U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

S t i n g O p e r a t i o n s

by 

Graeme R. Newman

with the assistance of Kelly Socia

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides Series 1 No. 6

Sting Operations

Graeme R. Newman

with the assistance of Kelly Socia

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2005CKWXK001 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the Justice 

Department’s official position. One should not consider references 

to specific companies, products, or services an endorsement by the 

author(s) or the Justice Department. Rather, the references are used 

to supplement discussion of the issues.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

October 2007

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides Series

Guide No. 6

About the Response Guides Series i

About the Response Guides Series

The Response Guides are one of three series of the ProblemOriented Guides for Police. The other two are the ProblemSpecific Guides and Problem-Solving Tools. 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize 

knowledge about how police can reduce the harm caused 

by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides 

to preventing problems and improving overall incident 

response, not to investigating offenses or handling specific 

incidents. Neither do they cover all of the technical details 

about how to implement specific responses. The guides 

are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problems the guides cover. 

The guides will be most useful to officers who:

understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods

can look at problems in depth

are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business

understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge

are willing to work with other community agencies to 

find effective solutions to problems.

The Response Guides summarize knowledge about whether 

police should use certain responses to address various 

crime and disorder problems, and about what effects they 

might expect. Each guide:

describes the response 

discusses the various ways police might apply the 

response

explains how the response is designed to reduce crime 

and disorder 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
ii Sting Operations

examines the research knowledge about the response 

addresses potential criticisms and negative 

consequences that might flow from use of the response

describes how police have applied the response to 

specific crime and disorder problems, and with what 

effect.

The Response Guides are intended to be used differently 

from the Problem-Specific Guides. Ideally, police should begin 

all strategic decision-making by first analyzing the specific 

crime and disorder problems they are confronting, and then 

using the analysis results to devise particular responses. But 

certain responses are so commonly considered and have 

such potential to help address a range of specific crime and 

disorder problems that it makes sense for police to learn 

more about what results they might expect from them. 

Readers are cautioned that the Response Guides are designed 

to supplement problem analysis, not to replace it. Police 

should analyze all crime and disorder problems in their 

local context before implementing responses. Even if 

research knowledge suggests that a particular response has 

proved effective elsewhere, that does not mean the response 

will be effective everywhere. Local factors matter a lot in 

choosing which responses to use.

Research and practice have further demonstrated that, 

in most cases, the most effective overall approach to 

a problem is one that incorporates several different 

responses. So a single response guide is unlikely to provide 

you with sufficient information on which to base a 

coherent plan for addressing crime and disorder problems. 

Some combinations of responses work better than others. 

Thus, how effective a particular response is depends partly 

on what other responses police use to address the problem. 

•

•

•
About the Response Guides Series iii

These guides emphasize effectiveness and fairness as 

the main considerations police should take into account 

in choosing responses, but recognize that they are not 

the only considerations. Police use particular responses 

for reasons other than, or in addition to, whether or not 

they will work, and whether or not they are deemed fair. 

Community attitudes and values, and the personalities 

of key decision-makers, sometimes mandate different 

approaches to addressing crime and disorder problems. 

Some communities and individuals prefer enforcementoriented responses, whereas others prefer collaborative, 

community-oriented, or harm-reduction approaches. These 

guides will not necessarily alter those preferences, but are 

intended to better inform them.

The COPS Office defines community policing as 

“a policing philosophy that promotes and supports 

organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce 

the fear of crime and social disorder through problemsolving tactics and police-community partnerships.” 

These guides emphasize problem-solving and police-community 

partnerships in the context of addressing specific public 

safety problems. For the most part, the organizational 

strategies that can facilitate problem-solving and policecommunity partnerships vary considerably and discussion 

of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, 

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and 

Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police 

practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that 

the police everywhere experience common problems. In 

a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is 

important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.
iv Sting Operations

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the 

research literature and reported police practice, and each 

guide is anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, 

a police executive and a researcher prior to publication. 

The review process is independently managed by the COPS 

Office, which solicits the reviews. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to 

provide feedback on this guide and to report on your 

own agency’s experiences dealing with a similar problem. 

Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem 

using responses not considered in these guides and your 

experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This 

information will be used to update the guides. If you wish 

to provide feedback and share your experiences it should 

be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

For more information about problem-oriented policing, 

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 

www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access 

to:

the Problem-Specific Guides series

the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools 

series

instructional information about problem-oriented 

policing and related topics

an interactive problem-oriented policing training 

exercise

an interactive Problem Analysis Module

a manual for crime analysts

online access to important police research and practices

information about problem-oriented policing 

conferences and award programs. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 

While each guide has a primary author, other project 

team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer 

reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, 

recommending research and offering suggestions on 

matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 

Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), 

John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott 

(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 

Carolina State University.) 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback 

on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 

Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 

direction of Phyllis Schultze. Stephen Lynch edited this 

guide.

