El concepto de entrapment defense stands as a critical safeguard in our criminal justice system, protecting citizens from overzealous law enforcement tactics that might otherwise induce law-abiding individuals to commit crimes. When police officers or government agents go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit a crime and instead actively persuade, threaten, or coerce individuals into criminal activity, the legal system provides recourse through the entrapment defense. This defense acknowledges a fundamental principle: the government should not be in the business of creating criminals.

En entrapment defense represents an affirmative legal strategy where defendants essentially admit to the criminal act but argue they would never have committed it without improper government inducement. For the defense to succeed, individuals must demonstrate both that law enforcement induced them to commit the crime and that they lacked any predisposition to engage in such criminal conduct before the government’s involvement. The burden initially falls on the defendant to establish these elements, after which the prosecution must disprove them beyond reasonable doubt.

Understanding Entrapment: Legal Definition and Framework

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers or their agents induce someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed. The key elements that constitute police entrapment involve improper government conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit a criminal offense. This defense is founded on the public policy of discouraging unfair and aggressive police tactics that lure innocent people into criminal activity.

The legal framework for entrapment varies somewhat between jurisdictions, but generally follows either a subjective or objective standard. The subjective standard, used in federal courts and many states, focuses on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime regardless of government involvement. Under this approach, if the defendant was already inclined to commit the offense when given the opportunity, entrapment cannot be established regardless of police conduct.

The objective standard, adopted by some states, focuses instead on the government’s conduct and whether the tactics employed would induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. This standard places greater emphasis on police behavior rather than the defendant’s predisposition. Under either standard, the entrapment defense acknowledges that while law enforcement may provide opportunities for criminal activity, they cross a legal line when they actively create criminals through coercion, harassment, or deception.

The Two-Pronged Test for Entrapment

For an entrapment defense to succeed, courts typically require evidence satisfying a two-pronged test. First, defendants must demonstrate that government agents induced them to commit the crime through persuasion, threats, harassment, or other coercive tactics. Simply providing an opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment.

Second, defendants must establish that they lacked any predisposition to commit the crime before government intervention. Courts examine factors such as the defendant’s criminal history, reluctance to commit the offense, and whether they readily responded to minimal inducement. This predisposition element often proves most challenging for defendants, as prosecutors frequently introduce evidence of past criminal behavior or willingness to engage in similar conduct.

The burden of proving entrapment varies by jurisdiction. In some states, defendants must prove entrapment by a preponderance of evidence, while in others, once defendants produce evidence of entrapment, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that no entrapment occurred. This procedural distinction significantly impacts defense strategy and case outcomes.

Landmark Entrapment Cases That Shaped Modern Law

Several pivotal court decisions have shaped entrapment doctrine in American jurisprudence. In Sorrells v. United States (1932), the Supreme Court first recognized entrapment as a valid defense, establishing that government agents cannot implant criminal intent in the minds of innocent people. The Court emphasized that entrapment occurs when the criminal design originates with government officials who implant the disposition to commit the offense in an otherwise innocent person.

Sherman v. United States (1958) further developed entrapment doctrine when the Supreme Court overturned a conviction where a government informant repeatedly asked the defendant to obtain drugs, appealing to the defendant’s sympathy by feigning withdrawal symptoms. The Court found this constituted entrapment because the government had induced the crime through repeated requests playing on the defendant’s sympathies.

In Jacobson v. United States (1992), the Court ruled in favor of a Nebraska farmer targeted in a government sting operation. Federal agents spent two years sending the defendant materials promoting child pornography before he finally ordered illegal materials. The Court found that the government had created the predisposition rather than merely providing an opportunity to someone already predisposed to commit the crime.

These landmark cases demonstrate the courts’ recognition that while law enforcement may legitimately use undercover operations and sting tactics, they must not manufacture crime by overcoming the reluctance of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Common Police Tactics That May Constitute Entrapment

Law enforcement agencies employ various undercover techniques to catch criminals, but certain tactics may cross into entrapment territory. Understanding these methods helps distinguish legitimate police work from improper inducement.

Persuasion and coercion represent common tactics that may constitute entrapment. When undercover officers repeatedly encourage individuals to commit crimes despite initial refusals, they may cross the legal line. For example, in drug cases, officers who persistently pressure someone with no prior history of drug dealing to sell illegal substances may be engaging in entrapment, especially if the target repeatedly declines before eventually yielding to pressure.

