Bait car. Sometimes it works....and sometimes......

[Goober57]

Police use bait cars to catch car thieves.

Sometimes it works................

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-28-bait-cars_x.htm

And sometimes................well...............

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/3709768/detail.html

[Tommyknocker]

Very interesting reading. Can any of the legal gurus here comment on whether or not this constitues entrapment?

[Capmaster]

Very interesting reading. Can any of the legal gurus here comment on whether or not this constitues entrapment?

How is putting a car on the street entrapment? It's not like they put $50 bills on the front seat to lure them in

They were "entrapped" by their own overwhelming desire to own what didn't belong to them :P

[Craig Tucker]

I liked the anti theft device that was in the ads in Robocop. That would put the fuckers off.

[zzyzzx]

I like the idea of bait cars. I just wish that after locking in the person that they put poision gas into the car.

[Tommyknocker]

Very interesting reading. Can any of the legal gurus here comment on whether or not this constitues entrapment?

How is putting a car on the street entrapment? It's not like they put $50 bills on the front seat to lure them in

They were "entrapped" by their own overwhelming desire to own what didn't belong to them :P

Since they put the car on the street to entrap car thieves, not for transportation, but for the simple reason to be stolen and then to catch the thieves, the perpetrators may have a legal argument.

[Capmaster]

I liked the anti theft device that was in the ads in Robocop. That would put the fuckers off.

Oh yeah! It was the flamethrower under the car on the sides right? Or was it lethal high voltage?

[Craig Tucker]

The lethal high voltage. Fry the fuckers.

[Craig Tucker]

Very interesting reading. Can any of the legal gurus here comment on whether or not this constitues entrapment?

How is putting a car on the street entrapment? It's not like they put $50 bills on the front seat to lure them in

They were "entrapped" by their own overwhelming desire to own what didn't belong to them :P

Since they put the car on the street to entrap car thieves, not for transportation, but for the simple reason to be stolen and then to catch the thieves, the perpetrators may have a legal argument.

And thats whats wrong with the legal system. Too much crap in favour of the criminals.

[glockjs]

The lethal high voltage. Fry the fuckers.

[Tommyknocker]

Very interesting reading. Can any of the legal gurus here comment on whether or not this constitues entrapment?

How is putting a car on the street entrapment? It's not like they put $50 bills on the front seat to lure them in

They were "entrapped" by their own overwhelming desire to own what didn't belong to them :P

Since they put the car on the street to entrap car thieves, not for transportation, but for the simple reason to be stolen and then to catch the thieves, the perpetrators may have a legal argument.

And thats whats wrong with the legal system. Too much crap in favour of the criminals.

I think we just went political.

[Capmaster]

Very interesting reading. Can any of the legal gurus here comment on whether or not this constitues entrapment?

How is putting a car on the street entrapment? It's not like they put $50 bills on the front seat to lure them in

They were "entrapped" by their own overwhelming desire to own what didn't belong to them :P

Since they put the car on the street to entrap car thieves, not for transportation, but for the simple reason to be stolen and then to catch the thieves, the perpetrators may have a legal argument.

Sad, but that may be true :P

[jimmalenko]

Very interesting reading. Can any of the legal gurus here comment on whether or not this constitues entrapment?

How is putting a car on the street entrapment? It's not like they put $50 bills on the front seat to lure them in

They were "entrapped" by their own overwhelming desire to own what didn't belong to them :P

Since they put the car on the street to entrap car thieves, not for transportation, but for the simple reason to be stolen and then to catch the thieves, the perpetrators may have a legal argument.

Surely intent must count for something ?

[ViRaL1]

Because of that success, officials said that there were plans to expand the program to include bait motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and construction vehicles.

Motorcylces? The city will lose more money in lawsuits than it saves in cutting down on crime and equipment.

Same thing might happen with these.

May be a bit slow to load.

http://www.stickdeath.com/2004auto.swf

[Tommyknocker]

Very interesting reading. Can any of the legal gurus here comment on whether or not this constitues entrapment?

How is putting a car on the street entrapment? It's not like they put $50 bills on the front seat to lure them in

They were "entrapped" by their own overwhelming desire to own what didn't belong to them :P

Since they put the car on the street to entrap car thieves, not for transportation, but for the simple reason to be stolen and then to catch the thieves, the perpetrators may have a legal argument.

Surely intent must count for something ?

The point being, entrapment is unconstitutional, so any evidence you gather while performing an illegal act is called forbidden fruit, and can't, or shouldn't be used.

[mrtristan]

They use bait cars in Hawaii and it's currently not considered entrapment. Technically, the police are just parking a car that happens to have a tracking device. Since the car is rigged with the tracking device, it makes it easier for them to catch the criminal. That's the line that they're using to get around the entrapment issue, locally.

