Death Car On the Freeway

Reader Brinck Slattery notes some proactive policing from our neighbors to the north: Bait Car. The premise is simple: Cops leave a vulnerable-looking car out in the wild, wait for somebody to steal it, then bust him, with full video and audio of the bait car's interior. These programs are also widespread in the USA, but the cops of British Columbia have put together a wonderful Bait Car site, which shows the videos without narration but with written introductions that read like a slightly more sedate, Canadianized version of Sheriff John Bunnell. ("The driver in this video is grooving to tunes before he notices police following him." "This is the most chilling bait car video that seasoned auto theft investigators from around the world have ever seen." "Instead, all three are arrested despite the high hopes of the female passenger who states, 'I hope this isn't another f**k'in bait car man!")

Some questions: Why do the cops seem to let these perps enjoy the bait car for so long? The whole point would seem to be that they can get to the bait car almost immediately, and follow it anywhere the thief drives, and they also apparently have the ability to disable the engine remotely. So why does the "ONCOMING! ONCOMING!" guy (video highly recommended) get a full 32 minutes behind the wheel of the bait car, during which he stops and breaks into three different cars, crashes into three others, and finally leaves the bait car behind as he steals yet another car?

Depending on how broadly you define entrapment, you may have some problems with the whole concept, but I have to admit I don't think enough bad things can happen to thieves. So as Sheriff John Bunnell would say: Whether you're a joyriding juvenile or a hardened hotwirer, if you take the Bait you'll be rooked, hooked, and booked!

Comments

[DaveInBigD]

Entrapment is asking somebody to break a law. Assuming that we're not going to go with the "She was just askin' for it wearing clothes like that" defense work for rapists, then leaving a car out isn't asking anyone to break in.

Now if an undercover cop had gone up to a suspected car theif and told him to steal it, that would be entrapment.

Anywho, car thieves are dumb, but if they're getting away after they've stolen a bait car, then I can't go nominating the cops involved for a Nobel either.

[Kevin]

Some questions: Why do the cops seem to let these perps enjoy the bait car for so long?

Beacause Bait Car is apparently nothing more than entertainment for bored cops.

[agentalbert]

The only good reason I can think of for letting the thief drive the car for an extended period of time is to maybe follow them to a chop-shop.

[ChicagoTom]

My guess would be that they let them go that long because they assume they will commit more crimes and then be able to get them on more than just the charges of stealing.

When I was a youth a number of my friends enjoyed stealing cars, joy riding in them and then abandoning them on the side of the road. None ever got caught, but I imagine that there would be a potential for leniency from a judge if you are a teen and plead the "Im a stupid teen and I was just joy-riding" defense.

But if they let you go for a while and follow you and watch to see if you commit more crimes (like buying drugs or something) I would assume a judge would be less likely to be lenient when presented with a whole host of charges. Then you become a menace.

Thats my theory anyway

[E. Steven]

Wasn't Bait Car a band in the 70's?

[ChicagoTom]

Along this same line --

Years ago, my sister was pulled over for a traffic violation. The officer told her he followed her for 4 miles and she illegally changed lanes 17 times while also speeding. He then proceeded to tell her that she was dangerous and whatnot to which she replied "If I was so dangerous for so long why did you wait and follow me for so long instead of just pulling me over right away??"

He didn't appreciate that very much.

[DaveInBigD]

He didn't appreciate that very much.

Cops rarely get the 'good sport' awards either.

[starboard]

It may not be entrapment, but it doesn't sit well with me either. Rather than creating possibilities for new crimes, shouldn't law enforcement be out trying to solve other crimes or preventing the ones that will happen without the police setting them up? I could see if this was taking place in an area where car theft is rampant and the police are, as one poster mentioned, using them to find chop shops, is that what is happening though? (I didn't read the article(s))
Anyway, with regards to entrapment, did anyone see the episode of Law and ORder SVU where a child molestor got out of prison (played by T-1000 Robert Patrick) and Meloni went undercover and kind of prodded him into committing another crime?

[Trevor]

Early on in the program the cops wouldn't remotely shutdown cars that were going to fast because they were afraid of some sort of Dukes of Hazard style accident. The "oncoming" guy made big headlines throughout the province and prompted a rule change.

Apparently the range on the remote shutdown sucks as well and originally they needed to get centralized permission before shutting them down. By the time that happened some of the thieves had driven out of range.

According to the papers that policy has changed as well.

[Jeff P.]

Why is it popular?

It makes great TV, and is cheap to produce.

Next question.

[Andy_D]

The linked article does a good job of explaining why they didn't shut down "Oncoming"'s engine. Don't yall read before making snarky comments?

[Jeff P.]

Also, as a broadcaster, I've had the pleasure of airing the cinematic masterpiece Death Car on the Freeway many times. Hats off to Tim for bringing back such fond memories.

[coarsetad]

I rather cops sit around in their partol cars, munching doughnuts, waiting for a rigged car to be robbed; than them sitting on the side of the road waiting to catch me going 71 in a 65.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

The linked article does a good job of explaining why they didn't shut down "Oncoming"'s engine. Don't yall read before making snarky comments?

I read it. Oncoming had to stop on three different occasions to rob other cars. If, as the page claims, they couldn't shut him down because of poor cellular communications (an excuse I take with a grain of salt), that still doesn't explain how he got "lost" for a long period of time. They have a guy who stole a rigged car that they're just using as bait, and he still has enough time to make three stops before they can find him? When Dudley Do-Right was running the show up north, no crook could have gotten a break like that.

[D.A. Ridgely]

When I was a youth a number of my friends enjoyed stealing cars, joy riding in them and then abandoning them on the side of the road. None ever got caught, but I imagine that there would be a potential for leniency from a judge if you are a teen and plead the "Im a stupid teen and I was just joy-riding" defense.

If I remember correctly, one of the elements of larceny at common law was intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the property, thus joyriding and abandoning the car later didn't necessarily equal theft. Of course, state statutes now define larceny, juvenile crime is more serious than in my day and, besides, we have the Old West legacy of hanging horse thieves influencing our, or at least Mr. Cavanaugh's, attitudes. Personally, I'd exclude such penalties as cutting off a thief's hand from the list of "enough bad things," but that's probably just my soft-on-crime sentiments getting the better of me.

[Again]

"Rather than creating possibilities for new crimes, shouldn't law enforcement be out trying to solve other crimes or preventing the ones that will happen without the police setting them up?"

I think the latter is the whole point of the "Bait Car" program:

a) arrest and incarcerate car thieves, thereby getting them oof the street.
b) Deter potential car thieves by introducing the possibility that they're being set up by a "bait car."

Both could at least theoretically lead to a decrease in auto thefts.

Where the program might have problems is in potential lawsuits by innocent bystanders whose persons or vehicles were damaged by a bait car the police could have disabled at any time.

Otherwise I think it's a fine idea. It's nothing at all like entrapment like the prostitution stings are, and it's for something that actually should be a crime too.

[Paul]

This theft rate combined with a methamphetamine addiciton, his being armed with a handgun,

This video is fake... there are no criminals with handguns in Canada.

[Bonar Law]

This is cool! I love the crooks' cute Canadian accents.

[Dogzilla]

This is why I hate the police. Instead of solving real crimes, which is difficult, they CREATE crime and make easy arrests with fun video footage. People are stupid and exceedingly velnerable to temptation--STOP ENCOURAGING THEM! OK, 73% of the 14-year-old girls on the Internet are really FBI agents, great.

