Los Angeles Criminal Lawyers Blog

A commonly used defense in California drug sales, illegal gambling and prostitution cases is entrapment. Entrapment is a defense that the person engaged in unlawful conduct due to the coercion or pressure from a law enforcement officer. To be a successful defense, the person must not be predisposed to committing the illegal act being charged and there must be actual harassment, fraud or pressure directed by law enforcement towards the person charged.

Entrapment is a frequently used in situations where an undercover officer asks to buy drugs or solicit from a person who obliges and are subsequently charged with the sale of drugs or prostitution. If the entrapment defense is successful, then any evidence obtained is excluded from trial. This is what is referred to as the exclusionary rule.

For example, let's discuss a situation where Person A is a law abiding citizen. He is a family man, is a high paying vice president of a large corporation job and has never been arrested or charged with any criminal offense besides several unpaid parking tickets. Person A is approached by an officer and asked to sell him some heroin. Person A refuses and explains that he is not the person to talk to, and he wouldn't know where to obtain any illegal controlled substances. The officer insists, and begins to call and appear at places Person A is with his family. After repeatedly asking for a week, the officer calls up Person A and tells him that he will have Person A sent to jail for unpaid parking tickets and will personally assure that he serves jail time if he doesn't comply with the officer's demands. Person A, afraid of jeopardizing his job agrees and obtains the heroin. The officer immediately reports Person A and has him charged for felony drug possession. As evidence the officer presents pictures and recorded conversations of Person A obtaining the heroin from a known drug dealer and transferring it over to the officer.

In the above mentioned example, Person A should be able to provide a strong defense for entrapment, as there was clear coercion, pressure and threats from the officer. If it is successful, any evidence that was obtained through unlawful entrapment will be dismissed. In this case, the photographs and recorded conversations will not be used to prepare a case against Person A. Without that evidence, there is no case against Person A because the government cannot sufficiently prove that the person committed the crime. The case will consequently, be dismissed.

If a case has a strong entrapment defense, consult an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense lawyer to give your case the best possible chance of being dismissed. A knowledgeable lawyer will review the specific facts of your case and be able to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of an entrapment defense. If an entrapment defense is not the right one for you, then there may be other available options that will help your case be reduced or dismissed!

Entrapment is a defense that may be used in some California Criminal cases. Entrapment is a valid defense when police officers engage in conduct that would cause otherwise law abiding citizens to commit a criminal act or unlawful conduct. Although the concept seems fairly straightforward, it is a very complex defense that must be used properly for it to be effective.

In order for someone to successfully use the entrapment defense a significant distinction must be made between opportunity and pressure, fraud or inducement. If someone is given a mere opportunity by a police officer to commit an unlawful act, it will not be enough to constitute entrapment.

The officer must have pressured you for entrapment to apply. This means applying a significant amount of pressure, not just a minimal amount. They may have offered you a high payment or bothered you until you felt that you had no choice in the matter and felt that you must complete the task they are asking of you. For example, let's assume an officer is dressed undercover and asks you to sell him some drugs, asking you to engage in the illegal act of California Drug Sales. You politely decline and the officer continues walking along. There is no pressure in this situation, the officer merely asked once and when he was turned down, he left. This is more of an opportunity. The officer offered an opportunity for you to sell drugs illegally, but since nothing came of it both parties went their separate ways.

In comparison, in another situation the officer asks to buy some drugs from you and you decline. As you start to walk away, the officer follows you begging for you to sell him some drugs. Still you refuse but the officer continues to ask you and even tells you that he needs it and will pay you triple the price. This is pressure and not opportunity. The officer is applying steady pressure and trying to persuade you and giving you a high incentive to engage in the illegal act.

The officer may also use harassment to induce a person to commit an unlawful act. Harassment includes threats or unwavering solicitation. Let's say that an officer calls you and asks you to sell him cocaine, engaging in drug sales and you say no. He then calls you everyday, even shows up at your house asking you to sell him cocaine enough though you have told him you cannot do that. Then he says if you do not sell him cocaine then he will make sure you get fired from your job and remain unemployed. This is pressure and an entrapment defense would be valid in court.

In cases where fraud is used to persuade someone to commit an unlawful act, entrapment will be a successful defense in court. If an officer has explained to you that a certain act is not illegal and you will not be prosecuted, when in fact that is not true, you will have a defense to having committed that act. If the officer explains to you that if you allow him to take drugs from your drawer and leave money without you knowing that it is not a illegal act, there may be entrapment by fraud.

The entrapment defense is very detailed, and will depend on the specific facts of each case. An experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense attorney can explain to you when you have a strong entrapment defense for your case after reviewing the background and facts of your case.

Entrapment is a complete defense in some criminal cases. A person will be said to have been entrapped if a law enforcement officer engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law abiding citizen to commit a crime. The definition of entrapment may seem fairly straightforward, but in actuality it is a lot more complex in it's application.

Entrapment will be a successful defense when there is pressure, harassment or fraud applied by the law enforcement officer. Anything less than that will not be considered entrapment. The definition of what constitutes enough pressure or harassment is subjective, and therefore is open to many different interpretations. An experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense attorney has handled many entrapment defenses and can determine whether a specific case has a strong or weak entrapment defense.

One of the biggest elements that will distinguish a valid entrapment defense from what is not entrapment is the element of predisposition. If a person is predisposed, has the inclination to engage in certain kinds of behavior, there is a weak argument in favor of entrapment. The Supreme Court ruling in Mathew v. United States (485 U.S. 58 (1988)) determined that entrapment will only be successful in cases where there is a lack of predisposition on behalf of the person being charged. If the government can establish that the person trying the entrapment defense was predisposed to commit the unlawful act then he or she will not be able to use the defense successfully. It won't be entrapment when the person is already willing to commit a crime and the law enforcement officer merely provides the opportunity to do so.