I'm all for it.

[Tommyknocker]

What about the cars that locks the dirty little sucker inside? Is this a form of entrapment?

[hech54]

Surely intent must count for something ?

.....said Wacko Jacko's prosecuters.

[Capmaster]

What about the cars that locks the dirty little sucker inside? Is this a form of entrapment?

No. Just an unfortunate choice of dealer options .....for the scum-bag stealing it, that is

[northcat_8]

A police spokesman said it's the first time they've lost a car in the four years that they've used these so-called "bait cars."

The theft of the bait car comes on the heels of officials announcing the success of the program over the past five years.

dumbasses

I'll bet there were 43 thieves in jail wondering HTF they got caught, thief 44 reads the newspaper apperently, disabled the GPS and Waaa-laaa Grand Theft Auto free and clear. I bet they find the lost continent of Atlantis before they recover that car.

You know...I've got a good idea on how to bust drug trafficers, I have busted 57 of them so far, so why don't I make a public announcement about what I'm doing so all the drug trafficers can be on the look out for it? ******* retarded, they deserved to have the car stolen.

[adam]

This is definitely not entrapment. Contrary to its name, entrapment has nothing to do with physically trapping or otherwise restraining the perpetrator. You can build as many reasonable safeguards and lock downs into your sting operation that you want.

Entrapment is when the State is the one making the proposition to break the law. Entrapment would be if an undercover officer offered to make a drug deal, or offered themself for prostitution, or in this case if they somehow propositioned the suspect to go and steal the car. You can leave a car on the street and make it as enticing as you want (open door, engine running, etc...) and its still not entrapment.

With theft its actually pretty cut and dry as to whether entrapment has occurred. Things like prostitution are much more problematic. For instance, you can stand in 6 inch heels and garters and wait for someone to proposition you and that's not entrapment. But if you touch the perpetrator in any way prior to the proposition then it may constitute entrapment.

[ZAPPER]

entrapment is entrapment. the state is producing an artificial situation with the sole intent of inticing someone into commiting a crime. when it should be providing a deterent. local juristictions will handle this differently.

I, however, am not a goody two shoe and say that the theives should have their balls cut off to stop them from breeding

[adam]

But zapper that is not the definition or test for entrapment.

The legal definition of entrapment is: when the accused has been induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit. The inducement or pursuasion requires an affirmative action on the part of the government. If no agent of the goverment ever talks or interacts with the thief, then there is no way it can ever be entrapment. There is literally nothing you can do to any object to make it, in and of itself, so enticing to steal that it can be said that the thief was pursuaded by the goverment to steal it. Goverment agents are free to provide the opportunity to commit a crime, (ie: make it appear that you are a drug dealer or prostitute, or set up a car which is just ripe for the picking) as long as the perpetrator is still the one making the decision to violate the law. I cannot see how any defendant caught in this bait car sting could possibly raise the entrapment defense. If there is no interaction with any government agent, then there can be no entrapment.

Also, to clarify something stated earlier. Entrapement is a legal defense, not an evidenciary or procedural rule. In other words, it is not something that, if found applicable, would bar evidence from being admissible at trial. It is a defense which if proved, requires acquittal of the accused for that crime. Basically, if you are clearly entrapped into buying drugs, those drugs are still going to be admissible at trial. You will simply argue that you were entrapped and therefore, as a matter of public policy, you cannot be found guilty of the crime.

[ViRaL1]

What if the plate number was

STEALME

???

:P

[ZAPPER]

Adam
I wish that I had better typing skills, this would be a fun arguement.
I didn't know the exact legal definition of entrapment, but if this "when the accused has been induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit." is the definition, then it does not clearly say that an agent has to even be present let alone that the agent has to speak to induce the crime. And at what point is previous intent and how does it get proven? Did the individual only decide to commit after seeing the state provided car? "The inducement or pursuasion requires an affirmative action on the part of the government." The action by the government, is setting the trap. The "bait" is inducement. "There is literally nothing you can do to any object to make it, in and of itself, so enticing to steal that it can be said that the thief was pursuaded by the goverment to steal it." The object was artificially introduced into the enviroment, without the government putting it there, one could not be pursuaded to steal that object and that object could not be inticing.

Intent: Did the state want to induce someone into commiting a crime? YES

Action: Did the state knowingly and physically take action to provide an object to be the source of a crime? YES

The easy part of the law is being the lawyer. You can argue your side however you want for whatever motive you feel. You can site the letter of the law and what you think it means all you want, but keep in mind that what a lawyer says is not evidence. It is the decision of the jury that counts. Asking a person to be a juror is right up ther with asking them to be a soldier. Even the judge does not feel the weight of the decision that is made by the jury.