[crimethink]

Well, the ONCOMING! guy actually sounded (and drove) a lot like me when I'm playing Burnout... if he'd stolen a PSP instead of a GameBoy it'd be pretty obvious where the inspiration came from.

[mac]

I got no problem with that. Entrapment requires active participation. leaving a car parked as bait is passive. It's pretty clear that the thief would be stealing some car, if not that car.

Stealing a car in teh Lojack era seems sort of a "plea for help" kind of crime. You *must* want to get caught 🙂

[Randolph Carter]

it's only a matter of time before the "bait car" is witness to some hot nookie and fulfulls its destiny as a porn site.

[Dave W.]

CrimeThoughts:
here is the news in my corner of Canada:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/01/27/1413888-sun.html

[MAS]

Of couse, none of this would have ever occurred were it not for the dangerous, highly addictive crystal meth. Never.

[rdkraus]

Dogzilla

Don't get your point. If these people were not stealing the bait car, they'd be stealing your car or mine. Honest people don't steal bait cars. Seems like a good way to catch car thieves to me. I'm not big on active entrapment, but that's not what this is. It's just a car sitting there. No honest person is "induced" by the police to steal it.

[thoreau]

I don't have any problem with arresting somebody who steals a bait car. The only way I might see it as entrapment is if they put up a big sign saying "This car is unlocked and unattended!" and left a copy of "Hotwiring for dummies" on the front seat. But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that no such thing is happening.

It does seem a little screwy to follow the car forever rather than stopping him after a couple minutes.

[Tired Saw]

First they came for the car thieves, but I didn't care because I didn't steal cars....

[Pro Libertate]

As a victim of car theft, I'm perfectly fine with the cops using bait cars. After all, the criminals involved are actually doing something we can all agree is bad (something like this to stop minor traffic violators would offend me more, because that's done solely to get money, not to protect people or property).

However, this raises an interesting possibility. How about a citizen group "entraping" police? That is, set up a situation where the cops might abuse their authority, tape it, then make it public? Freedom in action 🙂 If successful, then do it with politicians.

[quasibill]

I have no sympathy for the thieves, and this is not entrapment to me, and I have a larger definition of entrapment than current law (I would say that if the police do anything that the law says is illegal for a citizen to do, any crime that results is the result of entrapment. Ergo, planned buy drug busts and the Fairfax Va gambling investigation are entrapment).

That said, I'm not sure that this is an efficient use of police resources. How much money does this cost? How many cops do they have committed to this project, instead of working on violent crime?

I don't know, but it sure seems to me that the best way to deal with purely property crime is what it was when the country was founded - generally the responsibility of the victim to prosecute, except in exceptional cases where the attorney general could step in (only at the victim's request, however). Otherwise, the lure of racking up easy conviction #s proves too much and detracts the police away from what is IMHO, the more important stuff, namely, solving and prosecuting violent crime.

[Bonar Law]

From the story linked by Dave W:

"Det. Paul Lobsinger says it's sadly ironic the events of the video game ["Need for Speed"] seem to have spilled over into real life [in an accident allegedly caused by teens who played the game]. . . .

"Need for Speed allows players to select high-end cars and race them through crowded urban areas."

There's nothing "ironic" about kids playing a game about reckless driving and then driving recklessly. It would be "ironic" if, shortly before the accident, the kids had received a Traffic Safety Award.

It's sadly ironic that the word "irony" is misused so much today. No, actually, it's not ironic, just unfortunate.

[wsdave]

quasibill,
"the best way to deal with purely property crime is what it was when the country was founded - generally the responsibility of the victim to prosecute,"

I agree, so long as I have the right to booby-trap my property to keep it safe.

[Larry N. Martin]

Your tax dollars at work: providing quality entertainment...

[quasibill]

"I agree, so long as I have the right to booby-trap my property to keep it safe"

Absolutely. But you are also responsible if your booby trap injures an innocent person.

The two go together - liberty and responsibility. Too many people want the liberty without the responsibility - that's the biggest problem.

[Morat20]

One other possibility -- if you want to keep leaving the car in the same area, it'd be wise to let the thieves clear that area BEFORE you arrest them.

Even the stupidest criminals are going to figure out -- sooner or later -- that the car is bait, but if you do the busts a few miles down the road, you get more mileage out of it.

[happyjuggler0]

I like the idea of the bait car. First, it locks up car thieves, and since most crimes are by repeat offenders it takes away many more future crimes than just the one offense.

Second, once word gets out that the cops use bait cars, this should reduce car theft even if they quietly stopped using bait cars. Of course, the truly professional car thieves, instead of dumb teenagers out for a joy ride, will go to another city to "work" and steal their cars instead.

As far as the entrpament angle, I agree it is not entrapment. And if the locals know such cars exist, it might keep some kids who are wavering on whether or not to joy ride in some stolen car, to not commit crimes. So far from enticing honest people to commit crimes, it may entice almost honest people to not commit crimes.

Of course, the kids might just run around spraying graffiti on houses or something instead....

[confused left-winger]

"It is not uncommon for our investigators to arrest car thieves who are armed with loaded handguns and wearing bullet proof vests because they are on their way to commit a home invasion, grow rip or armed robbery."

Don't these thieves know that guns are *illegal* in Canada?

[wsdave]

quasi,

"But you are also responsible if your booby trap injures an innocent person.

The two go together - liberty and responsibility. Too many people want the liberty without the responsibility - that's the biggest problem."

Actually, the biggest problem is that the gov is so afraid that I won't take responibilty for my actions that they won't let me take action.

In other words, society is so afraid that we'll do the wrong thing that they won't let us do anything at all.

[independent worm]

"I agree, so long as I have the right to booby-trap my property to keep it safe" Absolutely. But you are also responsible if your booby trap injures an innocent person. The two go together - liberty and responsibility. Too many people want the liberty without the responsibility - that's the biggest problem.

Just to bring this full circle, what happens when people don't have the resources to fulfill that responsibility? If somebody sets a booby trap that cripples somebody for life, but they only have $200 in the bank, then what?

Hence, the introduction of making these things illegal -- to address the many situations where we are free to cause far more harm than we have the ability to compensate.

[SPD]

If somebody sets a booby trap that cripples somebody for life, but they only have $200 in the bank, then what?

Then I think the judge should decree that the defendant becomes the victim's nurse for life. Or their butler, like in that failed Seinfeld pilot.

[Mo]

iw,
Just make it mandatory to have your booby traps insured. Cars can cause more harm than the person driving them can cover, so just cover booby traps the same way.

Of course, then your insurance agent would know all your booby traps and their placement, so you would need secondary booby traps covered by another company. 🙂

[WSDave]

Mo,
"Of course, then your insurance agent would know all your booby traps and their placement, so you would need secondary booby traps covered by another company."

Not really. Just cause you know my computer is password protected doesn't mean you can defeat it. Of course with biometrics, you could just cut off my finger...

[Anonymous]

...the cops of British Colombia...

I know they're supposed to have great drugs there, but as far as I know they still spell it British Col-U-mbia

[Ruthless]

DaveInBigD says, "Entrapment is asking somebody to break a law."

So is the War on Drugs entrapment?
Because the War on Drugs raises the profit margin for street-corner peddlers, isn't that the same as asking young, inner-city males to break a law?

[Robert]

Taking an item which was put out to be "stolen" is the most extreme example I can imagine of a "crime without a victim". The goddamn car is intended by the very workings of the law to be "stolen"! (You can't even say that about other prohibited acts typically said to be victimless crimes.) I would say that car is a gift, and rightfully belongs to whoever takes it.

