Lewis v. United States
Facts: An undercover officer in the department of narcotics called Lewis to find out whether he would sell him marijuana. The officer disguised his identity; he identified himself as Jimmy the Pollack. Lewis agreed to the officer’s request and directed him to his residence where the transaction would take place. The officer went to the petitioner’s abode and made his purchase; these transactions happened severally. Lewis was on one occasion arrested and charged with infringing federal drug laws. The District Court convicted Lewis following a denial to pre-trial motion seeking to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed this decision.
/>
Issues: Whether the narcotics officer violated the Fourth Amendment by misrepresenting his identity and showing a willingness to participate in a transaction that involved drugs. Did the introduction of narcotics at the petitioner’s trial over his objection defy the Fourth Amendment?
Decisions: Lewis argued that the official intrusion into the privacy of his residence in the absence of a police warrant constituted an infringement of the Fourth Amendment. He further added that the intrusion could not be exempted from violations because the intrusion was induced by deception. The court observed that Lewis’ principal concern was if the officer was a willing buyer who could agree to the stated price. The petitioner told the agent that if he became a frequent customer he would receive an extra bag of the narcotic at no additional costs; Lewis did this to convince the officer that his patronage was desired. The court further stated that holding the deceptions of an undercover agent as unconstitutional would hamper the Federal Government’s attempts to ferret organized criminal activities. The court, therefore, held that the agent did not violate the Fourth Amendment by misrepresenting his identity. His pretense resulted into no violation of privacy; it only encouraged the petitioner to say things that appealed to anyone interested in buying marijuana.
Reasoning: The fact that the petitioner used his home as a commercial center for conducting business did not hinder a government agent, from conducting a search for incriminating evidence. When an individual converts his residence as a commercial center, where people are invited to conduct unlawful business, the entity is treated the same way as a public store or institution. Lewis chose the location where the transaction would be conducted; therefore, the agent did not intervene his privacy.
Dissenting opinions: There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Sherman v. United States
Facts: Sherman and a government informant met at a drug rehabilitation center. Sherman, during this period, was struggling to recover from a narcotics addiction. The informant and Sherman ran into each other several times around time and became friendly. The informant, during one of their meetings, began asking the defendant if he knew any place to purchase drugs citing painful experiences in fighting addiction. Sherman at first declined to respond to his queries but later yielded. The defendant purchased drugs from his supplier and gave the government informant. This led to his arrest; the police officers searched his apartment but found no drugs.
Issue: Whether the conviction would be reserved on entrapment claims.
Decisions: The court observed that the government informant induced crime; he attempted to compel the defendant to commit the crime after several rejections. The court stated that although the function of law was the prevention of crime and trepidation of criminals, it did not include crime manufacture. The court, however, held that Sherman was not less guilty because he was coerced by law enforcement. This is because the elements of satisfy those in other entrapment cases. A decision was made in reference to Sorrells v. United States that entrapment was a defense mechanism that barred prosecution for crimes. The defendant was later convicted.
Reasoning: The defendant’s hesitancy to comply with the government’s informant previous inquiries did not suggest his reluctance to purchase drugs. It instead was a natural hesitancy associated with people dealing with the sale and purchase of drugs.
Dissenting opinions: There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
United States v. Russell
Facts: A federal agent working with the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Joe Shapiro was assigned to locate a laboratory suspected to manufacture illegal methamphetamine. His search led him to Richard Russell, Patrick Connolly, and John the laboratory’s proprietors. The agent disguised his identity and represented himself as a member of a group that had an interest to control the manufacture and distribution of the chemical in the region. Joe offered them a critical component that was required to produce methamphetamine. The agent made this offer on a condition that the defendant would show him a sample of the chemical and its location of production. When Joe returned later, he gave the defendant the promised component; the defendant also gave him a sample of the manufactured methamphetamine. The three proprietors were arrested and charged with five infringements of federal drug laws.
Issue: Did the police involvement to an extreme degree during the commission of a crime violate the due process rendering the crime as not prosecutable?
Decisions: The court held that the government did not contravene any law. It observed that the defendant had the ability to access the critical component required to manufacture methamphetamine with or without the agent’s intervention. The agent’s supply of the critical component to Russell and his colleagues did not breach fundamental fairness. The court upheld a conviction, but with split decisions.
Reasoning: The defendant’s activities were self-propelled; the narcotics agent did not implant any unlawful design into the defendant’s mind.
Dissenting opinions: There were two dissenting opinions in this case. One was that the supply of the critical component by the government agent to the defendant made the nation an active participant in criminal activity. According to the dissenting jury member, the agent was encouraging crime, instead of detecting it. The second dissenting opinion viewed the focus directed to the defendant while ignoring the officer’s conduct as irrational. The dissenting member asked the court to question whether the government’s conduct in crime inducement had gone to extreme levels. The member argued that focus on the defendant’s conduct alone would encourage crime inducements by agents.
Questions
There is a probable cause for approaching the defendant while he was parked at the traffic light. The first reason is that being in a neighborhood known for drug activity, individuals with peculiar behavior alarm one. According to psychology, drug peddlers have the ability to spot potential customers. A typical individual would not make eye contact with a stranger; the fact that the man in the vehicle makes eye contact proves that he is on a survey mission, looking and enticing potential customers.
Entrapment defense is not a valid defense in this case. Entrapment defense means that an individual would not have committed a crime if not influenced by law enforcers (Spooner, 2010). This defense is invalid in this case; the officer asks the man if he needs anything. The individual does not offer a direct response, but rather asks the agent what they have to offer. The man further tells the agent that he is looking to score. The individual has no knowledge whether he is talking to an undercover agent. This means that the drug transaction would still occur even if the agent were a civilian. This case is similar to Lewis v. United States where the petitioner sold marijuana to an agent at his premises (Scheb & Scheb, 2011). Entrapment defense does not hold because the individual is on a watch to identify drug sellers and identifies one who happens to be an agent.
Entrapment is not the same as providing an opportunity for an individual to commit a crime. Government agents do not entrap individuals by providing them with a chance to commit an unlawful doing. Judges expect individuals to resist any temptations that lure them into breaching a law. An individual without an intention to commit a crime should not be lured into committing crimes because the court expects a defendant to prove that they had no intention to participate in a crime.
The possession of marijuana is treated as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on an individual’s history. The possession of marijuana is treated as a misdemeanor if an individual already has a conviction for marijuana. Marijuana possession results into a felony upon further arrests regarding the drug (Lushbaugh, Weston, & Weston, 2009).
References
Lushbaugh, C., Weston, P. B., & Weston, P. B. (2009). Criminal investigation: Basic perspectives. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Scheb, J. M., & Scheb, J. M. (2011). Criminal law and procedure. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Spooner, M. (2010). Entrapment. New York: Margaret K McElderry.
