Dear Headmaster,

God bless you for the beautiful radio I won at your recent senior citizen’s luncheon. I am 84 years old and live at the Sandyford Assisted Home for the Aged. All of my family has passed away and I am all alone. I want to thank you for your kindness to an old forgotten lady.

My roommate is 95 and has always had her own radio. Before I received one, she would never let me listen to hers; even when she was napping.

The other day her radio fell off her bedside table and broke into a lot of pieces. It was awful and she was in tears. She asked if she could listen to mine and I told her to fuck off.

Thanks for that opportunity.

Hmm, remind you of anybody?

The third installment of this series deals with one of the most often misinterpreted forms of deception used.   Take a look at the comments from the original post.  It was both  mentioned and eluded to there.

Entrapment is not so much what one does, but how it is done. For example, if an investigator goes out, sets up a drug house and deals drugs out of it, it would not be considered entrapment to arrest anyone who comes to the house and buys the drugs. However, if the officer takes the drugs out of the house, singles people out, and harasses them until they buy the drugs, then it becomes entrapment. In a paper entitled  “Police Deception”, J.D. Odenberger, a Chicago based defense attorney, writes that Federal Drug Agents, working undercover, approached a chemist and asked him to cook up some illegal drugs. When the chemist told the agents that he did not have a lab or chemicals, the agents went out and purchased the equipment and chemicals. The chemist agreed to start cooking. When he did, he was arrested, indicted and convicted. The chemist appealed the conviction on the basis of entrapment but his appeal was not successful. The appellate court held that it is not entrapment for the police to provide someone with an opportunity for a crime. Entrapment can only exist as a defense when it is proven that the government created the crime.

In Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an undercover police officer posing as a fellow inmate need not give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response. “Where the suspect does not know that he is speaking to a governmental agent, there is no reason to assume the possibility of coercion.” The court held that there is no coercive atmosphere existing when an incarcerated person speaks freely to someone that they think is another inmate.  However, in Kuhlman v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986), it was determined that the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their jailhouse police informant took some action beyond merely listening. Perkins used a tactic that was used in a more famous case. In Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966), the court held that placing an undercover agent near a suspect in order to gather incriminating information was not in violation of his 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections.

The positive aspects of using what can be construed as entrapment are that valuable information can be gained by using imaginative methods. Female officers can dress up like prostitutes, walk the streets, beckon cars and attempt to make deals. Undercover officers can go to known locations where drugs are produced and sold and make buys.   These same officers can carry drugs on their person in order to induce a feeling of trust with the very people they mean to prosecute. The police don’t have to tell you that they are police and don’t think for a second that they won’t take off their clothes if they are investigating prostitution in a “massage parlor.”  It’s not illegal for an investigator to provide an opportunity for a suspect to commit a crime. If the suspect takes the bait, it is thought that they were predisposed to commit the crime anyway and therefore can be convicted and sentenced. This type of tactic was used locally to uncover the culprits in a string of bicycle thefts. A $1,500.00 mountain bike was left in the open and unlocked in the area of a prior thefts. It didn’t take long for the thiefs to find and steal the bike. Since it was being monitored by the police, the suspects were caught, arrested and subsequently admitted to the rest of the bicycle thefts.

Entrapment is a very “iffy” defense because the courts have taken judicial notice that deception is commonly used by investigators.  Only in cases of extreme police conduct, is entrapment actually defensible. In one such case, State v. Cayward, 552 S.E.2d 971 (Fla. App. 2d Dist., 1989) (the actual decision was not located), investigators fabricated official looking documents indicating that the suspects semen was found on the victim’s clothing and in doing so, gained a confession.  The Florida Supreme Court ruled that while the deception itself did not make the confession involuntary, the fabrication of evidence did and a murder conviction was overturned.   I wonder how the victim’s family felt about that?

Investigators need to be careful to not get greedy and cross the line into illegal acts of entrapment. The whole of law enforcement vicariously takes a hard hit anytime one person gets stupid and crosses the line.

A MUST SEE EVENT!!

HT:  Kay

I was listening to a CD tonight and as I heard this one particular song, I was reminded of how much of a man-made separation there is within the body of Christ.  It also reminded me of this post and where I think that we as followers of Christ should be heading and also where we need to be in our thinking.   I just thought that I would like to share that song with you.

Music is “We Will Stand” by Avalon from their 2006 CD “Stand“

In the second part of this series, I want to discuss further the use of seduction by law enforcement officers in the investigation of criminal offenses. There is a very fine line that separates legal and illegal forms of seduction and often, it is difficult to distinguish between them.