Contents

About the Response Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Stings and Crackdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Defining Sting Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Deception in Sting Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Deception Techniques and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Disguise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Storefronts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Professional Informers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Advertising, Sometimes False . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Bait Cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Surrogates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The Two Goals of Sting Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Using Stings for Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Sting Durations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Other Agencies’ Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Success Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Publicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Using Stings To Reduce Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Contents vii
viii Sting Operations

Sting Operations According to Crime Targeted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Fencing and Stolen Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Drug Dealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Sales of Alcohol and Tobacco to Minors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Prostitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Vehicle-Related Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Car Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Street Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Fraud and Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Child Pornography and Pedophiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Benefits of Sting Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

They Facilitate Investigation and Increase Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

They Enhance Public Relations and Police Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

They Enhance Police Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

They Improve Collaboration Between Police and Prosecutors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

They Provide an Impressive Conviction Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

They May Succeed Without Convictions or Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

They Often Require Partnering With Community and Business Organizations . . . . . . . 27

They Improve Community Relations by Recovering Stolen Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Negative Features of Sting Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

They Do Not Reduce or Prevent Recurring Crime Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

They May Increase Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

They May Be Deemed Unethical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

The Government May Overreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

There are Privacy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

There are Entrapment Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

They Are Expensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

They May Prevent the Use of Other, More Effective Problem-Solving Techniques . . . . 32

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Contents ix

Appendix: Analysis of Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

 Problem-Oriented Policing Reports Involving Sting Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Introduction 1

Introduction

Sting operations have been part of the modern police 

response to crime for over 40 years, although artful 

deceptions and undercover operations have been part of 

police techniques for as long as policing has existed. The 

exploits of Jonathan Wild—who fenced stolen goods but 

also worked closely with London police as an informer in the 

early 18th century—are well known.1 Since their introduction 

in the United States in the 1970s,2 modern sting operations 

have been justified as an effective, less coercive way not only 

to catch criminals, but also to collect the necessary arrest and 

conviction evidence, thus avoiding the difficulties or even the 

necessity of obtaining an offender’s confession.

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

The private sector conducts many stings (extent 

unknown), and even police departments sometimes 

contract them out to private companies. Stings private 

companies conduct are especially common in the retail 

industry in investigating employee theft and shoplifting, 

and in manufacturing to investigate trade-secret theft. This 

guide does not review such private-sector stings. Police 

also commonly use crackdowns and sweeps in conjunction 

with sting operations, sometimes to the point where they 

seem to merge with the sting. This is especially common 

in sting operations against street prostitution. Another 

response guide reviews crackdowns and sweeps (Response 

Guide No. 1, The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns), as do the relevant problem-oriented guides 

(see, e.g., Problem-Specific Guide No. 2, The Problem 

of Street Prostitution). This guide also does not include 

details of how to conduct a sting operation. There are 
well-established procedures dealing with recordkeeping, 

evidence collection, wiretapping, budgeting, and many 

other technical and legal details.3 This guide is intended to 

help you decide whether a sting operation would be right 

for you, not about how to mount a sting operation.

Stings and Crackdowns

Many stings, though not all, end up with a crackdown, 

that is, a sudden and dramatic increase in police officer 

presence to make the mass arrests that complex sting 

operations often require. For example, officers may have 

posed as drug dealers over time, which may culminate in 

the identification of many suspects, resulting in a police 

crackdown. However, not all crackdowns are linked to 

stings, such as the sudden and visible police patrol in a 

known vice area, which may be routinely repeated. In 

this case, there is no deception involved, and police may 

or may not make arrests (see Response Guide No. 1, The 

Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns).

When stings were first introduced to U.S. policing 

operations, they were confined to the popular, and often 

complicated, setup of false storefronts designed to deal 

in stolen property, and targeted against fencing. Since 

that time, however, a wide variety of police operations 

have come to be called “sting” operations in common 

police practice. Now, hidden (or undercover) operations 

that target political or judicial corruption, target traffic 

offenses such as speeding and drunk driving, target 

prostitution, target car theft, target drug dealing, and 

target illegal sales of alcohol and tobacco to minors, are 

commonly referred to as sting operations. This guide takes 

a broad approach to include a wide range of crime types, 

and the different sting operations that target them. 

2 Sting Operations
Defining Sting Operations 3

Defining Sting Operations

Because sting operations cover a wide variety of crimes 

and use different techniques depending on the operation’s 

immediate or long-term purpose, it is difficult to define 

precisely what a sting operation is. However, with some 

exceptions, all sting operations contain four basic elements:

an opportunity or enticement to commit a crime, either 

created or exploited by police.

a targeted likely offender or group of offenders for a 

particular crime type.

an undercover or hidden police officer or surrogate, or 

some form of deception.

a “gotcha” climax when the operation ends with 

arrests.

Sting operations may provide enticements for the targeted 

offender, such as offering a bribe to a politician suspected 

of corruption, or the opportunities may already be 

available, such as the presence of illegal drugs in openair drug markets, the purchase of liquor by minors, or 

the hiding out of police in known locations where drivers 

exceed the speed limit. All of these examples assume that 

the offenders are “willing” offenders, but as we will see 

below, when police construct situations in which they offer 

people opportunities to commit a crime, such as to buy 

stolen goods, it is not always clear that they are willing; or 

at least the sting operators manipulate their willingness.§

However, the clearest, defining feature of sting operations 

nowadays is that there is a point that ends the operations 

with a “gotcha,” when police suddenly reveal themselves 

and catch the offender “in the act,” often on video or audio 

recording devices. Catching offenders in the act is a very 

persuasive feature that impresses juries, who typically return 

guilty verdicts even though an element of deception is often 

involved. 