Financial inducement presents another potentially problematic tactic. While offering to buy illegal goods or services doesn’t itself constitute entrapment, offering extraordinary financial incentives that would tempt even normally law-abiding citizens might cross the line. Courts have found entrapment when officers offered enormous sums of money to individuals with no criminal history, effectively overcoming their natural reluctance through financial pressure.

Threats and intimidation clearly constitute improper inducement. When officers threaten harm, exposure, or other negative consequences unless the target commits a crime, they engage in entrapment. For instance, threatening to report false allegations to a landlord or employer unless someone participates in criminal activity represents clear entrapment.

False identification and deception, while generally permitted in undercover operations, may constitute entrapment when combined with other coercive elements. Officers may legally pose as criminals or use false identities, but when they falsely claim to be friends or associates to manipulate emotional connections and induce criminal behavior, they may cross into entrapment territory.

Drug Crime Entrapment: Case Examples and Defense Strategies

Drug crime entrapment cases frequently arise from undercover operations and provide instructive examples of both legitimate police tactics and improper inducement. In these cases, the line between providing an opportunity and creating a criminal can become particularly blurred.

One illustrative example involves repeated solicitation for drugs. When undercover officers repeatedly request drugs from someone with no prior history of drug dealing, courts may find entrapment. In a notable case, an undercover officer made multiple attempts to purchase cocaine from a target who initially denied any knowledge of drug dealing. Only after the officer threatened to report alleged drug dealing to the target’s landlord did the individual eventually arrange a drug sale. The court found this constituted entrapment because the officer used threats to overcome the target’s clear reluctance.

Another example involves exploiting vulnerable individuals. In a controversial case at Temecula Valley High School, an undercover officer posed as a student and befriended special needs children, asking them for “help” procuring drugs. This operation led to multiple arrests but faced significant criticism as potential entrapment, as the officer deliberately targeted vulnerable individuals and exploited their desire to help a perceived friend.

Estrategias de defensa in drug entrapment cases often focus on documenting the defendant’s lack of predisposition and the nature of police inducement. Successful defenses typically highlight factors such as:

1. The defendant’s lack of prior drug convictions or involvement
2. Initial and repeated refusals to participate in drug activity
3. Documentation of threats, harassment, or extraordinary inducements
4. Evidence showing the defendant was targeted without reasonable suspicion of prior criminal activity

When building an entrapment defense in drug cases, attorneys often seek to obtain all communication records between the defendant and undercover officers, including text messages, recorded conversations, and notes from undercover operations. These records can reveal the nature and extent of inducement tactics used by law enforcement.

DUI Entrapment: When Police Tactics Cross the Line

En DUI enforcement typically involves observation of driving behavior and subsequent testing, some cases raise entrapment concerns when police tactics actively induce individuals to drive while impaired. Though relatively rare, DUI entrapment cases illustrate important boundaries for legitimate law enforcement activity.

The 2023 case of Commonwealth v. Whitmire provides an instructive example. In this case, Pennsylvania State Police contacted Whitmire to come to the barracks to be served with an emergency protection order. When Whitmire arrived driving his vehicle, officers noticed signs of impairment and subsequently arrested him for driving under the influence of marijuana. Whitmire claimed entrapment, arguing that police induced him to drive while impaired by requesting his presence at the barracks.

The court rejected this entrapment defense, finding that the police request constituted legitimate law enforcement activity rather than inducement to commit a crime. The court emphasized that police “did no more than afford an opportunity” for Whitmire to commit an illegal act, noting that their request for him to come to the barracks for a lawful purpose did not constitute entrapment. The court further noted that police made no suggestion that Whitmire should drive while impaired, leaving that decision entirely to him.

For a DUI entrapment defense to succeed, defendants typically must demonstrate that police specifically encouraged driving while impaired, rather than merely providing an opportunity. Successful defenses might involve situations where officers:

1. Returned car keys to visibly intoxicated individuals and encouraged them to drive
2. Directed impaired individuals to move their vehicles when no safety concern required it
3. Deliberately served alcohol to individuals they knew would be driving

These scenarios remain relatively uncommon, as most DUI arrests result from observed driving behavior rather than police inducement. Nevertheless, the entrapment defense remains available in those rare cases where police actively encourage impaired driving rather than merely detecting it.