The very first time I heard that seduction was used as a tool for investigation, I was somewhat bewildered. My thoughts were, “Who the hell is trading sex for information or confessions?” Seduction is not normally that blatant though. It is simply a matter of making something “more attractive”. For instance, when the person interviewed thinks that they have something to gain by giving the interviewer what they want, this can be considered seduction. One must be careful in using this tool. In Commonwealth v. Hunt, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 841 (1981), police questioned a man and his wife about a shooting. The pair told police that they were at the location but did not know anything about the shooting. Both were arrested and taken to the police department where they were held and questioned separately. Hunt was advised of his Miranda Rights and he waived them. Police told him if he confessed to the shooting and said that his wife didn’t have anything to do with it, she would be released; otherwise, she would be sent to jail. Hunt confessed to the shooting and led investigators to the gun. The appellate court ruled that the police didn’t have any evidence that “even approached” probable cause to arrest and hold Mrs. Hunt. The court also found that because of the psychological pressure brought to bear on the defendant, his confession could not be considered free and voluntary because there was an implicit threat or promise which resulted in the confession. Hunt was equally concerned for his wife as much as for himself.

Another example of this type of interview is telling the interviewee, “I will talk with the prosecutor and convince him to (fill in the blank)” No officer during the course of an investigation should make any promises to a suspect or anyone else for that matter. In an example such as this, unless the officer has already conferred with the prosecuting attorney, he or she is in no position to guarantee their actions.

A third example was the original definition that I thought of. Without going into any discussion whatsoever, I believe that we can all reasonably agree that the use of sexual favors in order to obtain information or confessions is highly ignorant.

Again, there is a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable use of seduction. Likewise, there are positive and negative results of using this methodology. On one hand, information and confessions can be weeded out of suspects who would, under normal circumstances, not tell you anything. The down side to the use of this method is that the investigator always runs the risk that any information or confessions that are obtained could possibly be suppressed by the defense and thus not admissible in a trial. Not only does this do irreversable damage to the credibility of the investigator, it is also an utter disservice to the public that the they represent.

Seduction is a tool that I personally do not and will not use.

Deception ~ 1. practice of misleading somebody: the practice of deliberately making somebody believe things that are not true  2. something intended to mislead somebody: an act, trick, or device intended to deceive or mislead somebody

Seduction ~ 1. luring of somebody into sex: the act of persuading somebody to have sex, especially by using a romantic or deceptive approach  2. leading astray of somebody: the act of persuading somebody to do something wrong their easy seduction into a life of crime  3. tempting thing: something that tempts, persuades, or attracts

Entrap ~ entrapment (noun) ~ 1. oppress somebody: to be restrained or restricted by circumstances; entrapped by poverty 2. trick into doing something bad: to deceive somebody, especially to trick somebody into committing or admitting to a crime

The common denominator in the definitions above is the use of some type of trickery.

As new police officers, we have many reasons for wanting to enter the field of Law Enforcement.  Some hope for the opportunity to make a difference while the biggest goal of some others is to help people.   We enter the career with high ideals coupled with lofty goals and dreams of a secure future, one that we help construct.  We spend countless hours in various aspects of training and we are taught that one of the most important aspects of our job is to be honest.  Yet, when we get out into the real world, we find that line to be just a little cloudy.

The following is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This begs the question.  If ethics and honesty were applied to the 14th Amendment, doesn’t it make sense that honesty and ethical conduct should be extended to that part of society that we wish to prosecute?  I am going to say right up front that I do use deception readily and often in the investigation of crime; especially when interviewing or interrogating a criminal suspect.

I want to know what you think of that!  What I ‘m looking for here is some input from you, my readers, on your beliefs, feelings, or experiences with this subject.  I, of course, have an answer to these questions which I will share with you later.

Does the end justify the means?
Is deception ethical conduct?
Is it legal?
Is it moral?

This demonstration is really great!  Enjoy

A man went to church one day and afterward he stopped to shake the preacher’s hand. He said “Preacher, I’ll tell you, that was a damned fine sermon. Damned good!”

The preacher said, “Thank you sir, but I’d rather you didn’t use profanity.”

The man said, “I was so damned impressed with that sermon I put five thousand dollars in the offering plate!”

The preacher said, “No shit?”

The word of the month for August 2008 is

Sarchasm

This month, I was not able to come up with a witty yarn to go with the definition of the word so I apologetically offer you just the definition.  Sarchasm is defined as the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn’t get it; you know, kind of like the barbs that get traded back and forth in the current presidential race. 

Hi all.   Although it may seem like it, I have not changed my primary focus on this blog.  I have decided to add some different things to my writing such as political rantings, some of my beliefs about ethics in law enforcement, my thoughts on my career as a police officer and probably some stories about funny situations that I have encountered.

Since I started blogging in January of 2007, the primary focus of my writings has been my studies of the Bible and how I felt that the scripture was speaking to me and being applicable in my life.   I am going to start focusing more on cultivating my relationship with God and I will be trying my best to share that journey with you.

So watch out.  You never know what you’re going to find here from one day to the next…and no, I’m not switching to a Macbook.