1.

2.

3.

4.

§ Assessing the offender’s 

willingness is closely tied to the 

police officer’s or surrogate’s use of 

deception. It is also the point that 

defense lawyers target in defending 

their clients. See below on the 

“entrapment defense.”

Deception in Sting Operations 5

§ In an extreme example of creating 

a crime, the New York City Police 

Department planted unattended 

bags in various locations in the city’s 

subway system. They waited for 

people to take the bags, then arrested 

them (New York Times’ Editorial, 

March 6, 2007).

§§ In an example where police 

exploited a situation in which the 

enticement to commit a crime 

already existed, police stationed 

an officer in the courtroom where 

drivers had their driving licenses 

revoked. This was communicated to 

an officer outside in the parking lot, 

who promptly arrested any person 

whose license had been revoked if 

he or she entered a car to drive away 

(Holderness 2003). 

Deception in Sting Operations

Depending on the type of crime that is targeted or the 

purpose of the sting operation, the amount of deception 

police use may vary from none to a lot. In general, when 

there is much deception, the sting operation is highly 

complex and conducted over a long time—sometimes 

years—and requires police to take on various disguises 

and roles in dealing with suspects. When sting operations 

are concluded, they usually result in many arrests of 

high-profile people, accompanied by local and national 

publicity. 

The amount of deception is partly defined by the extent 

to which police create the situation that snares the 

offender,§ or whether police exploit situations that already 

exist in order to catch offenders in the act.§§ The latter 

are more typical of low-deception operations, which are 

usually conducted as part of a crackdown and so are 

mostly of short duration. They may be accompanied by 

some local publicity both before and after the sting and 

are targeted at known offenders, or places where offenses 

are commonly committed (e.g. a speed trap or known vice 

location). And they will result in mass arrests and charges. 

The creation of the opportunity for offenders to commit 

a crime may vary according to circumstances. In some 

crimes, such as selling alcohol to minors, the opportunity 

is usually already there, and it takes little police effort to 

send in a juvenile surrogate to induce the illegal sale. In 

varying degrees, this also applies to prostitution, where a 

police officer may be disguised either as a client or as a 

prostitute to invoke a crime that can be clearly represented 
as “caught in the act.” Its use for this crime is popular 

because it is often difficult to obtain the necessary 

evidence to prove the details needed to gain a conviction 

for an offense such as prostitution. In very complex stings 

where deception is used for long periods, offenders who 

are already known or suspected are snared along with new 

offenders who also take the bait. In these cases, police 

may use known offenders as surrogates to snare new 

offenders.

6 Sting Operations
Deception Techniques and Tools 7

Deception Techniques and Tools 

A variety of props, techniques, and facilitators may be used 

in sting operations. 

Disguise

If a regular police officer is deployed to deal with possible 

suspects, he or she may wear disguises, dress down or up to 

suit the scene, learn the suspects’ habits and practices and 

their special skills, and even work and live with the suspects. 

The simplest form of this technique is the officer who poses 

as a drug dealer on the street and actually makes drug sales, 

or an officer who poses as a prostitute to arrest a client.

Storefronts

False storefronts are a very popular technique of deception 

in stings directed at penetrating fencing operations. Officers 

in these storefronts may pose as pawnbrokers, or may openly 

conduct an illegal fencing operation out of a rented space 

such as a warehouse or office building. 

Professional Informers

A known offender (or former offender) becomes a police 

informer in return for the police’s putting aside arrest or 

prosecution of the offender, or the police may even pay 

the informer. Where highly complex crimes are concerned, 

such as an organized drug-dealing network, well-organized 

fencing operations, or entrenched systems of bribery of 

public officials, police often use offenders who are expert in 

conducting these crimes and who are well connected with 

other members of the offending group to establish and 

maintain the degree of deception necessary.
Advertising, Sometimes False

Some stings advertise stolen goods for sale, or offer 

employment opportunities to bust various consumer and 

home employment scams. In a popular variation of a 

regular sting, police have placed advertisements to entice 

offenders with outstanding warrants to collect lucky 

lottery winnings; the police arrest them when they appear 

to collect their prize.

The Internet

The Internet has made fraud much easier by providing 

offenders with an easy way to create false storefronts 

and even perfectly mimic the web pages of major 

businesses such as eBay. Sex offenders have also found 

in the Internet a convenient way to pretend that they are 

someone else and approach unsuspecting or vulnerable 

juveniles. However, the possibilities for masquerading as 

others are also available to police officers, so they may 

conduct sting operations that also use these methods of 

deception to trap suspects: they may put up their own 

false online storefronts and hang out in juvenile chat 

rooms.

Bait Cars

Police may use bait cars (“decoy cars” or “gotcha cars”) 

when they know of a hot spot of car theft and the type of 

car that is most often stolen. Types of bait-car operations 

range from the simple, when a car is left parked and 

staked out by police, to the elaborate, when the car is 

fitted out with tracking devices, or it automatically locks 

when the thief is inside.