If this is the way gov't intends to decrease the amount of car theft, it would seem to be even simpler to skip the follow-up. Somebody wants a car, you give hir a car, problem solved! One less person who desires a car. That is, unless they think most car thieves steal cars out of malice, not because they want a car, but because they want to deprive someone else of one, especially without notice!

[Bonar Law]

"I would say that car is a gift, and rightfully belongs to whoever takes it."

As I understand it, the cars belong to the government, which leaves the cars in a parking lot or roadside someplace, with no indication of it being a "gift" to the first person who takes it. Someone who takes the car in that circumstance is knowingly taking something which isn't his. Therefore a crime. No entrapment, unless the very presence of a car is so enticing that car thieves are entrapped into stealing it.

[whit]

I doubt there is a legal issue more misunderstood by laymen than entrapment. It is NOT entrapment to let the thieves go on committing more crimes.

Entrapment is NOT "asking somebody to break the law". Get real

Entrapment is creating a situation that would cause a person NOT disposed to break the law to break it. It is creating (either through duress or other extreme measures) a situation like that.

I speak with a lot of experience on this, and I have testified in court as an expert witness on this matter.

It is NOT creating the opportunity for crime, it is not allowing crimes to continue before the suspect is busted, it is not asking somebody to commit a crime.

Is it entrapment for an undercover cop to ask a person "hey, you got any blow for sale?".

No. If you were not a drug dealer, would some person asking you "got any coke for sale" entice you to start selling coke? c'mon. get real.

Is it entrapment for an undercover cop to pose as a very sick heroin addict in severe withdrawal and ask somebody to get them a fix or they are going to die? Yes.

See the difference?

It is not entrapment to leave a bait car (and.or let the thieves go on committing crimes in the bait car) in view of suspects. Would a "law abiding person" steal a car merely because a nice cherry unlocked lexus was left parked on their street? Of course not.

DO the cops have a duty to immediately arrest an auto thief, or can they let the thief dig himself a bigger hole by continuing a crime spree? the answer is that they can (and do) let the crime spree go on, in certain circumstances. That is good police work. Is it fair? of course it is fair. The cops aren't making the guy break the law. He is CHOOSING to do so. He makes his free choices, and the cops can stand by and document 10 crimes in a row. As long as no member of the public is in danger by the offense, why not generate a stronger case. It is possible, although exceptionally unlikely , that the auto thief in the bait car just did his first auto theft. On the other hand, it is even better evidence if the guy then goes on to steal another car, etc.

This view that cops can't ask people to commit crimes or it is entrapment is tantamount to the "soft bigotry" claim that it aint rape if an attractive woman walks down the street in a revealing outfit and gets raped, or a well dressed man walks through a poor neighborhood wearing an expensive rolex. That's "entrapment?" Merely creating the opportunity for the criminal to exercise his criminality is GOOD law enforcement.

Another urban myth is the idea that many people (mostly college students it seems) think that if an undercover cop is asked "are you a cop?" and the cop says no, that any drug deal is then "entrapment".

No member of the law abiding public is harmed in any way by these sorts of operations. This is great police work because it gives the bad guy the opportunity to commit a crime (and get caught doing it), and makes a strong case vs. the he-said she-said rubbish inherent in most criminal prosecution.

[Ruthless]

"Merely creating the opportunity for the criminal to exercise his criminality is GOOD law enforcement."

whit,
Thanks for an excellent post.
Trouble is, I dare say, H&R posters are not seeking GOOD law enforcement.
I know I'm not.
Cops have transmogrified from our servants into our masters.
Clocks did the same thing back in the fourteenth century.
(Public school teachers have done the same.)
(Blue Berries, or is it Black Berries? or Palm Pilots, have done the same.)

Just give me a wild-eyed, blood-in-the-eye vigilante, thank you:
Instant "justice," and we move on to more important stuff.

[Bonar Law]

"Is it entrapment for an undercover cop to ask a person 'hey, you got any blow for sale?'.

"No. If you were not a drug dealer, would some person asking you "got any coke for sale" entice you to start selling coke? c'mon. get real. . . .

"No member of the law abiding public is harmed in any way by these sorts of operations."

If some scruffy character accosted me on the street and asked me to sell him drugs, my inclination would be to kick the guy in the balls. Do I *look* like a damned drug-dealer?

I'm not a drug dealer. Why should I permit myself to be treated like one?

[Bonar Law]

In contrast, putting a car (other than an abandoned car) in a public place doesn't involve committing a crime. Parking a car and leaving it isn't a crime, and cops should have as much right as normal citizens to do so. If the car is rigged with internal surveillance gadgets, that the thief's problem.

[whit]

Hey Bonar,

We got this pesky little thing called the first amendment.

Asking somebody if they have coke for sale is not "accosting" them. How about this - tell them to sod off. And if they don't, THEN u can kick them in the nads 🙂

Free Speech - it's what's for dinner.

And it's kind of bigoted don't you think to say "do i look like a drug dealer?" Drug dealers can look a LOT of different ways. They can be well groomed and wear nice suits. They can have long hair, short hair, etc. They might be scruffy, they might have perfect hair (a la werewolves of london). I didn't realize that drug dealers were all scruffy. Was Pablo Escobar scruffy?

Now meth users on the other hand, tend to start looking like Keith Richards after about 1 year of using. This is especially disturbing in the women 🙂

[whit]

Hey Bonar,

We got this pesky little thing called the first amendment.

Asking somebody if they have coke for sale is not "accosting" them. How about this - tell them to sod off. And if they don't, THEN u can kick them in the nads 🙂

Free Speech - it's what's for dinner.

And it's kind of bigoted don't you think to say "do i look like a drug dealer?" Drug dealers can look a LOT of different ways. They can be well groomed and wear nice suits. They can have long hair, short hair, etc. They might be scruffy, they might have perfect hair (a la werewolves of london). I didn't realize that drug dealers were all scruffy. Was Pablo Escobar scruffy?

Now meth users on the other hand, tend to start looking like Keith Richards after about 1 year of using. This is especially disturbing in the women 🙂

[Bonar Law]

whit,

So if some panhandler accosts people in public asking for spare change, or food, the cops can arrest him, but the cops themselves can accost people in public and ask for drugs? Sounds fair enough to me, all right.

[Bonar Law]

"Drug dealers can look a LOT of different ways. They can be well groomed and wear nice suits. They can have long hair, short hair, etc. They might be scruffy, they might have perfect hair"

. . . and there are mommy drug dealers and daddy drug dealers and little baby drug dealers. Thanks, Mr. Rogers!

[whit]

Asking somebody if they have coke is not "accosting them".

Panhandling in and of itself is not illegal. so called "aggressive panhandling" is e.g. blocking ingress/egress, etc.

Asking for money is not illegal. Just ask your friendly member of congress.

And for what it's worth, I have known drug dealers who look like Mr. Rogers - sweater and all.

The smart drug dealer is not going to try to look the part. Duh

[Bonar Law]

whit,

Thank you for your exposition on how asking a total stranger for cocaine isn't accosting. You should have been on Bill Clinton's defense team.

[whit]

Apparently we have become the society that rushes to be offended. Talk about a nanny state in waiting (if it's already not here). Asking somebody for cocaine is "accosting". Complimenting a woman (or a man) on their appearance, or having a Seagals poster in your cubicle is "sexual harassment", etc.