Why is entrapment illegal? Mainly because the general morality of our society thinks that it is not good to lead others to do wrong and that our government should not either. Another reason? How about it would help to keep cases like this from clogging our courts.

Did the morons that took the cars commit a crime?: YES
Would the morons have taken any other car?: You can't say for sure but probably
Did the state set up a condition that was intended to lead others into commiting a crime?: YES
Was it entrapment?: Maybe not by the letter of the law(which I don't know) but in spirit and in the eyes of any moral jury :YES

Congradulations, you just wasted the time of the jury, and caused them anguish, cost them money and time away from their familys and jobs and let them see the stupid side of humanity. And all because of trying to create a crime instead of trying to deter a crime.

[adam]

I just gave the general definition and sort of explained the rest in my own words. There is plenty of caselaw out of the Supreme Court on this matter, and based on it this cannot be entrapment as a matter of law.

It is not accurate to suggest that anything can happen with any defense because you never know what juries will do. A jury charge (where you instruct them as to the relevant law and ask them questions which, if answered one way will lead to guilty finding, and if answered another way will lead to not guilty) can only contain defenses which, as a matter of LAW, are supported by the evidence. Whether there is evidence of entrapment or not is something which must first be determined by the judge, and what I am saying is that under these facts, as a matter of LAW there is no evidence to support the defense of entrapment. Under current caselaw the defense of entrapment would never reach the jury in any case under these facts. It is inapplicable as a matter of law.

It is well settled that decoys may be used to entrap criminals, and to present opportunity to one intending or willing to commit crime. Officers or employees of the government may afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense, or employ artifice and stratagem to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises. It is only when the criminal design is conceived in the mind of the officer and does not originate with the accused, and a decoy is used to ensnare the innocent and law-abiding by persuasion or inducement into the commission of the crime, that there is entrapment. 287 U.S. 435.

merely affording opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense is not entrapment. Id.

Inducement consists of opportunity plus something more, like excessive pressure or manipulation of a non-criminal motive. While suggestion of criminal activity and initiation of contact by a government agent are required, it is not sufficient to show inducement absent an element of persuasion or mild coercion. Id.

No matter how enticing you make a vehicle look this will never be anything more then providing opportunity to commit the crime, which is wholly permissible. There is nothing you can do to a vehicle to make it, in and of itself, cause a law abiding citizen to steal it, and that is the standard by which entrapment is established. Entrapment requires that the officer conceive of the crime and then implant it in the mind of a law abiding citizen. The bare minimum requirement is some form of actual and affirmative contact between the parties. If you do nothing more then park a car on the street then it cannot be said the intent to steal it was implanted in the perpetrator.

You are right that the officers are creating an artificial situation (although not that artificial, its just an ordinary car on the outside) with the intent of inducing a crime. However, as a matter of law, if there is no initiation of contact made by the goverment officer then the criminal intent to steal was formed in the mind of the perpetrator and thus it is not entrapment. It is not entrapment to induce criminals to commit crimes. Again, this is a question of law not fact so it is entirely objective and should be decided the same in all courts.

[ZAPPER]

Adam
This is all for the sake of arguement, and it is nice that we have the luxury to have this arguement. I could argue pro or con on this one. I do understand that there are provisions in the laws that allow certian acts or events to take place and that they are often of great value to the cops. And I really don't have a problem with the bait cars being used and in reality I doubt that any innocent people went to jail on this. And I hope that the people that got caught this time, get their just reward. The areas that I know somewhat of that tend to allow entrapment type actions seem to be the so called victomless crime areas like drugs and prostitution and racketeering. The thing that needs to be watched is how far we as the people let the laws go past what we would consider morally accecptable. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. And with that, case law will continue to gain more pressidents(?) and we will loose rights. Rights that most people would never have to use, but rights none the less. Another thing that concerns me, is the apparent ease of which the entrapment laws can be abused both pro and con. I worry more about the state abusing them than the criminal, again because I associate it with loosing rights.

I think that if the police put a tracking device on a car that was on a car lot that was having trouble or on a private car that was from an area that was having trouble that there would be less of an entrapment arguement.

You make a good argument. I hope that if you do trial work that you argue for the right cause. (but that can be another argument in and of itself)

I think with the right push and what the judge will or will not allow this could go either way. The trick is to get as much as you can to the jury and trust that they weren't napping

[zzyzzx]

The bait cars that I have seen o the TV news lock the person inside the car and cut the ignition after 1 minute. Sounds like these police need a better bait car.

[ViRaL1]

I think the general idea behind 'entrapment' is that law enforcement officials basically ASK you to commit said crime. If parking a car in public is ASKING for it to be stolen, there's something EXTREMELY f'd up with society.