Last week, Judge Bortner found Kevin Clark not guilty of possessing drugs with the intent to sell them, saying that he was entrapped by the police and a police informant. Defense attorney Fran Miller argued successfully that the informant enticed and encouraged Kevin Clark to commit an act that he otherwise would not have committed. Entrapment is a rare defense, one I've not seen used successfully in more than 10 years in Law Enforcement.
The Story is HERE at The DAILY LOCAL NEWS website. The "Entrapment"section of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code is reprinted below for reference
18 PA CS 313 - Entrapment - A public law enforcement official, or a person action in cooperation with such an official, perpetrates an entrapment if for the purposes of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, he induces or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either:
1) by making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited, or;
2) employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it.
One less drug dealer off the street, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm confused. It looks like entrapment did occur... but why does the DLN headline say "police entrapped suspect" when the entrapment doesn't seem to be the fault of the police, but the CI? I do love how the press seems to enjoy making cops look bad.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the cops got screwed by the CI. Bummer. Still, one less drug dealer off the streets, at least for a little while.
Good point Jon. To a degree, police are at the mercy of the informants they use. On the other hand, informants are a valuable tool when it comes to solving crimes. (not just drug crimes)
ReplyDeletethe entrapment doesn't seem to be the fault of the police
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of law, the CI is an instrument of law enforcement officers and operates under their direction and supervision. The DLN was only reporting what occurred in court; notice how the judge referred directly to the police in his comments which were quoted in the article. The press is not the villain here.
I'll give it to you Dave, that the press is not the villain, this time. I think the villain this time is the Judges ruling. While I disagree with it though, like Ms. Cardamone is quoted as saying, I RESPECT the judges ruling. I just don't like it, that's all.
ReplyDeleteI'm conflicted with this decision. We all know the target would have completed the transaction, but used a technicalitly to avoid prosecution. I'm glad the Judge gave a thoughtful and proper dismal of charges, but would have liked to know a suspected dealer off the streets. I guess the UCs will ensure the CIs complete the deal in the future.
ReplyDelete