Online Sting Operations: Modern Entrapment Challenges

The digital age has introduced new contexts for potential entrapment, particularly through online sting operations targeting various crimes. These operations raise unique questions about what constitutes improper inducement in virtual environments where identity and intent can be particularly difficult to establish.

In cases involving alleged online solicitation or child exploitation, law enforcement frequently poses as minors or interested adults in chat rooms or on social media. These operations typically withstand entrapment challenges when officers merely provide opportunities rather than inducement. Courts generally find no entrapment when defendants initiate sexual conversations or suggest illegal activities without prompting from undercover officers.

However, entrapment concerns arise when officers become overly aggressive in online interactions. For example, if an undercover officer repeatedly contacts someone who shows no interest in illegal activity, sends unsolicited sexually explicit materials to generate interest, or manipulates emotional vulnerabilities to induce criminal behavior, courts may find improper inducement.

The case of Jacobson v. United States provides guidance for online entrapment defenses. There, government agents spent two years sending the defendant materials promoting child pornography before he finally ordered illegal materials. The Supreme Court found entrapment because the government had effectively created the predisposition through prolonged encouragement rather than merely providing an opportunity to someone already predisposed.

In modern online sting operations, defendants claiming entrapment should preserve all digital communications with undercover officers, as these records often provide the strongest evidence of whether police merely provided an opportunity or actively induced criminal behavior. Courts examining these cases typically consider factors such as:

1. Who initiated discussions about illegal activity
2. Whether the defendant showed reluctance that was overcome through persistence
3. The nature and frequency of communications from law enforcement
4. Whether officers appealed to sympathy, friendship, or romantic interest to overcome reluctance

As online investigations continue to evolve, courts will likely further refine the boundaries between legitimate digital sting operations and improper virtual entrapment.

Subjective vs. Objective Standards in Entrapment Law

American jurisdictions apply either subjective or objective standards when evaluating entrapment claims, with significant implications for how these cases are decided. Understanding these different approaches helps explain variations in case outcomes across jurisdictions.

En subjective standard, employed in federal courts and many states, focuses primarily on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime regardless of government involvement. Under this approach, if evidence shows the defendant was already inclined to commit the offense when given the opportunity, entrapment cannot be established regardless of how aggressive police tactics might have been. Courts applying this standard examine factors such as:

1. The defendant’s criminal history, particularly for similar offenses
2. The defendant’s response to the initial suggestion of criminal activity
3. The defendant’s familiarity with criminal enterprises or terminology
4. The defendant’s readiness to commit the crime when presented with the opportunity

En objective standard, adopted by several states including California, focuses instead on the government’s conduct and whether the tactics employed would induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. This standard places greater emphasis on police behavior rather than the defendant’s character or history. Courts applying this standard examine:

1. The nature and persistence of police persuasion
2. Whether tactics included appeals to sympathy, friendship, or extraordinary rewards
3. Whether police conduct would overcome the reluctance of a typical law-abiding person
4. The government’s justification for targeting the specific individual

California’s definition of entrapment, summarized in Criminal Jury Instructions 3408, exemplifies the objective standard: “A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer or agent engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.” This approach potentially provides broader protection against aggressive police tactics, as it does not permit consideration of the defendant’s character or criminal history.

The choice between subjective and objective standards significantly impacts defense strategy. Under the subjective standard, defendants must overcome evidence of predisposition, while under the objective standard, they can focus exclusively on the impropriety of police conduct regardless of their own history or character.

Burden of Proof in Entrapment Cases

The procedural aspects of proving entrapment vary across jurisdictions, creating important strategic considerations for defendants raising this defense. Understanding who bears the burden of proof and what standard applies proves crucial for effective defense preparation.

In most jurisdictions, entrapment functions as an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant initially bears the burden of producing evidence that government agents induced the crime and that the defendant lacked predisposition. The standard for this initial burden typically requires defendants to present evidence sufficient to raise the issue for consideration rather than to prove entrapment conclusively.

Once the defendant satisfies this initial burden, jurisdictions diverge on what happens next. In federal courts and many states, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either:

1. The government did not induce the defendant to commit the crime, or
2. The defendant was predisposed to commit the crime regardless of government inducement

This high standard reflects the serious nature of government misconduct allegations and the principle that defendants should not be convicted of crimes manufactured by the government. However, some jurisdictions require defendants to prove entrapment by a preponderance of evidence, placing a heavier burden on the defense.