The 4th amendment basically boils down to the fact that we have the right to be "left alone" absent due cause/process from govt. agents. The first basically boils down to we have the right to be annoying in our speech and behavior, especially in blogs. We are the only industrialized nation that does not criminalize "hate speech" (the only one I am aware) of, and I would rather be accosted by annoying speech a thousand times over, then live in a society that criminalizes it.

if you feel "accosted" if some dude asks you for cocaine, then maybe you better stay at home in the safe confines of your house, lest somebody say something offends you, and leaves you "accosted"

[Bonar Law]

whit,

A cop has the same "free speech" right to ask for cocaine that Andres Serrano has to put a crucifix in urine. Serrano can do whatever he wants on his own time and on his own dime, and so can a cop, for all I care. On someone else's dime . . . that's another question.

[whit]

When a cop asks for cocaine he is doing it on OUR dime because that is his job - catching law violators.

you may not agree with the war on drugs (i don't in general), but it is the law of the land. that aint the cops fault.

thus, he is properly tasked with trying to catch coke dealers and asking people for cocaine is a great way to do so. and if some non coke dealers feel accosted because somebody asked them for some cocaine, i'm crying them a river

[Bonar Law]

whit,

Is there any limit to the circumstances under which a cop can ask for cocaine?

[Bonar Law]

Also, in your experience, do police Internal Affairs departments share you definition of the First Amendment -- that is, if a cop (not as part of a sting, but from genuine personal taste) goes around asking for cocaine, would this be recognized by Internal Affairs as protected First Amendment activity?

[Domini Blogimi]

I am sorry for this. But I have a "stickman" to vomit:

Sheriff John Bunnell is a facist!

Thank You.

[whit]

Are there any limits?

Yes, for example - entrapment results in a "loser case".

but in general, cops who are tasked to work in undercover assignments are supposed to ask people to sell them drugs. that is how the drug trade works. all the better if the drug dealer solicits them first. but hardly necessary.

the first amendment issue is primarily sarcasm. TECHNICALLY speaking if a person was actually TRYING to illegally solicit cocaine, then asking you to sell him some (note: I said illegally solicit ie not part of undercover ops) he could be charged in some states with a crime, although realistically speaking that is an extremely weak charge.

the point is that if you think somebody asking one for cocaine is "accosting" then that shows a thin skin. and silliness.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

I said illegally solicit ie not part of undercover ops

IOW, cops are free to break the law, and can buy (and sell) drugs as long as their stated purpose is to harm other people, rather than having some fun. Check.

Napolitano's "Constitutional Chaos" should disabuse anyone of the idea that this sort of crap is actually legal. It's not.

[jp]

It's noon on Sunday, and "Death Car" is still the latest post. Is the Reason crew on an out-of-town retreat this weekend or what? I want my free infotainment!

[coarsetad]

These entrapment issues, remind of a sting operation that a local police department took to arrest guys that were using a nearby park to cruise for sex. Alledgedly, the undercover cops would act as sexual aggressors. Luring men into bathrooms stalls or into the woods. If the "criminal" played hard to get, the officer would expose himself first, or even touch the "sexual offender" before making an arrest. I would say all of this defiently under the catagory of active entrapment. I guess the bait car equalate would be leaving some porn on the ground and waiting for a perve to look at, and then "relieve" himself right there.

[whit]

First of all, the last analogy was just silly. leaving a bait car is not entrapment as i explained earlier. would a bait car entice a person who was not already disposed to steal cars, to steal THAT car? of course not. it's no more entrapment than some guy who gets his car stolen by leaving it warming up in his driveway with the keys in it (which is oh so common in my area).

"IOW, cops are free to break the law, and can buy (and sell) drugs as long as their stated purpose is to harm other people, rather than having some fun. Check."

absurd again. first of all, in many jurisdictions cops are not breaking the law when attempting to purchase drugs in ops because those circumstances do not equate to ILLEGALLY acquiring controlled substances under the relevant statutes. in other jurisdictions, it is similar to the laws surrounding repo men (the life of a repo man is always intense) who essentially are committing a "lawful theft" (as oxymoronic as that sounds) when they repo a car.

laws vary by jurisdiction of course, so i am speaking generally.

you can say this falls under the definition of "active entrapment" but then you are simply redefining words to fit your political agenda.

it aint entrapment. would a law abiding citizen (one who doesn't sell drugs) start selling drugs because an undercover cop (or any random citizen) said "hey, know where i can get some coke". of course not. that's the issue.

[mediageek]

"it's only a matter of time before the "bait car" is witness to some hot nookie and fulfulls its destiny as a porn site."

And if any of the participants are underage, then it would be the Jail Bait Car.

ugh.

I'm.
So.
Sorry.

[Bonar Law]

whit,

"Are there any limits?

"Yes, for example - entrapment results in a 'loser case'.

"but in general, cops who are tasked to work in undercover assignments are supposed to ask people to sell them drugs. that is how the drug trade works. all the better if the drug dealer solicits them first. but hardly necessary."

"if you feel 'accosted' if some dude asks you for cocaine, then maybe you better stay at home in the safe confines of your house, lest somebody say something offends you, and leaves you 'accosted'"

"TECHNICALLY speaking if a person was actually TRYING to illegally solicit cocaine, then asking you to sell him some (note: I said illegally solicit ie not part of undercover ops) he could be charged in some states with a crime, although realistically speaking that is an extremely weak charge.

"the point is that if you think somebody asking one for cocaine is 'accosting' then that shows a thin skin. and silliness."

To sum up:

(a) Asking a total stranger to sell him cocaine isn't accosting.

(b) If I complain, I'm being silly and thin-skinned.

(c) However, this allegedly trivial behavior could "TECHNICALLY" be a crime. At least if the perpetrator isn't a cop.

(b) To avoid being exposed to this behavior which could "TECHNICALLY" be a crime, I should stay home.

What if a cop arrests someone who commits this "TECHNICAL" crime? Isn't that cop being a bit thin-skinned, too?

[Bonar Law]

"Are there any limits?

"Yes, for example - entrapment results in a 'loser case'.

"but in general, cops who are tasked to work in undercover assignments are supposed to ask people to sell them drugs. that is how the drug trade works. all the better if the drug dealer solicits them first. but hardly necessary."

From your comments, I gather that it's *not* a "loser case" if the guy says "fuck off, I'm not selling you drugs." That's just a case of a citizen passing the test of law-abidingness. It's only a "loser case" if the cop's request for drugs is so manipulative as to constitute entrapment (eg, "My grandmother is a cancer patient and she needs some dope to ease her pain, won't you help my poor dying grandmother please please please?").

There are no limits (none that you've mentioned) as to who can be approached, and when.

For example (to take an example Judge Napolitano mentions in his book), it's OK to propose a drug transaction to a man who has just gotten out of church on Sunday morning.

Similarly, it's fine to propose a drug transaction to a couple who are out for a stoll in the park with their children.

Or to crash a dinner party at the White House and ask the President if he has any left-over cocaine from his young and wild days that he can sell.

[Bonar Law]

As to whether a regular citizen (as opposed to a policeman doing a sting) can legally ask someone to sell him drugs, I looked up one state (Florida's) laws. Selling cocaine is, of course,a crime, so I didn't provide a separate citation for that.

"777.04 Attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy.--
"(1) A person who attempts to commit an offense prohibited by law and in such attempt does any act toward the commission of such offense, but fails in the perpetration or is intercepted or prevented in the execution thereof, commits the offense of criminal attempt . . .

"(2) A person who solicits another to commit an offense prohibited by law and in the course of such solicitation commands, *encourages,* hires, or *requests* another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense commits the offense of criminal solicitation . . . .