8 Sting Operations
Deception Techniques and Tools 9

Surrogates

Police commonly employ professional thieves and 

current or former offenders in elaborate sting operations, 

especially those targeting fencing and corruption. In 

simpler operations, juveniles are often used as surrogates 

or “minor decoys” for police by entering stores to buy 

cigarettes or alcohol. They differ from police informers, 

who are used because of their skill and knowledge of 

complex crimes. Juveniles are used because of their special 

status as juveniles.

Surveillance

When police use much deception, they are more likely 

to accompany it with surveillance. This is because, 

when it comes to prosecution, it will be necessary to 

demonstrate that the offender was not entrapped into 

committing the crime (see below on entrapment). In 

the early days of stings, surveillance was composed of 

an informer or undercover officer “wearing a wire” 

to record conversations, to bug a meeting place, or 

to conduct phone taps. However, the conditions and 

procedures for making legal phone taps and recording 

phone conversations are complex, and vary from state 

to state. Modern sting operations, especially of complex 

bribery and fraud cases, are commonly accompanied 

by voluminous videotaped records of transactions and 

conversations, increasingly made by miniature cameras 

the informer or undercover officer wears. These videos 

of offenders actually “caught in the act” have been 

very effective in the courtroom in gaining convictions, 

especially if they have been obtained by officers well 

versed in the legal and operational procedures for 

obtaining video evidence. 

The Two Goals of Sting Operations

Sting operations generally serve two purposes: (1) 

investigation, and (2) reduction/prevention of specific 

crimes.§ 

Using Stings for Investigation

The majority of sting operations fall under the 

investigative category. The aims may be to penetrate a 

criminal gang, collect evidence, and identify and arrest 

offenders. Police will conduct a sting essentially to 

uncover a suspected extensive or complex fraud involving 

many people, usually those who hold offices of trust in a 

community or government organization. An example of 

this is the ABSCAM sting (see box). 

The sting will gather copious evidence that includes 

wiretaps, transaction records, video footage, and careful 

accounting of the network or organized system of bribery 

or corruption. While the uncovering of an extensive 

bribery scandal and its sensational publicity may serve 

The Two Goals of Sting Operations 11

§ The Lauderhill (Florida) Police 

Department used a sting operation 

to obtain information to help analyze 

the problem of street drug dealing, 

rather than to arrest offenders. 

This enabled them to focus on area 

redevelopment and other responses 

that were successful in reducing drug 

sales—an innovative combination of 

the investigatory function of stings 

with the aim of crime reduction 

rather than the “gotcha” of mass 

arrests.

ABSCAM

In 1978, the FBI used known con artist, Melvin 

Weinberg, to direct a sting operation offering bribes 

to U.S. congressmen and other officials in return for 

favors to a mysterious sheik named Abdul. By 1980, 

they had targeted specific members of the House 

of Representatives and one senator. A number 

of politicians resigned, several were arrested, and 

a number of convictions followed. The local and 

national media publicized the sting extensively, and 

it is now part of U.S. political history.4
to warn others of the consequences of committing 

these crimes, the main goal of such sting operations is 

to gain the necessary evidence to help effective arrest, 

prosecution, and conviction of all offenders involved in 

a complex crime or fraud that involves many offenders. 

Other characteristics of investigative sting operations 

include the following.

Sting Durations

Sting operations conducted for investigatory purposes 

generally do not have a specific time frame. Rather, police 

must determine at some point in the operation whether 

they have collected sufficient evidence or identified a 

sufficient number of serious offenders. In the case of 

ABSCAM, once the media brought the investigation to 

light, it had to be terminated. In general, the longer the 

sting, the more arrests that result. The duration of stings 

ranges from hours to several years, and many rely on 

local businesses or community organizations for support 

(see the Goldstein Award project reports reviewed in the 

appendix). 

Other Agencies’ Involvement

Many stings, especially complex stings, require the 

involvement of government and non government 

agencies in addition to the police department. A dozen 

or more federal, state, and international organizations 

are typically involved, as well as community and business 

organizations.5

12 Sting Operations
Success Rates

Almost all sting operations result in either arrests or 

convictions, many of them startling (one reported 700 

arrests), with very high conviction rates ranging from 70 

percent to 95 percent.6 The majority of those arrested 

in fencing and fraud stings also have prior criminal 

records. Viewed from their primary goal of investigation, 

therefore, it is apparent that stings are highly successful 

operations. However, there is generally no research that 

demonstrates that the successful revelation of an extensive 

fraud and successful conviction of offenders prevent 

future similar frauds from occurring; these types of stings 

are usually one-time operations. As far as reduction of the 

targeted crime is concerned, stings are generally ineffective 

(with some notable exceptions, as mentioned below), 

providing only temporary remission, though they do 

provide other benefits.

Cost

The longer the sting operations, obviously the greater the 

cost. Investigative storefront sting operations are usually 

the most elaborate and expensive, though they do often 

result in the recovery of stolen property, thus offsetting 

the cost (see below). Few studies other than those on 

storefront stings have computed the cost of stings, except 

to observe that they are very expensive in personnel time. 