The practical implications of these burden-shifting rules significantly impact trial strategy. Defense attorneys must carefully consider whether sufficient evidence exists to meet the initial burden before raising entrapment, as an unsuccessful entrapment defense effectively admits commission of the underlying crime. When the burden shifts to the prosecution, defense attorneys typically focus on highlighting evidence of reluctance and the absence of predisposition, while prosecutors often introduce evidence of prior similar conduct or ready agreement to participate in the criminal activity.

Real-World Examples: When Entrapment Defenses Succeeded

While entrapment defenses face significant challenges, several notable cases demonstrate their successful application when police tactics clearly crossed legal boundaries. These examples illustrate the types of government conduct courts have found sufficiently improper to warrant dismissal of charges.

One of the most famous successful entrapment defenses involved John DeLorean, the automobile manufacturer charged with cocaine trafficking in 1982. Federal agents targeted DeLorean when his car company faced financial difficulties, posing as investors and eventually proposing a cocaine deal as a way to save his business. Despite video evidence showing DeLorean agreeing to the deal, his attorneys successfully argued entrapment, demonstrating that he had no history of drug trafficking and that agents had exploited his desperate financial situation to induce him to participate in criminal activity he would otherwise have avoided. The jury acquitted DeLorean on all counts.

Another instructive example comes from a case where undercover officers repeatedly pressured a target with no criminal history to procure illegal drugs. The individual initially refused multiple times, but officers persisted, eventually threatening to report alleged drug activity to the person’s landlord. Only after this threat did the target reluctantly arrange a drug transaction. The court found this constituted entrapment because the officers had used threats to overcome clear reluctance from someone with no predisposition toward drug dealing.

In a more recent case, a court found entrapment where officers created an elaborate fictional criminal organization and recruited the defendant through a friend. Over several months, they gradually involved him in increasingly serious criminal activities, eventually charging him with conspiracy. The court found entrapment because the elaborate scheme had effectively created criminal intent in someone with no prior criminal history or predisposition.

These successful defenses share common elements: defendants with minimal or no criminal history, clear evidence of reluctance overcome only through persistent government pressure, and tactics that would likely induce even law-abiding citizens to commit crimes. While relatively rare, these cases demonstrate that courts will dismiss charges when police tactics clearly manufacture crime rather than merely detect it.

When Entrapment Defenses Fail: Common Pitfalls

Despite its availability as a defense, entrapment claims frequently fail for several common reasons. Understanding these pitfalls helps defendants realistically assess the viability of an entrapment defense in their particular circumstances.

The most common reason entrapment defenses fail involves evidence of predisposition. When prosecutors can demonstrate that defendants were already inclined to commit the crime before government involvement, entrapment claims typically fail regardless of police tactics. Courts routinely reject entrapment defenses when evidence shows:

1. Prior convictions for similar offenses
2. Ready agreement to participate with minimal persuasion
3. Familiarity with criminal enterprises or terminology
4. Possession of tools or materials associated with the crime

Another common pitfall involves misunderstanding what constitutes inducement. Merely providing an opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment. Courts consistently hold that law enforcement may legitimately create scenarios where individuals can choose to break the law, so long as they do not apply undue pressure or coercion. For example, undercover officers may pose as drug buyers or sellers, create fictional criminal opportunities, or misrepresent their identities without crossing into entrapment territory.

Defendants also frequently fail when they mischaracterize legitimate police tactics as entrapment. Courts permit officers to use deception, including false identities, fictional scenarios, and even certain types of persuasion. In the case Commonwealth v. Whitmire, for instance, the court rejected an entrapment claim where police asked the defendant to come to the barracks to receive legal papers, finding this constituted legitimate law enforcement activity rather than inducement to drive while impaired.

Finally, entrapment defenses often fail when defendants cannot document the nature and extent of alleged inducement. Without clear evidence of what officers said or did, courts typically defer to law enforcement accounts of interactions. Successful entrapment defenses almost always require concrete evidence of improper inducement, such as recorded conversations, text messages, or credible witness testimony.

Distinguishing Between Opportunity and Entrapment

A critical distinction in entrapment law separates merely providing an opportunity to commit a crime (legitimate police work) from inducing criminal activity (potential entrapment). This distinction forms the foundation for evaluating the propriety of undercover operations and sting tactics.