"(5) It is a defense to a charge of criminal attempt, criminal solicitation, or criminal conspiracy that, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his or her criminal purpose, the defendant:

"(a) Abandoned his or her attempt to commit the offense or otherwise prevented its commission;

"(b) After soliciting another person to commit an offense, persuaded such other person not to do so or otherwise prevented commission of the offense; . . ."

[Bonar Law]

I think I once swore off multiple comments. Yet I keep coming back for one more hit.

This time, I mean it: No more multiple comments (without someone else's comment in between).

[kwais]

I agree, so long as I have the right to booby-trap my property to keep it safe.

Dude you have my permission.

I watched that video, and after all that crap damage and robbery that the guy did all he gets is 4 years. Thats Bullshit!

I reserve the right to shoot anyone who steals my car. I can't pay my car off or save to buy a car in 4 years. That guy got 4 years for all the damage he did, and for all the citizens who's property he fucked with. That isn't right.

If the Canadians want to stop that kind of behavior bait cars is one idea, (and no it aint entrapment). Harsher sentences make the pain for stealing cars a little more severe.

[kwais]

BTW, I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I think the drug warrior stuff is entrapment. Asking somebody to break the law is in my mind entrapment. Watching somebody break the law that you know is going to break the law is not. Not even if you right the stuff you figure he will steal.

Also, that thing that cops do on the east coast where they have an undercover cop haul ass on the freeway to get other cars to go fast behind him and get pulled over by marked cars IS entrapment.

[zirakzigil]

It looks like everyone is ignoring the five-ton elephant in the living room here. The deterrent effect of punishment only works on those who are sober, not those who are high on meth. Thus, we must punish not only the crimes committed while high, but primarily that committed while sober, i.e. taking the meth in the first place.

What's that you say? His taking meth didn't hurt anyone? Yeah, and me closing my eyes and waving around a loaded gun with my finger on the trigger doesn't hurt anyone either.

[whit]

#1 it is not entrapment.

get over it. entrapment is a legal definition

you can't change legal definitions to fit your ideology. it don't work that way. you can say it's WRONG for cops to ask people for drugs, but is not entrapment.

#2 criminal solicitation is a crime that requires an underlying offense to be solicited

as i said, law varies by jurisdiction, but in many, a cop purchasing drugs is not a CRIME, so soliciting somebody (a cop) is not criminal solicitation.

the laws vary.

basically what this comes down to, imo, is that people who are against the drug war (i am in general) naturally want to handcuff (so to speak) those that are tasked with investigating offenses

that is silly. go against the lAWS (and the legislatures). cops should be able to solicit people to sell them drugs. that's how the game is played. no law abiding person would agree to sell drugs merely because they were asked if they have any for sale.

thus, it is not, and never has been , entrapment

[Bonar Law]

whit,

You seem to acknowledge that it may "technically" be a crime for a non-cop (or a cop not on a sting) to ask someone to sell drugs. That contradicts your assertion that it's not a big deal to be asked to sell drugs (by someone who at least doesn't *look* like a cop).

[paul]

It's sadly ironic that the word "irony" is misused so much today. No, actually, it's not ironic, just unfortunate.

It's cause of that damned Canadian pop-star, Alanis Morisette. If it weren't for her and her damned misuse of the word throughout the entire freaking song, our heads would be screwed on straight regarding the proper use of 'ironic'.

Isn't it Ironical?

[whit]

Bonar,
It depends on the jurisdiction. But yes, technically speaking if one has the intent to illegally acquire a controlled substance and one solicits the sale of same, that would be a crime.

But it is not a big deal to be asked for drugs. That's life in the big city. It is not being accosted. If you want to run to the police and make a criminal complaint because some junkie asked you for drugs, knock yourself out. It is not being "accosted" and it doesn't justify a kick in the nads.

[Phil]

Also, that thing that cops do on the east coast where they have an undercover cop haul ass on the freeway to get other cars to go fast behind him and get pulled over by marked cars IS entrapment.

Yes, as decided in the landmark case US v. If Johnny Jumped Off A Bridge, Would You Jump Too?

What's that you say? His taking meth didn't hurt anyone? Yeah, and me closing my eyes and waving around a loaded gun with my finger on the trigger doesn't hurt anyone either.

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

[Bonar Law]

"it doesn't justify a kick in the nads."

What I said was that "my inclination would be to kick the guy in the balls." I never claimed that my nad-kicking instinct would be justified.

"But it is not a big deal to be asked for drugs. That's life in the big city. It is not being accosted."

Since your key argument is that laws are laws and the cops have to enforce all of them, it isn't open to you to claim that certain laws are too trivial for cops to enforce.

[Dave W.]

It's sadly ironic that the word "irony" is misused so much today. No, actually, it's not ironic, just unfortunate.

It's cause of that damned Canadian pop-star, Alanis Morisette. If it weren't for her and her damned misuse of the word throughout the entire freaking song, our heads would be screwed on straight regarding the proper use of 'ironic'.

Irony has many definitios, and I think some do properly apply in the Alanis song. For instance, in one of the vignettes, Mr. Play-It-Safe is afraid to fly and then his plane crashes. This defies some people's expectations. It doesn't defy the author's or our expectations, but classic dramatic irony never does. It doesn't defy Play-It-Safe's expectations, because he has a phobia. However, everybody else who expected Play-It-Safe to get on that plane: probably his boss, certainly his family do *not* expect the plane to crash. What happens to the plane is the opposite of their expectations is that it is a form of irony. The deeper irony is that Play-It-Safe's expectations are met because he is expecting something that others would see as paranoid and irrational. The common way of expressing what Morrissette is getting at here is to say: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.

As far as the car crash with the videogame on the front seat story, maybe nobody's expectations were defied there. Or maybe they were. I guess it depends on whether you think that racing games are positively correlated with reckless driving. If you think there is a correlation, then this story would track your expectations and be non-ironic. On the other hand, if you think that videogames do *not* have much effect on reckless conduct, then the car crash story could logically be seen as defying your expectations -- which would make it ironic.

I find it ironic that people who use the word "irony" in an unthinking way often use it in an acceptable sense, notwithstanding the apparent lexicographic superiority of their thoughtful critics.

[Timothy]

I don't think assaulting people asking you for money or drugs should be a crime. It'd teach them to shut the fuck up and get jobs.

[downstater]

we have a similar practice to the canadian bait car here in the states (at least in this region) where an animatronic deer is placed on the roadside to entice hunters to shoot at it from their cars.

hidden cameras and cops included.

i believe the same entrapment debate ensues.

[crimethink]

downstater,

What would be really cool is if the deer would attack the cars of those who shot at them. Especially if they had, like, lasers coming out of their eyes and stuff.

[whit]

the sophistry is amazing. i never said soliciting drugs wasn't illegal. so is (in most jurisdictions) drinking in public, public drunkenness, spitting on the sidewalk, etc.

but they are not a big deal. understand the distinction. i have never heard of anybody being charged with solicitation for asking some random guy in the street "got some blow".

grow a thicker skin

i'm all for self defense. kicking a guy because he asks you for drugs is not self defense. it's assault. it's a violent crime. it is much more serious than asking a guy for some coke, and it is certainly not justified.

[Bonar Law]

"kicking a guy because he asks you for drugs is not self defense. . . . it is certainly not justified."

Then it's a good thing that I never said it was (see above). I might *want* to, but I think I could restrain myself. Your friends' balls are quite safe from me.

If assaulting someone for offering to buy drugs isn't justified, what about seizing him and putting him in prison? Wouldn't that be a bit of an over-reaction, too? Yet you acknowledge that this is what the law provides, and you have said that the cops have to enforce *all* the laws, no matter how silly and oppressive they may be.

