Interesting.

by

As some of you may know, I do a fair bit of work on actual-, near- and quasi- white collar criminal matters.

(Hmm, that didn’t come out right. Perhaps I’d better say that I do a fair bit of work as an attorney representing persons and companies facing potential actual-, near- and quasi- white collar liability . . . . )

Anyway, I get all manner of updates on criminal law issues. The following one caught my eye this morning:

An undercover police officer’s repeated requests of a man that he met in a gay bar to find them cocaine so they could “party” constituted outrageous police misconduct requiring the dismissal of drug charges against the man in view of the fact that the undercover officer was “very attractive” and
took advantage of the allure of a possible sexual encounter with him, a Florida appeals court holds. . . .

“Very attractive”? What’s the line between “attractive” and “very attractive”? Would the former be OK but the latter not? How about, “kinda-attractive-after-three-or-so-beers”? Does “not-very-attractive, but I’m desperate” qualify?*

I demand answers!

von

* The Court probably rested its decision primarily on the conduct of the officer in question: implying that you’d have sex in exchange for drugs does seem a might [Update: erm, “mite”] bit over the line for honest police work. Still, it’s funny what gets emphasized in the retelling — even in dry legal articles.

11 thoughts on “Interesting.”

  1. If you noticed a few shifts in the post over the last few minutes, it’s because I accidentally hit the post button before the note was finished and had to correct on the fly. Sorry.

  2. It’s nice to know that I can escape culpability if a hottie wants me to do something illegal. Chaulk one up for love slavery. I await news as to whether I’m responsible for all those things I did for the dogs I dated (not to be understood in the Santorum sense).

  5. It’s nice to know that I can escape culpability if a hottie wants me to do something illegal.
    Well, only if the hottie is an undercover cop. For some reason, being enticed into crime by a normal citizen doesn’t protect you from punishment to the same extent.

  6. I take it then that Bush can count on your vote against Kerry. Against Edwards?
    Not sure how a discussion of entrapment gets pulled into the Presidential debate, Bloodengine, but I wouldn’t go so far. I’m not at all satisfied with Kerry or Edwards on a number of issues (e.g., I’m pleased both voted for the Iraq war, apopoplectically annoyed that both voted against the $87 billion needed to support our troops). But I’m pretty darn dissatisfied with Bush as well (irresponsible detax-and-spend financial “policy,” major intelligence and foreign policy screw ups under his watch.)
    This contest between the lesser of two evils isn’t yet decided for me. But don’t be mislead: my current feeling is that Bush is a pretty big evil, and Edwards or Kerry will have to show that they’re an even bigger evil (talkin’ Dean- or Kucinich-sized evil) to lose my vote.
    von

  8. I’ll have to take your word for it, fabius. My only experience with undercover cops comes from 80’s TV shows (well, at least as far as I know), and so my mental image of the typical undercover cop is Belker of Hill Street Blues. And since I’m guessing that he wouldn’t be considered a “hottie” (?), I’ll have to conclude that 80’s TV presented an unfair image of undercover cops to its viewing audience.

  9. We’ll never know if the cop was a ‘hottie’ or a ‘nottie’ unless we get to see a picture. And since he’s supposed to be undercover, I’m thinking the odds aren’t good.
    The decision does leave one to wonder if the court had decided that the cop wasn’t a stud, would the entrappee (that’s probably not a word) have had to pay the penalty for wanting sex with someone who didn’t measure up to society’s standards?

  11. Was this the same Florida judge that recently looked at photos of an alleged rape victim and wondered aloud why anyone would want to rape her?

Comments are closed.