Providing an opportunity occurs when law enforcement creates a scenario where individuals can choose to commit a crime but applies no pressure or coercion. Courts consistently hold that such tactics do not constitute entrapment, as the law expects citizens to resist ordinary temptations to break the law. Examples of merely providing opportunities include:

1. Undercover officers posing as drug buyers or sellers
2. Creating fictional criminal scenarios, such as opportunities to purchase illegal weapons
3. Placing bait vehicles in high-theft areas
4. Operating storefront operations that purchase allegedly stolen goods

By contrast, inducement involves tactics that go beyond creating opportunities and actively persuade reluctant individuals to commit crimes. Courts may find inducement when officers:

1. Make persistent requests despite initial refusals
2. Appeal to friendship, sympathy, or romantic interest
3. Offer extraordinary financial incentives far exceeding normal criminal profits
4. Threaten harm or negative consequences unless the target participates

The court in Commonwealth v. Whitmire articulated this distinction clearly, noting that “Where police do no more than afford an appellant an opportunity to commit an illegal act, their actions are not considered sufficiently outrageous police conduct to support an entrapment defense.” This principle guides courts in distinguishing legitimate undercover operations from improper inducement.

This distinction explains why most undercover operations withstand entrapment challenges. When targets readily agree to participate in criminal activity with minimal encouragement, courts typically find that police merely provided an opportunity rather than inducement. Successful entrapment defenses generally require evidence that officers went well beyond creating opportunities and actively overcame the target’s reluctance through persistent pressure or improper tactics.

Entrapment Defense Strategies for Criminal Defendants

For defendants considering an entrapment defense, several strategic considerations can significantly impact the likelihood of success. While entrapment defenses face substantial challenges, careful preparation and evidence development can enhance their viability in appropriate cases.

First, defendants should thoroughly document all interactions with law enforcement before and during the alleged crime. This documentation might include:

1. Preserving all text messages, emails, or social media communications with undercover officers
2. Identifying witnesses who observed interactions with law enforcement
3. Requesting all audio or video recordings made during the investigation
4. Obtaining notes or reports prepared by undercover officers

Second, defendants should carefully examine their own history and conduct for evidence contradicting predisposition. This might include:

1. Absence of prior arrests or convictions for similar offenses
2. Evidence of initial reluctance to participate in the criminal activity
3. Documentation of repeated refusals before eventual participation
4. Personal or professional reputation inconsistent with the alleged crime
5. Lack of knowledge about criminal terminology or procedures that would be common among those predisposed to such crimes

Third, defendants should consider consulting with expert witnesses who can testify about proper law enforcement procedures and identify deviations that might constitute improper inducement. These experts might include former law enforcement officers, criminal justice professors, or specialists in police ethics who can explain to jurors how legitimate undercover operations differ from entrapment.

Procedural Aspects of Raising an Entrapment Defense

Raising an entrapment defense involves several procedural considerations that defendants and their attorneys must navigate carefully. Understanding these procedural aspects can significantly impact the effectiveness of the defense.

First, defendants must decide whether to raise entrapment as a pretrial matter or during trial. In some jurisdictions, entrapment can be raised in a pretrial motion, potentially resulting in dismissal of charges before trial if the court finds entrapment as a matter of law. This approach offers the advantage of potentially avoiding trial altogether but requires strong documentary evidence of government inducement.

Second, defendants must consider the timing of the entrapment claim. In federal courts and many states, defendants can raise inconsistent defenses, including both denying commission of the crime and arguing entrapment if the jury finds they did commit it. The Supreme Court confirmed this principle in Mathews v. United States (1988), holding that a defendant who denies commission of the crime is entitled to an entrapment instruction as long as sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment.

Third, defendants must request appropriate jury instructions that accurately explain the entrapment defense under the applicable jurisdiction’s standard. These instructions should clearly articulate whether the objective or subjective standard applies and who bears the burden of proof once the defense is raised. Failure to request proper instructions may result in waiver of the defense or instructions that inadequately explain the legal standard to jurors.

The Future of Entrapment Law in the Digital Age

As technology continues to evolve, entrapment law faces new challenges in adapting to digital environments where the boundaries between legitimate investigation and improper inducement can become increasingly blurred. Several emerging trends suggest how entrapment doctrine may develop in coming years.