As you so eloquently put it:

"you may not agree with the war on drugs (i don't in general), but it is the law of the land. that aint the cops fault."

to rephrase that just a little:

you may not agree with the laws against criminal solicitation (i have some problems with the application of that law sometimes), but it is the law of the land. that aint the cops fault.

Given that the cops (as you say) *must* enforce all laws, , the question is, should citizens help the cops enforce the criminal solicitation laws? If it's silly and thin-skinned to take notice of the crime of criminal solicitation, as you say, then the consequence is that the cops have to enforce this law, but citizens should be discouraged from helping the cops do so.

It would be highly unfair to to compare your position to something the sophists would come up with. It would be unfair to the sophists.

Have a nice day.

[Dan T.]

Forget about whether or not something is entrapment, it just seems like a dumb idea to create a situation where a crime is likely to occur simply for the opportunity to arrest somebody.

People will say that it gets a car thief ?off the streets? but does it really? How much time does a car thief actually serve in prison? Also, is it really logical to assume that because somebody steals a ?bait car? that has been put in a situation that makes it attractive as possible to steal that they would have stolen some other car anyway?

Also, why do we need a car for this? Couldn?t the cops just put a pile of money out on the street and arrest whoever takes some or all of it? Or would that catch too many ?honest citizens??

[Bonar Law]

"Also, is it really logical to assume that because somebody steals a 'bait car' that has been put in a situation that makes it attractive as possible to steal that they would have stolen some other car anyway?"

The thieves think it *is* some other car.

[whit]

spare me the strawmen. i never said cops have to enforce all laws. if they did, they could never drive more than 10 ft in their cruiser without having to stop and deal with some pettiness. cmon.

i said it is not the cops fault that they are tasked with enforcing drug laws. heck, i know a lot of cops that don't think MJ should be illegal. it does not therefore follow that if they come upon a 1000 plant marijuana grow that they can ignore it. cops DO have discretion with more minor crimes (mostly misdemeanors)

so spare me the strawmen. cops do (and should) have "officer discretion". this applies mostly to misdemeanors btw. but when a cop is tasked (ie part of a drug unit) with enforcing drug laws, they do so.

most drug unit cops concentrate primarily on sales and manufacturing, but do some "buy/busts" to catch purchasers as well

[whit]

"Forget about whether or not something is entrapment, it just seems like a dumb idea to create a situation where a crime is likely to occur simply for the opportunity to arrest somebody"

false

you are ignoring numerous realities. first of all car thieves are (generally) repeat criminals. they victimize DOZENS of people. and they are (generally) hard to catch. furthermore, with the ACLU whinging about pursuits (especially for nonviolent crimes such as auto theft) even if an auto thief is seen committing the crime, a pursuit is often not justified (iow, the agency is too afraid of civil liability to actually chase the guy).

this is PROACTIVE police work. instead of officers being merely report takers (armed secretaries) taking auto theft reports, this is a way of proactively CATCHING the auto thieves

it's a good thing.

being a libertarian doesn't mean police should be reactive report takers. it means believing that police shouldn't unduly interfere with citizens actions. in the case of somebody stealing a car, that is not the type of action that we want police to ignore. it aint free speech, it aint gun rights, etc. it is a lawless act, and proactive means to apprehend thieves is smart, proactive, and an efficient way to catch thieves.

[R C Dean]

So here we have a bitter argument about whether the cops should be arresting someone who stole a car, just because it was a car the cops left in a parking lot rather than some civlian.

And people wonder why libertarians are so politically marginal.

[Bonar Law]

"so spare me the strawmen. cops do (and should) have 'officer discretion'. this applies mostly to misdemeanors btw. but when a cop is tasked (ie part of a drug unit) with enforcing drug laws, they do so."

Why would discretion end with the individual cop? Isn't the setting up of a "drug unit" an act of discretion? Why can't the police official, mayor, etc. use discretion to *not* set up a drug unit, or to limit that unit to stings authorized by a warrant based on probable cause (eg, probable cause to believe Mr. Escobar to be a drug dealer, so get a warrant to try a drug buy from him)?

If the discretionary power of the police is as great as you say, why don't they exercise that discretion so as to put reasonable limits on their sting operations (like not soliciting drugs from strangers they have no cause to suspect)?

If the cops have discretion not to enforce the criminal solicitation laws, they also have the discretion not to *pretend to break* them.

If these stings -- especially the non-accosting of law-abiding citizens -- are discretionary, and the cops do them anyway, then your point about dont-blame-the-piano-player-her's-only-doing-his-job falls a little flat.

[whit]

"Why would discretion end with the individual cop? "

it doesn't

"Isn't the setting up of a "drug unit" an act of discretion?"

yes

" Why can't the police official, mayor, etc. use discretion to *not* set up a drug unit, or to limit that unit to stings authorized by a warrant based on probable cause (eg, probable cause to believe Mr. Escobar to be a drug dealer, so get a warrant to try a drug buy from him)?"

because that's absurd. stings aren't done BECAUSE there is probable cause. stings are used to DEVELOP PROBABLE cause.

buy/busts, bait cars, etc. are used (generally) to develop probable cause

and that's a good thing

my point doesn't fall flat. it is the police chief (and in cities where the chief is appointed - the politicians) who set up drug units, not the COPS IN THE DRUG UNITS

if you don't want cops arresting people for drugs, get new legislators. don't blame the cops

[Bonar Law]

"because that's absurd. stings aren't done BECAUSE there is probable cause. stings are used to DEVELOP PROBABLE cause."

I appreciate the candid admission.

Are there limitations on *which* random, non-suspected people you can approach? I've already listed people emerging from church, married couples strolling in the park with their kids, and President Bush, but you haven't reacted to these examples. Are they exempt from these instances of don't-call-it-accosting, and if they're exempt, why?

"if you don't want cops arresting people for drugs,"

Speaking of straw men. I was speaking of what you now admit to be the discretionary act of pretending to commit criminal solicitation -- which you reluctantly admitted to be a crime -- on random citizens.

"get new legislators. don't blame the cops"

Isn't the police chief a cop?

How about getting a new police chief?

[Isaac Bartram]

if you don't want cops arresting people for drugs, get new legislators. don't blame the cops

I wouldn't blame the cops if they weren't the most active lobbyists for the WoD in the first place.

[whit]

utter rubbish.

i hope you aren't confusing police chiefs (who are politicians) with street cops.

i know a lot of street cops. at least 50% think marijuana laws are retarded.

that's a higher %age than would vote for legalization nationwide.

cops don't make law. politicians do. and we vote for them.

also, the last initiative i am aware of to decrim it was in vegas. it failed the popular vote.

how is this cop's fault?

[whit]

to clarify, you are probably referring to IACP positions. IACP is not cops, it is politicians (international association of chiefs of police)

their views are often quite divergent from actual cops. notably on gun control (IACP for it, most cops against it)

thats because they are politicians, not cops

[Bonar Law]

OK, I don't blame the piano-player, I blame the madame.

[Isaac Bartram]

i know a lot of street cops. at least 50% think marijuana laws are retarded.

Since we're just grabbing numbers here, I have ask, "Then why are so many street cops so enthuiastic about drug enforcement?" My observation is that it seems that an awful lot buy the hype. On the other hand it's also a good way to earn lots of overtime. Drug squads get lots of extra duty.

to clarify, you are probably referring to IACP positions. IACP is not cops, it is politicians (international association of chiefs of police)

Here you might be on a sounder footing.

also, the last initiative i am aware of to decrim it was in vegas. it failed the popular vote.

