Is this legal?

[Mini 14]

Okay...say the cops hire a minor to buy liquor in order to entrap someone into selling liquor to a minor.

How is what the cops did legal? Simply because they are cops?

Pretty much.

Sorry ravi....hadn't seen where you had said it was about selling to a minor.

Yes, that is perfectly legal, and generally accepted as the only way to enforce the law.

And they aren't going to get out of it. The scenario where a 3rd party bought it for the minor (straw sale) is a different animal, but if the minor bought directly from the licensee, the licensee should be held responsible.

Licenses are a privilege, not a right. I tell my employees that all the time. I have the PRIVILEGE of selling guns, which also gives me the RIGHT to refuse to sell anyone, at any time I want. I exercise that right more often than you'd think, and far more often than most.

Sounds to me like your guy should have exercised it in this instance as well.

 

[ConHog]

Okay...say the cops hire a minor to buy liquor in order to entrap someone into selling liquor to a minor.

How is what the cops did legal? Simply because they are cops?

Pretty much.

Sorry ravi....hadn't seen where you had said it was about selling to a minor.

Yes, that is perfectly legal, and generally accepted as the only way to enforce the law.

And they aren't going to get out of it. The scenario where a 3rd party bought it for the minor (straw sale) is a different animal, but if the minor bought directly from the licensee, the licensee should be held responsible.

Licenses are a privilege, not a right. I tell my employees that all the time. I have the PRIVILEGE of selling guns, which also gives me the RIGHT to refuse to sell anyone, at any time I want. I exercise that right more often than you'd think, and far more often than most.

Another example is years ago when Arkansas did vehicle inspection, my dad did them at his shop, the state would send undercover cars around to insure that stations were actually doing the inspection. Really no other way to determine that.

 

[Ravi]

Okay...say the cops hire a minor to buy liquor in order to entrap someone into selling liquor to a minor.

How is what the cops did legal? Simply because they are cops?

Pretty much.

Sorry ravi....hadn't seen where you had said it was about selling to a minor.

Yes, that is perfectly legal, and generally accepted as the only way to enforce the law.

And they aren't going to get out of it. The scenario where a 3rd party bought it for the minor (straw sale) is a different animal, but if the minor bought directly from the licensee, the licensee should be held responsible.

Licenses are a privilege, not a right. I tell my employees that all the time. I have the PRIVILEGE of selling guns, which also gives me the RIGHT to refuse to sell anyone, at any time I want. I exercise that right more often than you'd think, and far more often than most.

Sounds to me like your guy should have exercised it in this instance as well.

Okay...that was my second question. If the licensee doesn't do due diligence aren't they truly the one at fault? For instance, I see at Target if you buy alcohol you are obligated to produce your DL...but at other stores you are not. So is it really the employees fault for subjectively deciding?

This is still not really answering my main question...how can cops hire a minor to do something illegal...lawfully?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Pretty much.

Sorry ravi....hadn't seen where you had said it was about selling to a minor.

Yes, that is perfectly legal, and generally accepted as the only way to enforce the law.

And they aren't going to get out of it. The scenario where a 3rd party bought it for the minor (straw sale) is a different animal, but if the minor bought directly from the licensee, the licensee should be held responsible.

Licenses are a privilege, not a right. I tell my employees that all the time. I have the PRIVILEGE of selling guns, which also gives me the RIGHT to refuse to sell anyone, at any time I want. I exercise that right more often than you'd think, and far more often than most.

Sounds to me like your guy should have exercised it in this instance as well.

Okay...that was my second question. If the licensee doesn't do due diligence aren't they truly the one at fault? For instance, I see at Target if you buy alcohol you are obligated to produce your DL...but at other stores you are not. So is it really the employees fault for subjectively deciding?

This is still not really answering my main question...how can cops hire a minor to do something illegal...lawfully?

Unless you live in a backwards State every State I know of requires verification of age before selling alcohol. ANY failure to verify age is the fault of the store and they can lose their license and be fined as well as charged with a crime.

 

[RadiomanATL]

This is still not really answering my main question...how can cops hire a minor to do something illegal...lawfully?

Because as long as you follow child labor laws, you can hire a minor.

I worked at a car wash when I was 15 and 16.

 

[Mini 14]

Okay...that was my second question. If the licensee doesn't do due diligence aren't they truly the one at fault? For instance, I see at Target if you buy alcohol you are obligated to produce your DL...but at other stores you are not. So is it really the employees fault for subjectively deciding?

This is still not really answering my main question...how can cops hire a minor to do something illegal...lawfully?

Yeah, the employee is at fault, but the licensee will be held ultimately responsible. Occasionally, if it is an egregious violation, they may go after the employee as well (ATF has, so I assume other agencies will as well).

I guess the only way to answer your question is to say that it is legal, but only in certain circumstances where the courts have decided to allow it. If a minor is working in conjunction with LE to regulate and police crime, then the courts have ruled that the minor has committed no crime due to the circumstance under which the activity took place. In other words, it isn't a crime if we give them permission to do it.

In my industry, you have to be 21 to be in possession of a handgun.

Unless you're a farmer's or rancher's child.

