A press release buried on the City Police Department's webpage reveals that on February 18 the Woodstock Police Dept. and the McHenry County Dept. of Health conspired to violate Illinois law. Of course, they won't see it that way, but Judge Andrew P. Napolitano certainly would.
I have never liked entrapment by cops. You know, breaking the law to enforce the law. And I never liked it well before I ever heard of Judge Napolitano or began reading Constitutional Chaos - What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.
On February 18 police officers supervised sending four minors into 23 local stores to purchase tobacco. An employee in each of three businesses checked allegedly did sell a tobacco product to a minor that night.
Where will these cases be heard? They'll start in Woodstock's Administrative Adjudication Court on March 11, 2010, at 9:30AM. This Court is conducted by Judge David Eterno in City Council Chambers at 121 West Calhoun Street, Woodstock.
I encourage every Woodstock resident to show up at Tuesday's City Council meeting and give the Council members an earful about the unlawful actions of the Woodstock Police Department. (Oh, my. Will I have to worry about being charged with a crime by recommending this?)
Since when does it become legal for the sworn officers of the police department to encourage, support and supervise minors to break the law.
Why did these minors agree to break the law? Will the minors be in court on March 11 to testify? Did their parents consent? Should the parents be charged with conspiring with the police to endanger their kids and induce them to break the law? How about contributing to the delinquency of minors?
Read - better yet, buy! - Judge Napolitano's book! From the jacket on his book: "He was voted four times as the most outstanding professor at two law schools where he taught constitutional law. (He) is the youngest person in New Jersey history to receive a lifetime judgeship." He is now Fox News Channel's senior judicial analyst.
Entrapment is wrong. Using minors for tobacco (and liquor) stings is wrong. Stand up now and tell your City Council what you think of this!
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
13 comments:
Gus,
Once again you are wrong in your interpretation of the law. In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.Entrapment therefore occurs when the actions of officers would have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
In the STING operation it is simply facilitates an opportunity. Under your interpretation, there could be no undercover operations of any sort. Doctors prescribing illegal drugs via illegal prescriptions selling to U/C agents. Reverse stings for 'JOHNS'. Child porn operations where perverts meet some kid on the internet and set up a meeting with what they believe is a underage child for sex. Some people even think unmarked police cars or disguise cars are entrapment. They are wrong but the list goes on.
The underage people used are often friends of the officers and since the tobacco sales requires a sale to a person under 18, the parents must always give permission. Remember that you must be 21 to purchase alcohol and police also use 18-20 year olds to purchase alcohol under the same premise. 18 and older do not need parental permission.
The police only offer the opportunity for the clerk to sell to an underage person. The seller is not forced or entrapped, they have every opportunity to deny the sale and are required to ID anyone they suspect could be underage. If they do the right thing and ask for ID and refuse the sale, the store owner gets a nice letter saying that they were compliance checked and were obeyed the law..
Gus,
I'll dumb it down for you. Entrapment would be if the officer told the clerk it was ok to sell to a person in question knowing the person was underage. Then after the sale was completed the officer charged the clerk for selling to the minor. By simply providing a minor to attempt a purchase does not entrap them. They have the right to ask for ID and choose not to! Come on gussy, figure it out 'lil buddy.
Ah, you guys are great. How about this?
No crime would have been committed if the cops hadn't coached the kid and sent him in to buy the tobacco.
and you want to be sheriff? WOW!
Gus I appreciate your position, but I must disagree. In undercover buy/bust operations you can shut down a drug house, that is endangering the neighborhood. If you disagree with the tobacco sting, then you must disagree with buy / bust operations yes? Sometimes that is the only way to shut down a drug house. So what I get from your blog is that we should take away a very valuable tool that helps in making life safer for everyone throughout the community. Because if you do it for one situation you must do it across the board, correct?
If I have misunderstood what you were trying to convey, please expand a little further on your thought process.
"No crime would be committed" or "no crime would be discovered?"
Once again Gus you fail to understand the basics. Obviously to determine if someone is selling to persons under 18, you must use someone under 18...simple so far? Police send a person under 18 into the establishment and have them attempt to buy tobacco. When the kid comes out with tobacco, crime is committed. NOT entrapment by any stretch. The clerk makes a choice to sell or not sell, to ID or not ID. Life is full of choices, choices have consequences...
NOT entrapment
I acknowledge that it may be an unusual position in some places for the top cop to believe that deputies/officers must not break the law to enforce it.
Andy, read the buy/bust example in Judge Napolitano's book about a NYPD undercover cop who pestered the judge and tried to make him buy some drugs. The cop knew he was a popular judge. (Page 33)
Sending an undercover cop into a drug house is a completely different matter than sending a minor into a brightly-lighted convenience store.
Looks like you are saying it's okay to use a "valuable (illegal) tool".
NotA, sorry, but definitely entrapment. If the cops think that smokes are being sold to minors, then they can set up surveillance. It shouldn't be too much trouble to look through a window and watch what's happening.
Not worried about it? Just wait until your rights get trampled one of these days. Better just hope it's not too late to scream about it.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Gus, you should be reporting about how bad it was the clerk sold to our communities minors. Not that the police are bad for catching them.
Right, and on those parents who buy cigarettes for their minor children to smoke, too.
What really troubles me is the ever growing and expanding attitude of local and national government to "go after" the little guy with all these tactics when the "big time" crooks seem to have the "right connections" and are not touched. How about investigating all the "no bid" contracts given out by local government or hospitals to friends or relatives of members of these local governmental boards or hospital boards. This has been going on for well over 35 years and probably longer. You never read about a "sting" operation in these areas because the people involved are supposedly above reproach and would never do such things....sure...and I have a bridge to sell you in New York City.
I agree with Gus! It is a total violation, and how contradictive to have a law stating it is illegal to sell tobacco or alcohol to minors, yet, use the minors in these stings. And stating that you must card anyone looking a certain age or younger, who decides that? Because if you aren't a great judge of AGE character that particular day, well, there goes your job! I'ts not alright. They should card each and every person, or have designated people for this specific job...ludicris!
Post a Comment