Publicity

Investigative stings usually require secrecy, so publicity 

is rarely used before or during the operation; instead, it 

always follows the sting with the announcement of many 

arrests. There have been some examples of negative 

publicity, including one in which a major drug sting was 

The Two Goals of Sting Operations 13
announced that included Mexican officials; the then 

president of Mexico criticized the operation in national 

and international media.7 Another was in Operation 

Greylord (see box), where two offenders committed 

suicide when the sting identified them publicly as 

culprits. Police also typically use publicity as part of some 

consumer fraud stings that require local newspapers to be 

complicit in inserting false advertisements meant to snare 

offenders.§ 

Operation Greylord

In 1978 an FBI agent was investigating a case of corruption in 

the Chicago Police Department. During the investigation, he 

came across evidence of corruption in the judicial system. After 

18 months, the Washington Bureau approved a sting operation 

to uncover what was suspected as being an extensive system of 

bribery and corruption in the Cook County judicial system. It ran 

for some three years, and its repercussion was felt for many years 

after. The sting is described as follows:8

This sting operation also spawned congressional testimony into 

the ethics and legality of sting operations, and a number of 

significant legal cases using the entrapment defense resulted. 

There were over 60 arrests and many convictions.

14 Sting Operations

§ In the Goldstein Award Reports 

(appendix), all sting operations, 

whether successful or not, involved 

the media, especially those concerned 

with illegal alcohol sales and with 

additional efforts to name clients 

(sometimes with photographs) and 

prostitutes in the local newspapers as 

an outcome of the sting.

The government fabricated cases, involved dummy 

defendants, tape-recorded conversations, tapped 

telephones and, for the first time ever, planted a listening 

device in a judge’s chambers. Undercover agents, or 

“moles,” infiltrated the system, and various deals were 

made with defendants in return for their cooperation.
Using Stings To Reduce Crime

Sting operations that target specific crimes with the aim 

of reducing their incidence are usually conducted for 

a predetermined time, such as speed traps or random 

breathalyzer stops during a holiday period. Thus, they are 

cheaper to implement and are more common. The police 

may use them in conjunction with other responses aimed 

at reducing recurring or persistent crime problems such as 

prostitution, illegal gambling, drunken driving, speeding, 

sale of alcohol or cigarettes to minors, street drug dealing, 

and rashes of car theft. 

In a review of the POP Center database of Goldstein 

Award Reports studies (appendix), of the 27 studies 

that used sting operations, half reported that the sting 

reduced the targeted crime, although even among those, 

the majority of reductions were short term. The remaining 

studies reported that the sting did not reduce the targeted 

crime. The most popular crime targeted by these studies 

was prostitution, where the majority of the seven studies 

reported no reduction in the targeted crime. Targeted 

crimes where stings appeared to be more effective were 

illegal sales of alcohol and traffic offenses. All those 

studies that reported successful reduction in the targeted 

crime also used the sting operation in conjunction with 

other responses; as many as five or more different 

responses were common, including use of publicity in the 

sting’s early stages. This applied especially in responding 

to prostitution. 

The Two Goals of Sting Operations 15

Sting Operations According to 

Crime Targeted

Sting operations vary in their use of deceptive techniques, 

depending on the specific crime type targeted. The 

following summary of sting operations’ methods, 

durations, costs, and outcomes according to crime 

targeted is drawn from various professional magazines, 

government-sponsored reports and evaluations, and a 

small number of scientific studies. It is likely that there 

have been many sting operations about which nothing has 

been published, so there may be a bias toward reporting 

only stings that were deemed successful, a bias likely aided 

by positive media coverage when the media itself was 

enlisted to help in the operations. 

Fencing and Stolen Property

The overwhelming technique used in penetrating fencing 

operations is the storefront. One of the major problems 

of using storefronts is the expense in setting up the store, 

and the need for “buy” money to provide goods for sale. 

The sources of these often considerable needs for funds 

are provided from state and federal grants, and sometimes 

from local businesses that are targets of theft, such as 

local car dealerships. Federal grants often require working 

closely with federal law enforcement investigators such as 

the FBI. Reports of operations vary in the extent to which 

they consider the outcomes successful, though the main 

focus is usually on cost-effectiveness because of the high 

costs of setting up and implementing these stings. The 

measures of this are particularly difficult to pin down, 

since they depend on how long the operation continues 

(since police recover more goods, but also need more 

buy money). The rate of return on the dollar therefore 

Sting Operations According to Crime Targeted 17
is usually computed according to the value of goods 

retrieved and returned to their rightful owners, as against 

the amount expended to set up the operation. However, 

this accounting often does not include the officer time 

used in the sting, so the results may be misleading. One 

study that included personnel costs reported that it cost 

2.5 cents of buy money for every dollar recovered.9

Another reported that it cost roughly 10 cents for every 

dollar retrieved.10 

The more scientifically designed studies tend to regard 

claimed successes as “questionable” as far as prevention 

or reduction in fencing of stolen goods is concerned.11 

However, two such studies12 did report a decrease in the 

specific crime targeted. The most persuasive measure of 

a sting’s success—and most widely reported—are the mass 

arrests that follow almost every sting and the extremely 

high conviction rates of around 90 percent. Although 

some researchers have questioned this high conviction 

rate (since factors that could affect conviction rates such 

as arrest rates, plea negotiations, and decisions not to 

prosecute are often ignored in computing conviction 

rates), it is nevertheless reasonable to conclude that the 

conviction rates of cases that go to trial are very high.

