Me and my co-workers are having a discussion on this: If a cop gives you a ticket for speeding and it's impossible for you to see him (he's behind a wall with his lights off, etc) then technically it's entrapment and if you take it to court you with a good lawyer you win. My view is that it's not entrapment because your breaking the law on your own, and entrapment is only when the cops do something to help you break the law. Theirs is that since you can't see the cops and aren't given the chance to correct yourself that it's entrapment. What do you think?
2006-11-29 05:59:45 · 22 answers · asked by Nick T 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You're correct; they're wrong. Entrapment would constitute the authorities causing you to do something you would not ordinarily do. If a person breaks the law, like the speeding person example, the issue is not where there police were or were not; the issue is the fact that the person driving broke the speed limit and THAT is against the law. Period. The police had nothing to do with causing the person to speed.
2006-11-29 06:04:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Entrapment is nothing but a big word that criminals use when they have nothing else in their defense. What other person to blame when you get caught red-handed than the one who caught you. The problem with entrapment is that you get in a situation where it's your word against the cop's. Good luck winning that one. In the specific situation that you mention, a cop can give you a speeding ticket, -which is but a charge and citation, not a plea- for being 100 miles over the limit without having to prove it to you on the spot (innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt). But you do have a good chance of having your case thrown if you decide to contest, since cops, believe it or not, have more things to do than testify against every single person they write a ticket to, so simply by being there and the officer not, you win the argument. Mayor cities prefer not to waste an officer's and court's time and resources arguing with Average Joe. Just remember that a speeding ticket is usually cheaper than an attorney's fee, unless you are really into "beating the system".
2006-11-29 06:13:56 · answer #2 · answered by guicho79 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is not entrapment if you are speeding you are doing just that and breaking the law. I believe the only place they can not park is in a private drive way, in that case he can not ticket you. Let me ask, If you rob a bank and the cop was not in the bank but he is the one that catches you, can he charge you for robbing the bank or is it entrapment because you did not see him at the bank. Breaking the law is breaking the law what ever the offense
2006-11-29 06:12:24 · answer #3 · answered by Nani 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are exactly correct. Entrapment would imply that the officer bribed or suggested to you to break the law. Look at the situation of police dressed as prostitutes arresting Johns. That is about as close to entrapment as you can get. As long as the officer does not offer out right before the John offers money it is not entrapment.
2006-11-29 06:06:35 · answer #4 · answered by cajohnson667 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that's not entrapment. Entrapment only applies when the police coerce you into illegal activity that you would not have otherwise engaged in. Similarly, undercover operations by police buying drugs, soliciting prostiutes, or internet child luring stings do not constitute entrapment where the perpetrator first engaged the undercover officer in the illegal activity. Also, contrary to the popular urban myth, it is not entrapment if you ask someone if they are a cop and they lie and tell you no and then you commit an illegal activity such as selling them drugs.
2006-11-29 08:08:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not entrapment. For entrapment to apply, the defendant has to prove that but for police intervention, defendant would not have committed the crime. In your situation, the speeding occurred regardless of whether the police were in plain view or hidden under a bush with a radar gun. Imagine if you could defend tickets by saying you didn't see the cop there.
2006-11-29 06:04:40 · answer #6 · answered by Tara P 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not entrapment. Entrapment would be like you sitting in room with a female cop possing as a hooker. You have asked her for nothing she pulls off her top and just then the cops bust in and say you were caught with a hooker in a hotel room. That is where your actions had nothing to do with what happened. But speeding you are still just speeding.
2006-11-29 06:03:50 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. It's not entrapment because you were speeding on your own. Just because you slow down when you see a cop does not justify the fact that you were speeding prior to meeting him. That would mean unmarked patrol cars were entrapment as well, since you don't know they are there until you speed up and pass them, and those are perfectly legal.
2006-11-29 06:05:42 · answer #8 · answered by CarolinaGirl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not entrapment unless the cop asked you to drive over the speed limit before hand.
2006-11-29 06:03:01 · answer #9 · answered by ♥ Cassie ♥ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting logic there! Would it then follow that if a cop was hiding behind a wall, while observing you, for example, killing someone or robbing a bank, that you would be innocent because you couldn't see the cop?
Mmmm! That means you are not breaking the law unless you can see a cop! I never knew that. Must tell the robbers to wear blindfolds!
2006-11-29 06:05:38 · answer #10 · answered by Arius 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