Conclusion:
The court will likely hold that Andrew Keegan’s (“Mr. Keegan”) actions were a product of a law enforcement officer in influencing his conduct therefore establishing an entrapment defense.
Rule:
For purposes of entrapment defense, a defendant’s conduct is the product of a law enforcement officer when the officer plays a direct role in influencing the defendant to engage in the conduct through an explicit order. Albaugh v. Ind., 721 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. 1999).
Explanation:
For example, in Albaugh’s, Deputy Sheriff Dale Maxie arrested William E. Albaugh (“Albaugh”) for driving while intoxicated. Albaugh left his home in his pickup truck and within a quarter mile from his home had it break down. He then turned on his hazard lights and left it on the edge of the road. After walking home, Albaugh decided to drink alcohol with his girlfriend, while the weather was rapidly deteriorating due to snowfall. Shortly afterwards, Deputy Sheriff Dale Maxie (“Deputy Maxie”) and Jailer Barry Bischoff arrived at his home after finding his vehicle on the side of the road and subsequently running the license plate. Deputy Maxie wanted Albaugh to immediately remove his vehicle, claiming it was a road hazard. Mr. Albaugh attempted to persuade the officer that due to inclement weather moving his
…show more content…
vehicle would be best done the following day; however, Deputy Maxie insisted that it should be done at that moment. Albaugh was hesitant to comply and was eventually persuaded to leave his home. At this point, Deputy Maxie was not aware of his drinking. Albaugh successfully turned on his vehicle and proceeded to drive it home. While on his way, he drove his vehicle into a cornfield and was consequently arrested for driving while intoxicated. The Supreme Court of Indiana’s ruling for Albaugh’s entrapment claim rested on the element regarding the prohibited conduct of a person occurring through the persuasion of a law enforcement officer and not that of his predisposition to commit an offense. The Court held that the State had not met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of Albaugh, to drive while intoxicated, were not a product of police efforts. Furthermore, the court explained the factors that led to its holding that Albaugh was entrapped. First, Deputy Maxie played a direct role in influencing Albaugh to leave his home in the middle of the night to relocate his vehicle to his home by continually bringing up his demands. Second, were it not for Deputy Maxie’s explicit order to have the vehicle moved immediately, Albaugh’s decision to drive would not have occurred, since he would have been able to do so the following morning. In conclusion, the entrapment defense element in question was met by Deputy Maxie’s actions that caused Albaugh to engage in a prohibited conduct. Application: In the present case, an officer played a direct role in influencing Mr.
Keegan to engage in prohibited conduct through an explicit order, and thus satisfying the element of an entrapment defense in question. In Albaugh’s, Deputy Maxie had Albaugh leave his home in the middle of the night to remove his vehicle off the road in a means that could have included him driving it home. Similarly, an officer had Mr. Keegan engage in picking up a firearm off the floor. Albaugh had evidence that he had no intention to leave for the night and would not be leaving his home until the following day. Similarly, Mr. Keetan had no intention to possess a firearm either permanently or
momentarily. The Albaugh’s court reasoned that Albaugh’s claim of entrapment was valid because of the way Deputy Maxie behaved; therefore, the officer had created a product of police efforts stemming from his actions on Albaugh. Deputy Maxie had a direct role in influencing Albaugh by continually demanding him to act to leave his home in the middle of the night. Deputy Maxie also gave an explicit order that influenced Albaugh to act immediately. This reasoning from Albaugh’s applies to the present case because the officer had a direct role in influencing Mr. Keegan to pick up the gun off the floor by repeating his demand when the Mr. Keegan showed concern. The officer also made an explicit order for Mr. Keegan to immediately follow his directions to take possession of the firearm. Accordingly, a court will likely hold that Mr. Keegan’s prohibited conduct was a product of police efforts. Conclusion: Mr. Keegan’s entrapment defense will likely be upheld because his actions were a product of a law enforcement officer.
