Aren't undercover stings Entrapment?

Question

I'm a front-end manager at a grocery store and we have underage kids posed as regular customers come in all the time trying to buy tobacco. One of my cashier's sold cigarettes to one of them, than two police officers come in and wrote her a citation, and then I had too suspend her. Now I know that she should have asked the kid for ID. But isn't this considered entrapment, and if not, than should it be?

Or putting it another way. Shouldn't the underage kid be held liable for buying the cigarettes because he's underage? Or does working for law enforcement automatically opt you out?

Answer 1

It is entrapment if the court believes the police caused some one to do something they would not have done under ordinary circumstances. The police do many things that most respectable people would not approve of their doing if it were known.

Answer 2

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

SO IN THE CASE OF YOUR EMPLOYEE, THEY WILLING BROKE THE LAW. SO IT WAS NOT ENTRAPMENT.

Answer 3

Not entrapment and should not be. If you don't agree with the law then don't sell tobacco products. Entrapment suggests that someone is seduced into doing something they would not normally do by unethical means. The sting agent simply walked in and bought cigarettes. Don't blame it in the cashier, it's your fault because you did not impress it upon the cashier that it is vital to your business to obey the law. Also, and importantly, police in these situations don't have the resources to check all businesses they can only check on the few that they have been tipped off about. Possibly, she had done it before.

Answer 4

Direct quote from Wikipedia:
In jurisprudence, entrapment is a legal defense by which a defendant may argue that he or she should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because he/she was induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime.

In the case of a minor purchasing cigarettes, I don't think the clerk was coerced or "induced" into committing a crime. The clerk ignored a step in the process (ie- "May I see some ID?") and broke the law.

As harsh as it may sound, don't do the crime if you can't do the time, or, in this case, pay the fine...

Answer 5

No. Legally speaking, entrapment occurs whenever a police officer or other government agent deceives an innocent person into committing a crime he or she had no prior intention of committing.
Your employee erroneously forgot to ask for ID and willingly sold the cigarettes.

Answer 6

No...entrapment is defined as the police making you do something that you had no intention to do...to prove entrapment your cashier would have to show that the police officers made her sell the tobacco to the kid so they could cite her...here she openly sold the tobacco without knowledge of police involvement....Just like a drug sting...guys go to a drug spot to ge their fix...they can't claim entrapment just because cops happen to be there....any other night they would have bought the drugs anyway....they must show they had no intention to buy drugs and the cops made him do it...Just instruct your clerks to ID everyone period and avoid future fines.

Answer 7

I do not believe that there is any case law supporting the view that this is entrapment. It is a legal way to enforce the law. Train you clerks not to sell cigarettes to anyone, regardless of age, without an ID.

Answer 8

Nope, it isn't considered entrapment. It would be entrapment if it were not a CHILD trying to purchase the cigarettes/alcohol.

Answer 9

It certainly seems that way...but then again, maybe the rules are different when it comes to minors...and selling to minors carries hefty fines not to mention loss of your licence too.