First, courts will likely continue refining standards for online sting operations, particularly those involving extended interactions. The Jacobson case provides important guidance, as the Supreme Court found entrapment as a matter of law where the defendant had been targeted for 26 months with repeated communications from government agents before eventually committing the crime. As digital investigations become more sophisticated and potentially more intrusive, courts may impose additional constraints on their duration and intensity.

Second, the rise of artificial intelligence in law enforcement may create novel entrapment questions. When algorithms rather than human officers make decisions about targeting individuals or crafting inducements, courts will need to determine how traditional entrapment principles apply. Questions may arise about whether AI-driven investigations can create the same types of improper inducement as human officers and how to evaluate predisposition in the context of algorithmically targeted operations.

Third, as private-public partnerships in law enforcement expand, courts will continue addressing the question of when private actors become government agents for entrapment purposes. When technology companies, cybersecurity firms, or other private entities assist law enforcement in investigations, their actions may potentially create entrapment issues if they cross the line into improper inducement while acting as de facto government agents.

Despite these evolving challenges, the fundamental principles of entrapment law remain constant: the government should not manufacture crime by overcoming the reluctance of otherwise law-abiding citizens. As technology changes the landscape of criminal investigation, this core principle will continue guiding courts in distinguishing legitimate law enforcement from improper entrapment.

Conclusión

The entrapment defense serves as a crucial check on government power, ensuring that law enforcement detects crime rather than creates it. While successful entrapment defenses remain relatively rare, they provide an essential safeguard against overzealous tactics that might otherwise transform law-abiding citizens into criminals through coercion, manipulation, or extraordinary inducement.

For defendants considering this defense, careful evaluation of both the nature of government inducement and their own lack of predisposition proves essential. Documentation of interactions with law enforcement, evidence contradicting criminal predisposition, and expert testimony about proper police procedures can significantly strengthen entrapment claims. Understanding the procedural aspects of raising the defense and the applicable legal standard in the relevant jurisdiction further enhances the likelihood of success.

As technology continues transforming criminal investigation, entrapment doctrine will inevitably evolve to address new contexts while maintaining its core purpose. Whether in traditional undercover operations or sophisticated digital investigations, the fundamental principle remains: the government’s role is to prevent crime and apprehend criminals, not to manufacture criminal activity where none would otherwise exist.

Citations:

• Entrapment as a Defense
• What Constitutes Entrapment in Criminal Law
• 3 Tactics Police May Use to Entrap People into Drug Crimes
• Training Tactics Evolve as Police Adapt to New Use of Force Rules
• Entrapment Defense in DUI Cases Analyzing Commonwealth v Whitmire 2023
• Breaking Down the Legal Framework and Application of Entrapment Defense
• Entrapment
• Entrapment Defense
• Entrapment Defense
• Police Entrapment
• Entrapment Basics
• Criminal Entrapment A Comprehensive Guide to Legal Recourse
• Entrapment
• Understanding Entrapment in Criminal Defense
• Recent Entrapment Cases
• Entrapment
• Jacobson v United States 356 US 369 1992
• Entrapment Outrageous Government Conduct
• Entrapment Police Tactics
• Entrapment Elements
• Entrapment Defense
• What Happens When a Solicitation Case Involves Entrapment
• Entrapment Issue
• Entrapment Defense in Criminal Law Cases
• Five Major Developments in US Law Enforcement to Watch in 2025
• Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 702-237 Entrapment
• What Does Entrapment Mean in a Legal Case
• Top 5 Trends in Law Enforcement
• 2025 US Public Safety Trends Report
• Federal Law Guide to the Entrapment Defense
• Law Enforcement Policy Trends to Watch in 2025
• Project 2025 Would End DHS Law Enforcement Training
• What is Entrapment
• Entrapment
• Navigating the Legal Concepts of Entrapment
• Legal Defense Entrapment
• Top Things to Know About an Entrapment Defense
• Entrapment
• Entrapment How Far is Too Far for the Police
• Understanding the Defense of Entrapment
• Police Entrapment
• Entrapment Issues
• Police Force Challenges 2025
• Common Examples of Entrapment
• Undercover Detectives and Entrapment in Drug Crimes What to Know
• Trends in Law Enforcement
• Resuscitating the Entrapment Defense A Statutory Approach
• Avoiding the Entrapment Defense in a Post-911 World