So my officers bought a 32" tv from Wal-Mart (so owned by the PD), and placed it in the back of a truck in the parking lot of Wal-Mart to set up a sting operation. No one took the bait. They moved the truck around, still no one took the bait. So they decided to put the TV (still in box) in a shopping cart and put the cart on the far end of the parking lot. I now have 5 defendants who tried to take the TV. Probable defenses will be abandonment or the element "without the owner's effective consent" because clearly the owner (the PD) placed the tv there to be taken....beyond that, I'm having a bit of a problem justifying prosecution. It just smells bad to me for some reason. Any opinions on this issue are welcome!"SA Prosecutor" responded "That's why you are going to offer probation!" But TDCAA's appellate counsel John Stride saw nothing wrong with the tactic. "I'm not smelling it at all," he declared:
Why does it matter where the officers put the TV on the premises? It was still in its original wrapping on the Wal-Mart parking lot. To any reasonable person it belonged to a purchaser--probably in the process of loading it--or even Wal-Mart. If it had been unwrapped, abandonment may be more likely. But, in any event, why wouldn't someone check with Wal-Mart employees first? Think of the bait bicycles used by some departments.TDCAA's lobbyist Shannon Edmonds at the end of the short string suggested, "Wouldn't it be nice if officers would check with the prosecutor BEFORE doing things like this?!?"
I'm not a lawyer and have no opinion on whether the facts of the situation fit the elements of any of the thousands of crimes on the books. But I'm certainly of the opinion that there ought to be enough crime out there to investigate that law enforcement doesn't need to manufacture it. And if there's so little crime that police have time to engage in this sort of activity, perhaps it's time for a force reduction. The officers at this unnamed agency clearly have too much time on their hands.
.jpg)
13 comments:
Amen to that! There are databases of missing children and wanted violent criminals that they could be chasing down but here they are fishing for petty mistaken opportunistic thieves out of sheer boredom. Police stings are disgusting manupilation and enticement of criminal activity. If the police would not go an dangle bait out in front of random people, there would be far few cases for the prosecutors in court.
The only way to keep prosecutors from pursuing these nonsense cases is to reduce their power, or reduce their number. Prosecutors with real cases to work are too busy to waste time on make believe crime and BS cases. This is a sign that we have overfunded the conviction industry, diminishing returns kicked in a long time ago.
@7:44
Maybe I'm missing something here but wasn't gist of the thread identified by Grits to the effect that prosecutors were questioning the wisdom and legality of prosecuting such cases?
Seems to me that the conduct of the cops is what is really at issue here. Believe it or not, the police and DA's office are not always on in agreement or on the same page when it comes to law enforcement strategy and policy.
"prosecutors were questioning the wisdom and legality of prosecuting such cases"
True, but the DA association's appellate guy told them it was kosher.
@8:12....I think he said it was legal. Whether something is legal and whether something is a good idea are two entirely different matters. If you're painting all prosecutors here based upon one prosecutor's comment or opinion, you're painting with a very broad brush.
Go park your car in a Wal-Mart a few times and you'll see why.
8:12 here. Re: "If you're painting all prosecutors here based upon one prosecutor's comment or opinion, you're painting with a very broad brush."
Stride is the association's appeals consultant to local DAs, so is somewhat more official than just "one prosecutor's opinion." Bet he gives the same advice that there is nothing wrong "at all" with this kind of garbage police work in his trainings.
9:44, I park at Walmart all the time with no problem. What I don't do is abandon an expensive item in a shopping cart at the far end of the parking lot hoping someone will take it.
Grits, quit being a pussy and name the department that is doing this..
9:58, I can't tell which department or even what county it was from the string but I gave you the link to the source. If you can figure it out, let us know.
This is reminiscent of the New York Police "Operation Lucky Bag".
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bad-buzz-nypd-sting-operation-lucky-bag-pol-put-setup-article-1.144861
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3962387&page=1
This is like the Paul Rubens case from many years ago. It took 3 officers to watch dirty movies waiting for Pee Wee to pull out his privates and self pleasure himself. An old but classic waste of taxpayer funds.
Ham2mtr
That is a despicable attitude and most prosecutors would side with TDCAA and not the concerned prosecutor in the article. A lot of these folks aspire to become judges who are supposed to be neutral and impartial. How possible is that when you get your foundation in a practice that endorses these kinds of attitudes?
As a taxpayer, I resent the "heck" they don't have better things to do than "entrap" low hanging fruit. As to the potential of thefts from vehicles, no one took the box from the pickup. If they had a breakin problem at this location, well, I could go on and on... The real issue like Grits said is the response of the advising DA. Justifying entrapment gives all of them a "smell".
Post a Comment