Actually in the informal poll taken by the MPP for that initiative showed a majority of NV police chiefs and sheriffs in favor. There was such an outcry from the political class (but like most outcries it was said to be from the public) that they took the poll public. When they had to go on the record they opposed it by a wide margin.

So perhaps the pressure for the WoD comes from elsewhere and cops (and their bosses) just go along to keep their jobs. Whatever the reason, it stinks.

[whit]

"because that's absurd. stings aren't done BECAUSE there is probable cause. stings are used to DEVELOP PROBABLE cause."

I appreciate the candid admission.

** that's criminal procedure 101. get real

"Are there limitations on *which* random, non-suspected people you can approach? I've already listed people emerging from church, married couples strolling in the park with their kids, and President Bush, but you haven't reacted to these examples. Are they exempt from these instances of don't-call-it-accosting, and if they're exempt, why?"

nobody is exempt. it's a free country.

"if you don't want cops arresting people for drugs,"

Speaking of straw men. I was speaking of what you now admit to be the discretionary act of pretending to commit criminal solicitation -- which you reluctantly admitted to be a crime -- on random citizens.

it is NOT a crime (in most jurisdictions) UNLESS there is criminal intent - mens rea to unlawfully acquire drugs.

since police stings are not (inmost jurisdictions) an example of this, it is not a crime

i said for a person who INTENDS to unlawfully acquire drug it is a crime.

it is no more a crime for a cop to do that, than for an undercover cop (as part of a sting) soliciting a hitman for a sting

it's called good police work

"get new legislators. don't blame the cops"

Isn't the police chief a cop?

How about getting a new police chief

** police chiefs are not cops in any meaningful sense.

they are politicians. they are appointed (in most jurisdictions) and are thus pawns for the mayors. occasionally, there are exceptions - daryl gates comes to mind.

[whit]

you are missing the point. a CITIZEN intitiative in NV to decrim mj failed.

so popular support aint that great even in greater sin city. i wish it passed . it didn't

police chiefs do not represent the views of street cops. but most people think IACP position represents 'cops position;

that is bogus. cops overwhelmingly do not support gun control. most police chiefs do. a very fair %age of cops think mj a minor nuisance at worse, and a reasonable %age are for outright decrim. this is very different than the IACP position

regardless, it is cimpletely acceptable for a cop to be pro-mj legalization, and still work a drug unit. it's called "rule of law".

no sentient law enforcement officer (or prosecutor) is gonna agree with every law they enforce.

and most don't

i[ve heard cops grumble about the VAWA, gun control, mj laws, etc. i spent a lot of time working in courts. i also know a fair percentage of DEA agents. most thought mj laws were dumb, fwiw. but they had to enforce them, although most concentrated on international cocaine trade

[Bonar Law]

"it is NOT a crime (in most jurisdictions) UNLESS there is criminal intent - mens rea to unlawfully acquire drugs.

"since police stings are not (inmost jurisdictions) an example of this, it is not a crime"

I didn't say it was. I said some cops are "pretending to commit criminal solicitation."

"'Are there limitations on *which* random, non-suspected people you can approach? I've already listed people emerging from church, married couples strolling in the park with their kids, and President Bush, but you haven't reacted to these examples. Are they exempt from these instances of don't-call-it-accosting, and if they're exempt, why?'

"nobody is exempt. it's a free country."

So when shall I tell the Secret Service you're coming to visit the President?

[whit]

the sophistry continues.

look, regardless of whether criminalization of drugs is a good idea and/or the drug war is stupid, cops should (and do) have the authority to use proactive means to catch criminals in the act and/or prevent crime - stings, buy/busts, undercover ops, bait cars, etc.

if you can show me how any civil right is violated by an undercover cop asking you "hey, got an blow for sale?" let me know, or why it is a bad thing to leave bait cars to catch auto thieves.

these are good things.

the secret service won't let you near the president for all sorts of reasons and all sorts of legal behavior, so the above is a dumb argument.

proactive police work is good. cops should not be reactive report takers. they have the same right as any citizen to go out in public, look around, ask questions, etc.

again, please tell me what civil right is being violated by leaving a bait car in public. or asking somebody for some blow.

i'll stand by.

the impression i get is since we don't like the drug war, we should criticize any efficient means of police work to further such. that's absurd.

as far as the bait cars, the opposition to that is beyond absurd.

[Bonar Law]

"the sophistry continues."

whit, your name is half-right.

I seem to agree with you on the bait cars. I wouldn't agree with you about cops going up to random strangers and asking them to steal cars, which is the best analogy to your drug stunts. I suppose the laws against car theft aren't as important as the laws against drugs.

You've been doing a very clever shell game -- first you say that cops have to come up to strangers and ask for drugs because that's what the legislature wanted. When that wouldn't fly, you moved the pea under another shell and said that it *wasn't* actually the legislature, it was those mean old police chiefs who were forcing cops to do it. Then you moved the pea again and said that it's a good idea to do it.

I literally can't argue with that sort of thing. The original sophists would be embarrassed by it.

[whit]

the strawmen continue... here we go

"first you say that cops have to come up to strangers and ask for drugs because that's what the legislature wanted"

of course they don't have to. i said it is a VALID PROACTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUE. cops do not have to do this. it's simply an effective strategy in finding some street level drug activity.

there are many other ways to do it as well, and i'm not aware of any drug unit that uses this as their sole strategy. it's just one arrow in the quiver.

if you can show me how it violates anybody's rights then go ahead. apparently, people don't like it because it's 'icky', but that's not an argument. it's just emotionalism

and i didn't say the legislature WANTED cops to do exactly that procedure. i said that the legislature wants drugs illegal and we elected those guys.

police chiefs, who are generally appointed animals and have VERY little in common with the average street cop are responsible for policies, to include the policies of the drug unit.

GIVEN that drugs are illegal (which i don't agree with at least for mj, and am generally of the idea that the drug war is illconceived), cops should use effective, constitutional proactive procedures to enforce those laws.

there is a street level drug trade. that is a given. the way that druggies buy drugs is (among other things), they walk up to people and ask them "you know somebody who can score me some coke?" (or at a rave "you know somebody who can score me some E?"). cops do the same thing in order to catch the dealers.

you keep making things up (like i said it was a necessary technique) becuse you find it 'icky'.

that is how the street drug trade works. auto thievery does not work that way. people don't walk up to people and ask them if they can get them a stolen car, etc. that is not how auto theft WORKS. it IS how drug trade works

they are two different animals, and thus cops use a somewhat different approach in investigating those crimes.

cops should, and do, more than just respond to citizen requests for assistance and investigate past acts. investigation of inchoate activity, sting operations, etc. are a good thing because they increase the apprehension rates of offenders while IN NO WAY infringing on the rights of citizens.

*if* you can show me how anybody's rights are violated by being asked "know where i can get some coke?" or by having to Lord forbid, walk by a bait car left on the street, let me know

[Bonar Law]

whit,

Most of what you said rehearses previously-discussed disagreements (except for the part about bait cars, of which I've made clear I'm a fan). Each of us knows how the other stands.

I acknowledge there's no law that says specifically that cops can't come up to families taking their children for walks in the park and, without any suspicion, ask for drugs. No law against it, and no law *requiring* it, either. It's what you might call a "quality of life" issue, not a libertarian issue per se.

Actually, I've been in the downtown of my city and on what passes for the commercial strip, and no-one's asked me for drugs. Money, yes. The closest to asking for drugs was a beggar at an intersection carrying a sign:

"WHY LIE?
BEER WEED"

Never saw that particular sign again. Maybe the cops weren't thrilled by this particular exercise of free speech.