Gary Dougherty was paroled from Northeast Correctional Complex on 11/15/2017. Mr. Dougherty has a Tennessee Sentence of Attempted First Degree Murder and is currently under minimum supervision level. Mr. Dougherty was paroled to Steps Halfway House. On 04/16/18, Case Manager Ron Stephens advised me that Mr. Dougherty was discharged from Steps for several rule violations. Mr. Stephens advised that since Mr. Dougherty had been at Steps he has failed three drug screens, offered drugs to another resident, ask residents for clean urine, brought a prostitute in the house, and threatened a resident.
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Caren Campano was a 42 year old woman working a decent job, and married to a man 15 years younger than her. Chris, her husband, was a drug addict that did not have steady income. The night she disappeared they had a large argument, and according to Chris, they both left the house in separate directions to cool off. She left on foot, and he left in the truck to a bar. The next morning he called her job asking if she was at work and they said she never showed up. He called and made a missing person’s report. The investigators went to their house and stated the house was in good condition, and did not look like she left. There was no signs of a fight. However, they found a large brown stain that was still wet next to the bed. When they tested it, it was positive for blood, and when they pulled the carpet back, there was an even larger blood stain on the cushioning under the
Kenneth Dascoli filed a complaint against Arthur Kelly, Esq., on August 10, 2015. Dascoli alleges that Kelly deprived him of a fair trial in a criminal matter, essentially due to lack of preparation. The lack of preparation consisted of failing to visit the complainant while he was being held in jail, failing to interview witnesses, and failing to prepare for trial. Kelly has allegedly violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1., 1.3, and 8.4(d).
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
Two years later, the former undercover New York City narcotics detective testified in the Brooklyn Supreme Court, that the Brooklyn South and Queens narcotic squads had been framing innocent people routinely by planting evidence, in order to reach arrest quotas. “It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators” , he recounted during his
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
In the case of 14 year old Timothy Kane a Florida teenager, reveals how youths can be hauled away for life, when the evidence shows he was just a tagging along with a group of friends
Well written procedures, rules, and regulation provide the cornerstone for effectively implementing policies within the criminal justice system. During the investigational process, evidence collected is subjected to policies such as Search and Seizure, yet, scrutinized by the Exclusionary Rule prior to the judicial proceeding. Concurrent with criminal justice theories, evidence collected must be constitutionally protected, obtained in a legal and authorized nature, and without violations of Due Process. Although crime and criminal activities occur, applicability of policies is to ensure accountability for deviant behaviors and to correct potentially escalation within social communities It is essential the government address such deviant behavior, however, equally important is the protection of the accused which also must become a priority when investigating criminal cases.
The evidence discovered during the investigation suggested to the police that OJ Simpson may have had something to do with this murder and they obtained an arrest warrant. The investigators believed that they “knew” OJ Simpson committed the murders. His lawyers and him were informed of the arrest warrant and agreed to a specified time when OJ would turn himself into authorities. Investigators are later admonished, by the defense, on how they handled the crime scene.
In law, we desire to see whether or not the person truly intended to do the crime. We desire to know the amount of agency she had within herself to commit or not commit crime. If she did not have this agency, she most likely was entrapped and does not deserve punishment. The people who are not entrapped are those who would have committed the crime regardless of the involvement by the police. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to entrapment for a legal defense because they themselves initiated the causal change of guilt. The cause was not initiated by the police; instead, the police were simply able to deduce from certain circumstances that a crime was taking place and an arrest was inevitable.
• Kimberly, M. (2008). Discovering Arrest Warrants: Intervening Police Conduct and Foreseeability. Yale Law Journal, 118(1), 177-185.
The purpose of this case study is to investigate and bring new insight to situations and behaviors within an organization. Case studies are learning tools which utilize social science research to identify and resolve individual and organizational challenges (K. Mariama-Arthur Esq., 2015).
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3
Legal Information Institute. (2010, August 9). Retrieved February 17, 2012, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law