. The main question is whether the crime was "induced or encouraged" by law enforcement's use of "methods [that] create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it."
Also note the following sentence: "However, conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment."

Though a shiny gold bar sitting on the front seat might seem like an "inducement" to some, the courts are very reluctant to find improper "inducement" short of clear evidence of overwhelming pressure, e.g., undercover police threatening gross bodily harm if the defendant refused to commit the crime.

In New Hampshire, the defendant claiming entrapment also has the burden of producing evidence to show that he was "not otherwise disposed" to commit the crime!

 

[summitseeker]

Entrapment:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/entrapment/

Entrapment is also a sub-par Sean Connery flick. I think he found himself "entrapped" into spending some time with his lovely co-star Catherine Zeta Jones. This is a total departure from the thread and has nothing to do with the Zeta Pass.

Just thought I would add some levity to the evening.

Z

 

[Raven]

"Active" or "passive" have very little to do with it. The main question is whether the crime was "induced or encouraged" by law enforcement's use of "methods [that] create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it."
Also note the following sentence: "However, conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment."

Though a shiny gold bar sitting on the front seat might seem like an "inducement" to some, the courts are very reluctant to find improper "inducement" short of clear evidence of overwhelming pressure, e.g., undercover police threatening gross bodily harm if the defendant refused to commit the crime.

In New Hampshire, the defendant claiming entrapment also has the burden of producing evidence to show that he was "not otherwise disposed" to commit the crime!

True. In this case, I'm making a theoretical argument for most of these situations. I'm pointing out there are limits within which we all must work, and I do like to play defense lawyer, as I'm one of those, "better a thousand go free than an innocent person be locked up." As such, I tend to hold authority to a very high standard. I also have a high level of respect for those doing it right.

However herein lies a problem with this kind of thing:

hypothetical situation:

A thief is breaking into cars at a remote trail head. It happens multiple times in a similar manner leaving LE to believe it is a repeat offender. They set a trap car leaving a wallet with money sticking out on the front seat of an unlocked car. Maybe they leave the door slighty ajar, maybe not. They watch as someone grabs that wallet, arrest them, all go home, and then the criminal they wanted to catch strikes again. These "traps" may not be catching the right mouse (regardless of whether it is entrapment, it may not be effective).

Again, I will repeat I support LE arresting criminals. These are hypothetical situations I find very interesting to discuss. Please don't make the bridge from this thread to recent ugly public events involving LE.

I do have an important question though: Is LE letting air out of the car tires before they park this car?

 

[Nessmuk]

I do not see the point of your "hypothetical situation". Maybe they did not catch the original criminal, but they still caught a criminal. Whether that was my wallet that accidentally fell from my pocket on the car seat, or one the rangers put there, it doesn't matter. Didn't get the targeted rat this time, but caught a destructive mouse anyway. If he did it once, there is a likelihood that he would do it again, maybe with your car next time. Prosecute the thief and reset the "trap".

 

[Stash]

I find this thread interesting. Someone breaks into a car a trailhead and there is a long thread on how "the authorities" need to monitor the parking lots and string up the perpetrators by their thumbs for breaking into cars.....

Sometimes I miss greenies.

 

[BISCUT]

Moderator Note
How about we just don't climb on the soapboxes to start, OK?

I'm only human; and apparently not the only one

 

[BISCUT]

True. In this case, I'm making a theoretical argument for most of these situations. I'm pointing out there are limits within which we all must work, and I do like to play defense lawyer, as I'm one of those, "better a thousand go free than an innocent person be locked up." As such, I tend to hold authority to a very high standard. I also have a high level of respect for those doing it right.

However herein lies a problem with this kind of thing:

hypothetical situation:

A thief is breaking into cars at a remote trail head. It happens multiple times in a similar manner leaving LE to believe it is a repeat offender. They set a trap car leaving a wallet with money sticking out on the front seat of an unlocked car. Maybe they leave the door slighty ajar, maybe not. They watch as someone grabs that wallet, arrest them, all go home, and then the criminal they wanted to catch strikes again. These "traps" may not be catching the right mouse (regardless of whether it is entrapment, it may not be effective).

Again, I will repeat I support LE arresting criminals. These are hypothetical situations I find very interesting to discuss. Please don't make the bridge from this thread to recent ugly public events involving LE.

I do have an important question though: Is LE letting air out of the car tires before they park this car?

I also enjoy the hypothetical. Let's first change up your situation that has the trappings of, well a TRAP. Let's replace the wallet with money sticking out of it to a simple wallet, contents unknown, sitting on the driver floor board. Lets also leave no question that the car door is locked. This is an every day situation. The bad guy puts forth psychical action to enter the vehicle and takes the wallet. This bad guy wasn't the targeted mouse.....Since he wasn't our target, does that mean he is a lesser thief? I think that issue matters not. Thief is a thief according to the penal law. That mouse need not be cast back into field without due punishment.

 

[IQuest]

Has anyone seen the show "Bait Car?" They leave the car running with the door open. Or "Cops" where the undercover agent poses as a drug dealer or prostitute offering their services to passer bys in a notable crime filled neighborhood? Let them set bait for people and check plates. I don't care personally, as I'm not doing anything wrong.

 

[TJsName]

"Active" or "passive" have very little to do with it. The main question is whether the crime was "induced or encouraged" by law enforcement's use of "methods [that] create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it."
Also note the following sentence: "However, conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment."

Though a shiny gold bar sitting on the front seat might seem like an "inducement" to some, the courts are very reluctant to find improper "inducement" short of clear evidence of overwhelming pressure, e.g., undercover police threatening gross bodily harm if the defendant refused to commit the crime.

In New Hampshire, the defendant claiming entrapment also has the burden of producing evidence to show that he was "not otherwise disposed" to commit the crime!

We are on the same page. I just felt like summing it up a bit.

 

[Raven]

I do not see the point of your "hypothetical situation". Maybe they did not catch the original criminal, but they still caught a criminal. Whether that was my wallet that accidentally fell from my pocket on the car seat, or one the rangers put there, it doesn't matter. Didn't get the targeted rat this time, but caught a destructive mouse anyway. If he did it once, there is a likelihood that he would do it again, maybe with your car next time. Prosecute the thief and reset the "trap".

My point is that I don't think it's a good idea to fabricate situations which encourage the very behaviors LE wants to stop. I admit I look at things differently than most, but if you want to stop thieves, then don't encourage theft.