For example, let's assume there is a man who is a known drug dealer. In order to gather evidence, officers plan a stakeout and observe him selling drugs to other people. Then to gather further evidence they go undercover and approach the man to buy drugs from him. After refusing once, he immediately sells the drugs and is arrested. If he were to claim an entrapment defense , it would not be a strong defense because he had a predisposition to sell the drugs regardless of who it was to and without any pressure of coercion for law enforcement. The officer provided him with an opportunity to engage in criminal conduct; selling him the drugs.

Predisposition is often proven through prior conduct and reputation. If a person has been arrested and charged with sales of narcotics before, pleading entrapment on a third offense will not be a strong argument due to the previous convictions. In comparison, if a person has nothing on his criminal record and has not been known to engage in any kind of unlawful behavior in relations to drugs they may be able to present a strong case for entrapment. There is a strong case for person B, because it is harder to prove that the person has a predisposition to commit the kind of behavior they are being charged with.

Determining predisposition requires effective argument and a persuasive argument in favor of the defense. A knowledgeable Southern California Criminal Defense lawyer can prepare the most effective strategy when entrapment is in issue. There is a fine distinction between what the government will consider entrapment, and when they will find it to be inapplicable. Speak to a Criminal Defense attorney to understand your options and explore the defenses that are best for your case.

When a person is charged with Prostitution, a commonly used defense is entrapment. An entrapment defense will be successful when it can be proven that law enforcement engaged in behavior that would cause an otherwise law abiding citizen to engage in an unlawful act. If it is shown that a law enforcement officer pressured or persuaded a person to engage in prostitution, there is a strong defense in favor of the person charged and will lead to a dismissal of the case.

The legislation defines prostitution as a lewd act between persons for money or other consideration. California Penal Code § 647 (b) punishes those that solicit, agree to participate, or participate in prostitution. Therefore, if a person is pressured or coerced by a law enforcement officer to engage in prostitution they will have a valid entrapment defense. However, if there is no fraud or pressure and it can be proven that they have a predisposition to engage in prostitution the entrapment defense will not be valid. The prosecutor will demonstrate that a person has the predisposition to commit a crime through the use of any existing criminal record and proof of character. Predisposition to commit an unlawful act will strongly weaken an entrapment defense.

For example, let's say that Person A has nothing on their criminal record besides a lot of parking tickets on their record and cannot afford to pay them. Additionally, she is not known by friends and family to be of a promiscuous nature. An officer contacts Person A and asks her if she would like for him to make the tickets disappear, and all she has to do is come over to his home and engage in some activities with him. Person A says no. The officer continues to call her asking for the same, and eventually tells her that he will make sure that due to the huge amount of unpaid tickets, he will make sure that she not only owes steep fines, but will serve jail time as well. Person A, terrified at the idea and scared agrees and engages in unlawful conduct that results in a charge of prostitution.

In this situation, Person A has a strong defense with entrapment. Prosecutors may try to show that she has a predisposition to engage in solicitation or prostitution, but their argument would be very week based on the facts. She has no prior criminal
background, and a good reputation among friends and her community. Furthermore, she declined the officer's offer, but he continued to pressure her offering her a deal she needed, even threatening her with high penalties and jail time until she felt she had no choice but to concede.

Based on the facts, an entrapment defense will likely be successful, resulting in a dismissal of her case. To determine whether the facts of your prostitution case will yield a successful entrapment defense, speak to an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense attorney. They can provide you with an analysis of your case and discuss all the available options that you may have.

Entrapment is a full defense that is common to certain types of criminal cases. Among these are drug sales cases, prostitution and charges of lewd conduct. Depending on the specific facts of the case, as well as the individual's background, the defense may be successful and will result in a dismissal.

One of the types of charges where Entrapment is argued often is in drug sales. The typical case will involve an undercover officer who asks to buy drugs from a known dealer. The dealer sells drugs to the officer and is arrested and charged with a violation of the California Health and Safety Code § 11352. §11352 makes it unlawful for any person to be transporting or selling a controlled substance.

The defense will only be successful if the person was coerced or pressured into selling the controlled substance to the officer. It must be more than a suggestion, it must be enough to make reasonable person feel that they cannot refuse but do as the officer asks. If the person is predisposed to selling drugs then the entrapment defense will not work. The prosecutor will demonstrate that a person has the predisposition to commit a crime through the use of any existing criminal record and proof of character.

For example, Person A has been convicted of selling a controlled substance 7 years ago. He is known as a seller and officers have been observing him for two weeks. Eventually an officer goes undercover, approaches A and asks to buy some of what he is selling. Person A initially refuses and the officer starts to walk away. As the officer walks away, A calls him back and exchanges the substance for cash. Person A is arrested and charged.

In the above mentioned situation, an entrapment defense may be weak based on the facts. The person has been previously convicted of selling a controlled substance, which implies that they have the predisposition to engage in the illegal act of selling drugs since they have been convicted of the act before. Any evidence of predisposition will often weaken the person's argument for entrapment.

Additionally, in the example there is no pressure or force coming from the officer. The officer walks away after he is told no, but person A asks the officer to come back. If Person A tries to make a case for entrapment, it might be dismissed because there is no evidence of pressure or force, and it seems as if they are predisposed to sell controlled substances.

In cases involving charges of California Drug Sales, an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense attorney will always consider the defense of entrapment. In many cases it is a strong and effective defense. Whether it will apply in a case will depend on the specific facts of the case and the background of the person. Consult an attorney for a full analysis of your case to determine which defense is the best argument.