{"id":97088,"date":"2024-12-18T04:20:33","date_gmt":"2024-12-18T12:20:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=97088"},"modified":"2026-09-22T07:44:05","modified_gmt":"2026-09-22T14:44:05","slug":"what-is-entrapment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=97088","title":{"rendered":"What is Entrapment?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This questions comes from an officer in Nebraska, and the topic is: What is entrapment?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s break it down. Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers engage in behavior so extreme and over-the-top that they essentially harass someone into committing a crime. However, simply giving someone an opportunity to commit a crime is not<\/strong> entrapment. Courts expect people to say “no” when asked to commit a crime.<\/p>\n

Example 1: Not Entrapment<\/h2>\n

Let me give you an example. Say an undercover officer attends a party and starts asking people, “Do you have any drugs? Do you have drugs? Do you have drugs?” Eventually, someone says, “Yeah, I\u2019ve got drugs.” The officer then explains, “I need them for my mom. She\u2019s in a lot of pain, and the doctor cut her off. I just need some opioids for her.” The dealer, feeling sympathetic, sells the drugs to the undercover officer.<\/p>\n

Is this entrapment? Absolutely not. The officer merely gave the dealer an opportunity to commit a crime. Sure, the officer lied<\/a> and tried to pull on the dealer\u2019s heartstrings, but that\u2019s not enough to qualify as entrapment. Courts expect people to say, “I feel bad for your mom, but I\u2019m not selling you drugs.” That\u2019s just how it works.<\/p>\n

Example 2: Likely Entrapment<\/h2>\n

Now, let\u2019s change the scenario. Suppose the undercover officer believes a specific person is a drug dealer. The officer approaches them and says, “Hey, my mom is really sick, and I heard you have some pain meds. Can I buy some from you?” The person responds, “No, I don\u2019t sell drugs.”<\/p>\n

But instead of stopping there, the officer returns to the person\u2019s apartment every day for two weeks, begging and pleading: “Please, my mom is in so much pain. I\u2019m desperate.” Finally, after two weeks of relentless harassment, the person gives in and sells the drugs just to get the officer to leave them alone.<\/p>\n

In this case, the officer\u2019s behavior would likely be considered entrapment<\/strong>, as they overcame the person\u2019s initial resistance through harassment.<\/p>\n

\n

Applying This to the Firearm Scenario<\/h2>\n

Now that we\u2019ve established the basics of entrapment, let\u2019s look at the fact pattern provided by the officer from Nebraska.<\/p>\n

A confidential informant (CI) contacts the police and claims they can set up an individual who is prohibited from possessing a firearm<\/a>. The CI tells the officers, “I know someone who has a gun, and I can help you catch them in the act.” The plan is for the CI to tell the target (the defendant) that she has a beef with her boss and needs the gun for protection, or possibly to use against the boss.<\/p>\n

The defendant, who is prohibited from possessing firearms due to a domestic violence conviction, agrees to bring the gun to the CI. The police, believing the defendant might have a firearm based on social media posts, work with the CI to set up a meeting point (e.g., a gas station). They wire up the CI, drive her to the location, and monitor the exchange. If the defendant brings the gun to the meeting and hands it over to the CI, the police move in and make the arrest.<\/p>\n

Is this entrapment?<\/strong> No, it\u2019s not. Courts expect people to have the ability to say “no” to committing crimes. In this case, the defendant made the decision to bring the gun, knowing full well it was illegal for him to possess it. The fact that the police gave the CI a ride to the meeting point or helped facilitate the operation doesn\u2019t amount to the kind of harassment or coercion required to prove entrapment.<\/p>\n

\n

A Potential Complication<\/h2>\n

That said, let\u2019s tweak the facts slightly. Suppose the CI pleads with the defendant, saying something like, “Please, my life is in danger. I could be killed if I don\u2019t have this gun.” If the defendant only agrees to bring the gun because he genuinely believes the CI\u2019s life is at risk, that could be problematic. This kind of emotional manipulation, fraud or deceit so overwhelming that even an innocent person might feel compelled to act, might rise to the level of entrapment.<\/p>\n

However, based on the facts provided, I don\u2019t see any indication that this is the case here. It seems like the operation is on solid legal ground.<\/p>\n

\n

In Summary<\/h2>\n

Entrapment requires extreme and repugnant behavior by law enforcement, and it\u2019s rare for courts to find that standard met. In the firearm scenario described, the defendant voluntarily chose to commit a crime, and there\u2019s no indication of harassment or coercion. Therefore, this does not qualify as entrapment.<\/p>\n

\n

As always, I\u2019ll see you next time. Stay safe!<\/p>\n

Related from Blue to Gold<\/h2>\n