There is far more research available on storefront 

operations targeted at fencing activities than on any other 

type of sting. The scientific quality of these studies is on 

the whole higher than for other types of stings, most of 

which are descriptive and assume that the outcome of 

arrest is self-evident of a sting’s success.§

Drug Dealing

The most common technique for sting operations directed 

at drug dealing in various environments is the reverse 

18 Sting Operations

§ In a study that used frequent 

stings against prostitution, it was 

found that prostitutes who were 

arrested returned to the streets 

after a brief period, which left the 

recurring problem unsolved (San 

Bernardino County (California) 

Sheriff ’s Department, 1993).
sting “buy and bust” (an officer pretends to be a drug 

dealer and sells to an unsuspecting customer). However, 

in contrast to storefront stings, police more often use 

drug stings in conjunction with other responses such as 

sweeps, crackdowns, and beefed-up patrols in known 

dealing locations. Those operations that combine stings 

with other responses are most often rated as “successful.” 

While it is probably a good idea to combine stings with 

other operations targeted at reducing drug dealing (see 

Problem-Specific Guide No. 31, Drug Dealing in Open-Air 

Markets), this practice makes it difficult for researchers to 

assess whether an operation’s success was a result of the 

sting itself, or of the other responses used. Many studies 

deem the sting operation “successful” if it results in 

massive arrests.§ In general, the conviction rates range up 

to 50 percent of arrestees,13 considerably lower than for 

storefront operations. 

Some drug stings, especially those lasting a longer period, 

result in short-term reductions not only of the targeted 

crime, but also of other crimes such as robbery. On 

the other hand, one study found that while significant 

reductions in drug trafficking were achieved, there was 

some evidence that it was displaced to other locations 

that were not part of the sting.14 In fact, drug dealers 

were forced underground, which made it more difficult to 

maintain a buy-and-bust operation. In sum, while stings 

clearly have short-term effects on drug dealing, no scientific 

studies have demonstrated a long-term effect. Finally, 

because sting operations are expensive, it is necessary to 

assess whether the overall cost of these operations is worth 

it. One study found that it took 802 officer hours per 

violent crime deterred,15 another that it took 6.6 officer 

hours per arrest.16

Sting Operations According to Crime Targeted 19

§ New York City’s Operation 

“Pressure Point” resulted in 14,000 

arrests after 17 months and a 52 

percent reduction in robbery after 

two years (Zimmer, 1990).
Sales of Alcohol and Tobacco to Minors

Operations targeting sales of alcohol and tobacco to 

minors use juveniles as minor decoys to enter stores to 

buy liquor or tobacco. One operation used detectives 

to follow up some time after juveniles had made the 

purchase. The duration of the stings ranges from days to 

years. One scientific study that investigated the effects of 

the California STAKE Act§ found a 42 percent reduction 

in access to tobacco by minors after a publicized sting 

operation. However, juvenile access to tobacco began 

to increase to previous levels after one year. Two other 

similar studies of illegal liquor sales to minors produced 

many arrests, and illegal sales dropped by some 20 percent 

for the first year. However, another scientific study 

reported that illegal sales increased after a follow-up by 

detectives once the sting operation had ended.17

Prostitution

Female decoys or plainclothes detectives are typically 

used in prostitution operations. These stings always result 

in many arrests and good publicity, but researchers have 

concluded that they have no overall effect on clients.18 

However, a benefit of vice stings is that they also help 

police serve numerous outstanding warrants for offenders 

wanted for other types of crime. An FBI sting took over a 

credit card processing company and identified those who 

had used credit cards to pay for sex. It then processed 

payments to and from the brothels over a three-year 

period. This resulted in snagging $100,000 in bribes of 

local police and the closing of 18 parlors.19 Few of the 

descriptive studies reported the length of the stings, which 

suggests that police used them in conjunction with the 

20 Sting Operations

§ The California STAKE Act 

of 1994 established an intensive 

statewide program to reduce illegal 

sales of tobacco. Implementing 

the act required an initial survey 

of retail stores to establish how 

widespread the problem was and 

intensive enforcement programs, and 

included scientific evaluations of 

the interventions that included sting 

operations (minors acting as police 

surrogates).
popular use of vice sweeps as a response to persistent 

prostitution (see Problem-Specific Guide No. 2, Street 

Prostitution).

Vehicle-Related Crime

Traffic

Although random stops for license, registration, or 

breathalyzer checks are common in police practice, there 

are few actual studies of their effectiveness (see, e.g., 

Problem-Specific Guide No. 3, Speeding in Residential Areas; 

Problem-Specific Guide No. 36, Drunk Driving). There 

are studies demonstrating the effectiveness of random 

breath tests on drunk driving; although random stops are 

not necessarily stings, they do have a “gotcha” element. 

One sting used police in plainclothes in the courtroom to 

inform uniformed officers waiting outside for those whose 

license was suspended. The officers then arrested the 

offenders if they tried to drive away. The scientific study 

reporting this sting demonstrated a reduction in collisions 

and hit-and-run injuries over a two-year period20 during 

and following the sting.