But no-one has yet approached me personally and asked for drugs. So I've missed out on this supposedly common aspect of civic life. Neither crooks nor cops showed much interest in coming up to strangers and requesting drugs.

Perhaps my hometown cops just aren't serious about fighting drugs. Or maybe their stings are targeted toward other areas. Or maybe they're busy with killers, robbers, rapists and imilar conventional criminals.

[Bonar Law]

last line should read: ". . . similar conventional criminals."

[Robert]

"As I understand it, the cars belong to the government, which leaves the cars in a parking lot or roadside someplace, with no indication of it being a `gift' to the first person who takes it. Someone who takes the car in that circumstance is knowingly taking something which isn't his."

If you're going to take intentions into account here, then it has to work both ways. It's not just someone's intention to take a car, but in this case gov't's intention that that person indeed take it. The car was acquired by the police for the purpose of being "stolen"; it is public policy that someone come along and drive that car away. Therefore it is a gift. The "indication of it being a gift" is official policy! What does there have to be, some official notice served to prospective thieves that a car is waiting for them at a particular location? No, that car was abandoned the instant the policy decision was made to offer it by leaving it on the road in the hope of its being taken, every bit as much as garbage is abandoned by leaving it out in the can with the intention of its being taken away by others without remuneration.

Robert

[whit]

Robert, you gotta be kidding me.

Even William Kunstler wouldn't have tried that defense. It is worse than the Chewbacca Defense.

Bonar, contrary to popular belief, police don't walk up to every tom, dick and harry and ask for drugs. There are certain areas that are known to be drug areas. heck, there are certain neighborhoods where you can't drive more than 10 ft without finding some crack dealer on a corner

i like proactive law enforcement. i don't think cops should be report takers. they should INVESTIGATE.

there are people in many neighborhoods (even some upper class ones) who are practically BEGGING the police to be more proactive in seeking out the drug dealers, especially when their kids are being targeted. i've been to the community meetings. these are real crimes, and they are 'conventional crimes'.

i'm glad that cops run these sorts of stings, and if i am ever solicited for drugs (happened to me once in hawaii, actually - several times), i say no and move on. maybe the drug dealers were (omg) PROFILING me since i was a long haired surfer, therefore i obviously smoked marijuana (snicker). maybe i should have filed a complaint with the ACLU for "follicular profiling"

[Bonar Law]

whit,

"i don't think cops should be report takers. they should INVESTIGATE."

straw man duly acknowledged.

"Bonar, contrary to popular belief, police don't walk up to every tom, dick and harry and ask for drugs."

This is the very point I have been trying to clear up with you. I asked if it was OK for cops to go up to a family strolling in the park, without any reason to suspect them of anything, and ask them for drugs. I asked if it was OK for cops to go up to people coming out of church on Sunday (as Judge Napolitano reports) and ask them for drugs. I asked if it was OK for cops to ask President Bush for drugs.

Your response? Allow me to quote:

"nobody is exempt. it's a free country."

If there's a "popular belief" that police walk up to every Tom, Dick and Harry, that belief may have something to do with responses such as yours.

Now it seems that you are speaking of more narrowly-focused investigations, targeting areas of known drug activity and people with some suspected drug association.

This represents quite an evolution in your expressed views, and I am very grateful for it. Until now, you were, in fact, advocating for the right of the police to ask any tom dick and harry for drugs. You said that being solicited for drugs was a normal and unremarkable experience of urban living. You had to be dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging that criminal solicitation was a crime *for non-cops.* You expressly responded to my question about the limits of investigation by saying that no-one is exempt. You "sarcastically" invoked the concept of the First Amendment in favor of the right to ask anyone for drugs at any time.

Now that you have *finally* articulated a somewhat more moderate and defensible position, I proceed to Robert.

"that car was abandoned the instant the policy decision was made to offer it by leaving it on the road in the hope of its being taken, every bit as much as garbage is abandoned by leaving it out in the can with the intention of its being taken away by others without remuneration."

No, the car belongs to the public. It is held in trust for the public by the government, whose trusteeship obligations don't allow just giving up the public's property to scavengers and thieves. The government may take at least the same steps to protect the public's property that a private person can take to protect *his* property. Putting publicly-owned cars in streets and lots to which private owners have access isn't abandonment. Yes, the car is used as bait, but the bait is no more enticing than any private person's legitimately-parked car. Who is to say that the bait car can't have a subsequent career as, say a patrol car or in some other function useful to the public. The car's service in the fight against crime doesn't constitute abandonment at all.

[Bonar Law]

My dear whit, I realized how petulant, aggressive, and *rude* I've been in our little exchanges. I shall try and reform.

[whit]

Is it ok to walk up to the family having a picnic?

yes. it's not illegal. it's just silly.

monty python might be interested.

the issue is one of authority vs. common sensical use of police resources.

it would be silly, and would probably "out" a cop AS a cop if he was stupid enough to be asking EVERYBODY for drugs that he saw. people would go "boy, that guy is either really stupid, or a cop" (cue: mutually exclusive jokes here).

otoh, cops have to be careful of all this PC rubbish. for example, it is a fact that certain demographics tend to be more likely to be involved in the trade of certain drugs. gender aspects, age aspects, lord forbid racial and cultural aspects, etc. but if police target certain groups because of "how they look" they risk running afoul of the PC police themselves

so on the one hand, we say they shouldn't approach the soccor mom and her little cadre of chicklets at the park, but on the other hand we hesitate to deal with so called "profiling".

the original (and basic ) issue was - was it ok for cops to solicit drugs. the answer is unequivocally - YES. it is constitutional, it is effective, and it keeps drug dealers on their toes and makes them less likely to be as open about their behavior. all of these things are "good things".

[Robert Goodman]

"Robert, you gotta be kidding me.

"Even William Kunstler wouldn't have tried that defense. It is worse than the Chewbacca Defense."

So explain why, without appeal to authority. I don't want to know why the defense won't work, I want to know what's wrong with the reasoning that when somebody puts out a car for the very purpose of its being driven away by whoever wants to, that that doesn't make it a gift to such person. Or, if you say it's not really intended for that purpose, why the appearance of such action should not be treated as bad faith?

[whit]

it's not a gift.

it's a decoy

try webster's

the laws vary from state to state. my state does not even have an auto theft statute per se. it has a TMVWOP statute.

it never ceases to amaze me the way the internet can cause intelligent, if heated discussions to devolve into absurd word games by sophists who just can't let it go

it is not a gift.

i can (and do) respect somebody who thinks cops shouldn't do stings of this sort. i think they are 100% wrong, but it's a defensible position

yours is simply a laughable defense of the indefensible. i have heard some absurd theories from attorneys (that is their job after all - sometimes to defend the indefensible), but yours makes them seem sane.

i suggest a legal dictionary or a model penal code. look up the definition of Theft. look up Taking Motor Vehicle w/o Permission.

for it to be a gift, the cops would have to intend to GIVE the car to the (random) thief. that is not their intent. their intent is to create a ruse (ruses are a great form of police work) situation that allows the thieves to trap themselves. it is only a gift if the cops intend to transfer legal possession of the vehicle to the thiefs. that is not their intent, nor could any thief claim that at the time they took the vehicle, that they had a reasonable belief that the car was being transferred to their possession by the lawful owner (see: apparent authority. try the model penal code).

so, to put it briefly, even if the cops intended to transfer lawful ownership of the vehicle to the thief (which they don't), even in that case (which is not the case), the thief would have to have actual knowledge that this WAS the case before he stole it.

it's beyond absurd.