We give the farmer's child "permission" to have a handgun because he needs it to protect himself and his livestock, so it isn't a crime in that scenario.

In your scenario, we gave the kid permission to commit a crime in order to gather evidence of someone else committing a crime. The assumption is if he did it in this one instance (the licensee), he's done it 100 other times that we didn't catch him, so the courts have ruled that no crime is committed by the minor if the activity takes place in the investigation or regulation of possible criminal activity by a licensee.

 

[lawbuff]

This is still not really answering my main question...how can cops hire a minor to do something illegal...lawfully?

Hire, probably not, free service.

The Courts have probably sanctioned such, as I am sure it has been challenged.

Regardless of that, the Prosecutorial authority in the jurisdiction has waived such.

IOW, the Prosecutor has given "Immunity" to the bait boy/girl, that is how it is legal.

Now, in my very strong opinion, using a person under 18 to attempt to buy cigarettes is STUPID. A Parent who would sign such a release is not using thier head. It IS a police sting, the minor can possibly be hurt.

The minor thinks it is fun and exciting to be part of a police operation, but they have NO business doing it and the courts should not allow it, they are stupid to do so.

 

[George Costanza]

Okay...say the cops hire a minor to buy liquor in order to entrap someone into selling liquor to a minor.

How is what the cops did legal? Simply because they are cops?

Yes, it's legal. They (the cops) do it all the time.

Entrapment: A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

The key to entrapment has to do with the willingness (or lack thereof) of the suspect to commit the crime. A dope peddler is standing on the street corner, eyeing everyone that comes along to see if they want to buy drugs. An undercover narc comes along, buys drugs and then busts the drug seller for selling drugs. This is not entrapment, because of the second sentence in the quote, above.

If a guy gets intercepted by a minor as he is going into a liquor store and the kid asks the guy to buy booze for him and the guy does, the guy can be convicted of providing liquor to a minor. Personally, I think this is very close to entrapment if not outright entrapment because, as the guy got out of his car, he had no intention whatsoever of committing any type of crime. The idea for the commission of the crime had its origin solely in the police setup.

So how can the guy be convicted? Don't ask me - but it happens all the time. I guess maybe it's because the defendant usually pleads out rather than go through everything it takes to present an entrapment defense - he would have to go to trial, and few guys want to do that.

It's a tricky situation in something like that. I mean what if a man is just minding his own business and a minor offers him sex. Can he have sex with her and then later cry that he entrapped her? No I don't think so.

That is a really interesting question. It could well be entrapment if all of the elements were there. The guy had no intention whatsoever of having sex with a minor. He had never done anything like that in his life. The minor, acting under instructions from the police, didn't just suggest sex once - he/she kept asking, would not give up, literally persuaded the guy to do something he really did not want to do at all. That's entrapment.

But - it was obvious the child was under age. What about that? Still entrapment. It is obvious that buying illegal narcotics is against the law yet, if a person is entrapped into doing it, he has a complete defense (entrapment) even though he knew full well he was committing a crime when he bought the drugs.

BTW - I think you meant to say, "Can he have sex with her and later cry that she entrapped him," rather than the way you said it.

 

[ConHog]

Yes, it's legal. They (the cops) do it all the time.



The key to entrapment has to do with the willingness (or lack thereof) of the suspect to commit the crime. A dope peddler is standing on the street corner, eyeing everyone that comes along to see if they want to buy drugs. An undercover narc comes along, buys drugs and then busts the drug seller for selling drugs. This is not entrapment, because of the second sentence in the quote, above.

If a guy gets intercepted by a minor as he is going into a liquor store and the kid asks the guy to buy booze for him and the guy does, the guy can be convicted of providing liquor to a minor. Personally, I think this is very close to entrapment if not outright entrapment because, as the guy got out of his car, he had no intention whatsoever of committing any type of crime. The idea for the commission of the crime had its origin solely in the police setup.

So how can the guy be convicted? Don't ask me - but it happens all the time. I guess maybe it's because the defendant usually pleads out rather than go through everything it takes to present an entrapment defense - he would have to go to trial, and few guys want to do that.

It's a tricky situation in something like that. I mean what if a man is just minding his own business and a minor offers him sex. Can he have sex with her and then later cry that he entrapped her? No I don't think so.

That is a really interesting question. It could well be entrapment if all of the elements were there. The guy had no intention whatsoever of having sex with a minor. He had never done anything like that in his life. The minor, acting under instructions from the police, didn't just suggest sex once - he/she kept asking, would not give up, literally persuaded the guy to do something he really did not want to do at all. That's entrapment.

But - it was obvious the child was under age. What about that? Still entrapment. It is obvious that buying illegal narcotics is against the law yet, if a person is entrapped into doing it, he has a complete defense (entrapment) even though he knew full well he was committing a crime when he bought the drugs.

BTW - I think you meant to say, "Can he have sex with her and later cry that she entrapped him," rather than the way you said it.

Yes, of course I meant it the way you said. Sorry about that. And personally in my opinion the guy still committed a crime, I mean you can't REALLY be talked into doing something you don't wanna do, but it does make the legal issues stickier.