Car Theft

The most common sting technique used against car theft 

or theft from cars is the bait or decoy vehicle. Although 

some successful uses of decoy vehicles have been 

reported in the United Kingdom, their effects on car theft 

reduction have been only temporary.21 (See ProblemSpecific Guide No. 10, Thefts of and From Cars in Parking 

Facilities; Problem-Specific Guide No. 46, Thefts of and From 

Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways). Reports of U.S. 

sting programs using bait cars suggest similar results.§ 

Sting Operations According to Crime Targeted 21

§ In a complex project to reduce 

car theft the Williams Lake (British 

Columbia) Royal Canadian Mounted 

Police used bait cars along with other 

responses, including: considerable 

community and business 

involvement, intensive enforcement, 

and considerable publicity. In the 

six months of the study, car theft 

dramatically declined, but there is 

no way to determine whether this 

reduction was due to the bait cars 

or other responses used. (Royal 

Canadian Mounted Police, 1997).
Street Racing 

Police have parked decoy police cars at the scene of street 

racing events, with the aim of deterring street racers. 

However, their effectiveness is unknown, and leaving them 

unattended also invites vandalism. (See Problem-Specific 

Guide No. 28, Street Racing).

Fraud and Corruption

The fraud and corruption category includes an assortment 

of reports on undercover officers investigating a variety 

of such cases. One operation investigated 38 car body 

shops concerning the submission of fraudulent insurance 

claims for preexisting damage of a car, resulting in 

many arrests.22 Operation Greylord uncovered judicial 

bribery and corruption, resulting in scores of arrests 

and extensive congressional testimony. Consumer and 

immigration fraud were also uncovered by sting operations 

that police used primarily as tools of investigation over 

months and years. All operations resulted in multiple 

arrests and convictions.23

Child Pornography and Pedophiles

The Internet offers police an excellent medium for 

undercover operations, and they have used it considerably 

to track down and snare would-be child molesters or 

child pornographers. Methods used are for officers to 

enter chat rooms and pose as a child seeking excitement; 

setting up false web sites offering illegal pornography; 

and using a well-publicized Internet sting operation to 

create the impression that the Internet is a risky place 

for sexual predators, and that their hidden identities can 

be tracked down.24 The latter use of a sting operation 

22 Sting Operations
Sting Operations According to Crime Targeted 23

§ Internet stings that aim at tracking 

down Internet users require highly 

trained officers in the Internet’s 

technical aspects, as well as Internet 

service providers’ cooperation. 

However, a reasonably competent 

Internet user can put up a false web 

site, and it takes little skill to enter a 

teen chat room. 

differs from other uses described above because it is 

not primarily oriented to investigating a complex crime 

resulting in arrests, but rather to deal with the problem in 

a wider perspective by creating an uncertain atmosphere 

and thus deter potential predators. Arrests, therefore, 

are not the measure of success. Unfortunately, there 

are no scientific studies that have used as a measure 

of success how many people have been deterred from 

seeking child pornography or trying to contact children 

through teen chat rooms as a result of well-publicized 

sting operations25 (see also Response Guide No. 5, Crime 

Prevention Publicity Campaigns; Problem-Specific Guide No. 

41, Child Pornography on the Internet).§ 

Benefits of Sting Operations 25

Benefits of Sting Operations26

They Facilitate Investigation and Increase Arrests

There are many cases on record of known or suspected 

criminal activity such as systemic corruption or bribery 

where sting operations facilitated the collection of 

evidence and identification of significant offenders, 

thus leading to significant increases in arrests. Existing 

research clearly demonstrates that most sting operations 

result in an increase in arrests, sometimes dramatically 

so, which bolsters the case for the police department to 

increase its budget.

They Enhance Public Relations and Police Image

From the often spectacular revelations resulting 

from a sting that snares high-profile people, to the 

mundane publicity of catching drunk drivers during a 

holiday season, the police department stands to receive 

considerable positive publicity because sting operations 

are often perceived as clever ways of catching otherwise 

elusive criminals who deserve their punishment. However, 

the canny police chief will bring the media on board as 

soon as possible to ensure that they do not focus on the 

negative side of sting operations, such as entrapment. 

Indeed, in some cases, such as drunk driving or speed 

traps, the police may use the media as part of the sting 

operation to publicize the impending police action.
26 Sting Operations

They Enhance Police Presence

The revelation of a successful sting operation, or even 

the announcement of a planned one, may have an effect 

on offending in neighboring localities (so-called diffusion 

of benefits). One well-designed study on reducing illegal 

gun availability27 supported this finding, and a number of 

reported sting operations also make this claim.

They Improve Collaboration Between Police and 

Prosecutors

If a sting is to end successfully with many arrests, the 

success will be diminished if few of those arrested are 

convicted. And since stings often end with a flurry of 

arrests, it will be necessary to ensure that the prosecutor’s 

office can deal with a sudden influx of cases. Although 

the reasons for lack of convictions may vary, more often 

than not they may result from the defendants’ using 

some form of the “entrapment defense.” Police officers 

therefore must work very closely with prosecutors so 

that they collect and record evidence in a way that does 

not break any evidentiary procedures or rules. There are 

many cases on record demonstrating the necessity for this 

collaboration.

