Replies

For those of you who like to read long posts, the following are some excerpts from Florida v. Blanco

The issue is whether the police conduct in this case “falls below standards, to which common feelings respond, for the proper use of governmental power.” [...] We agree with the trial court and affirm its dismissal of the charges on the grounds of entrapment.
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Blanco testified to the following facts. He describes himself as a lonely homosexual man, who was drinking alone at a gay bar looking for someone to pay attention to him. An extremely friendly and attractive man sat down on the barstool next to him, said his name was Mike, and began paying attention to him. Mike had arrived with a couple of friends, but left his friends and gave Blanco his undivided attention. Mike was very attentive, and they had a couple of drinks together. When Mike told Blanco that he and his friends wanted to have a good time, Blanco told him that he had come to the right place.
According to Blanco, Mike asked him if he liked to “party” and Blanco thought “party” meant having a good time or being sexually involved. Blanco then asked what he meant by “party” and Mike responded that he liked to have a good time and asked Blanco about cocaine. Blanco refused to get Mike any cocaine, and they continued drinking and talking. Mike was extremely friendly, and then he asked Blanco for cocaine a second time. Again Blanco said no.
When Mike asked Blanco a third time for cocaine, Blanco became annoyed and started to leave. Blanco told him that if he was looking for drugs, he did not have any. Mike entreated Blanco to stay and said, “come on, can you get me some?” Blanco testified the he was still very interested in Mike because Mike was a very handsome guy. Blanco finally relented and told Mike he would go to the restroom and if he happened to see anybody he knew he would ask, but that was as far as he would go.
Blanco saw several friends in the restroom and determined that they had only crystal meth, called “Tina.” He returned to Mike and told him he could not get cocaine but asked if he was interested in Tina. Mike agreed and gave Blanco $60. Blanco left, returned with the drugs, and gave them to Mike. Mike got Blanco a beer and introduced him to his friends. They continued talking and then Mike said that he had to go to Miami. Mike and Blanco exchanged numbers.
Mike continued calling him during the following days. Blanco was arrested two weeks later.
Although Mike told Blanco he was on vacation and had a business in New York, he was actually an undercover detective assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Task Force. Working in this capacity for approximately nine months, Mike was assigned to the DEA, often with DEA agents and other Federal agencies.
Mike testified that he was aware that it was a gay night club and that he and another detective went there because they had received a tip that narcotic sales were occurring at the nightclub. Mike admitted that he had received no information about Blanco and did not know him when he sat down next to him at the bar. Blanco had never previously been arrested.

Some quotes from the trial court proceedings:

COURT: “I have to kind of disagree with you. . . . [T]his particular defendant was not a target of an investigation. He had not been previously noted as someone who dealt in drugs and that they were targeting him. This officer walks into knowingly — knowing it’s a gay bar — and, as he testified, he approached this man who was sitting alone. He was the one that began conversation. If it had been a woman sitting there I think she would have felt the same way. This was a man who was interested in her or him. The manner of procedure here and the talk that resulted would certainly seem to me objectionable, denied this man of his due process rights. And I am going to grant the motion to dismiss.” [e.s.]

More quotes from the trial court:

COURT: “The whole situation seemed very clear to me. I mean, the detective walked in dressed in a Tshirt and jeans, and for the record he was a very attractive man and —” [e.s.]
COUNSEL: I was going to ask you to make a finding.
COURT: I make that a finding. He’s a very attractive man.
At that point, defense counsel pointed out: “For the record, I would submit he was about 6' 2". He was in good shape, you know, a fit individual, young detective, looked to be maybe 30, something like that.”
The prosecutor expressed no disagreement with counsel’s statement.

Appellate court resumes opinion:

Based on the explicit and implicit findings by the trial court, the police conduct at issue can best be described as using the allure of the possibility of sex to induce one who is under no suspicion of criminal plans or activity to commit a non-sex related crime that has been instigated and suggested by police. The question is whether the police conduct in this case is acceptable under the Due Process Clause.
As Justice Frankfurter explained, objective entrapment:
“does not mean that the police may not act so as to detect those engaged in criminal conduct and ready and willing to commit further crimes should the occasion arise. . . . It does mean that in holding out inducements they should act in such a manner as is likely to induce to the commission of crime only these persons and not others who would normally avoid crime and through self-struggle resist ordinary temptations. This test shifts attention . . . to the conduct of the police and the likelihood, objectively considered, that it would entrap only those ready and willing to commit crime. . . . The power of government is abused and directed to an end for which it was not constituted when employed to promote rather than detect crime and to bring about the downfall of those who, left to themselves, might well have obeyed the law. Human nature is weak enough and sufficiently beset by temptations without government adding to them and generating crime.” [e.s.]
(“It is beneath the dignity of the State of Florida to allow [sexually enticing] agents to appear to be of questionable virtue in order to lure [subjects] into committing the crime of [transacting in illegal drugs].”).
There is no suggestion by anyone that the defendant was interested in committing any crime — and certainly not any drug crime — until the State instigated and promoted such a violation. The defendant rejected the State’s entreaties three separate times and even attempted to leave the bar before the undercover detective persuaded him to remain and ultimately commit the offense. To expand on Justice Frankfurter’s intuition, the human psyche is especially vulnerable to certain charms and, thus weakened, is ever subject to siege by an array of lures and temptations without the State routinely resorting to the oldest and perhaps most effective seduction of them all to create crimes unrelated to the inducement.