They Provide an Impressive Conviction Record

As noted earlier, research indicates that the conviction 

rates for those arrested in sting operations are 

impressively high, though varying depending on the type 

of operation. The reasons for such a high conviction rate, 

even in the face of the entrapment defense, are the ample 

supply of video testimony of offenders in the process of 

committing their crimes, often accompanied by offenders 
Benefits of Sting Operations 27

who confess freely when confronted with these videos, 

and, in the more sophisticated stings, the use of wellestablished procedures of collecting evidence and recording 

transactions.

They May Succeed Without Convictions or Arrests 

Police may use sting operations to publicize their presence. 

They sometimes use this technique in vice operations, 

where the announcements of decoy officers in a particular 

location may reduce prostitution, though this is usually 

only temporary (see, e.g., Problem-Specific Guide No. 2, 

Street Prostitution). However, a successful sting operation to 

uncover selling of liquor to juveniles may be enough for 

the merchant to lose his or her liquor license without being 

arrested. 

They Often Require Partnering With Community and 

Business Organizations 

Sting operations almost always require the cooperation of 

local community organizations or businesses to provide 

community, financial, or logistical support. For example, 

a local car dealer may provide decoy or bait cars, or a 

local business may provide office space for a storefront 

operation. While there may be some risks involved in 

accepting help from businesses in sting operations (for 

example, they may expect a break in compliance in other 

matters), overall, working closer with communities is 

a benefit—even essential—for modern policing. (See 

Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for 

Public Safety Problems; Problem-Solving Tool Guide No. 5, 

Partnering With Businesses To Address Public Safety Problems).
28 Sting Operations

They Improve Community Relations by Recovering 

Stolen Property

Citizens who have been victimized by theft value most 

the police response that retrieves their stolen articles. 

Using informers and stings often leads to recovery of 

stolen goods, as noted in the several operations reviewed 

earlier concerning storefront stings.
Negative Features of Sting Operations28

They Do Not Reduce or Prevent Recurring Crime 

Problems

Few scientific studies of stings have shown that particular 

crimes were prevented long term. Where the relevant data 

were collected, it is commonly shown that the targeted 

crime was reduced as a result of the sting, but for only a 

limited period—at best, three months to a year. In fact, 

since most studies showing any extended crime reduction 

benefits of sting operations have also reviewed other 

police responses used with the operations, it cannot be 

concluded that stings, on their own, solve a recurring crime 

problem.

They May Increase Crime

A number of well-conducted studies have shown that, 

contrary to expectations, sting operations may actually 

increase the targeted crime because they provide new 

opportunities to offenders to commit the crime when 

they use decoys, baits, and the actual selling or receipt 

of stolen goods.29 Furthermore, when police assume 

undercover roles, such as drug dealer, they may themselves 

be victimized, thus making possible new crimes that 

were not the sting’s target. This raises a serious ethical 

issue concerning the role of police (and government 

generally). The police role is to reduce crime, not increase 

it. If sting operations are found to increase crime, they are 

surely very difficult to justify, regardless of the benefits 

described above. However, at least one careful study found 

that sting operations did not increase crime in the two 

projects studied.30 This suggests that there is no hardand-fast rule concerning the facilitating effects of stings 

Negative Features of Sting Operations 29
on crime rates, and that the possible effects of each sting 

operation may be specific to crime type and location.

They May Be Deemed Unethical 

The ethical deficit of sting operations their detractors 

most often put forward is that their use of deception 

is simply another form of lying, and lying is morally 

wrong, period. And is it ethically worse if the deceiver 

holds a government office? Police defend their actions 

on two main grounds: (a) the moral and social benefits 

of a successful sting operation far exceed the ethical 

cost of using deception; and (b) citizens have given 

the police the right to use a degree of coercion to 

protect the community, and deception is “soft” coercion 

compared with other types police may use, such as tough 

interrogation techniques (which themselves may include 

lying and deceiving the offender). 

The Government May Overreach

Is it the government’s role to construct enticements and 

situations that encourage all citizens to commit a crime? 

The studies of selling stolen goods, for example, in bars 

and other places, have found a remarkably high proportion 

of ordinary people prepared to buy stolen articles, people 

who, had they not been provided the opportunity to do so, 

would not have committed the crime. Thus there is a very 

strong potential for the government to overreach. Indeed, 

there is a strong incentive to do so, given the positive 

publicity that is likely to follow the sting operation, even 

if no offenders were convicted. 

30 Sting Operations
There are Privacy Issues

The invasion of privacy is much greater in sting 

operations because police surreptitiously collect far more 

information about non offenders as well as offenders, and 

in many instances, where there are no offenders at all until 

the sting operation reaches a critical point. Do citizens 

have a right not to be spied on? This is an old ethical 

problem in policing that is intensified by sting operations 

that rely almost entirely on these tactics.31 

There are Entrapment Issues

Of all the negative features of sting operations, 

entrapment is by far the most widely cited. This is because 

many of the ethical issues described above come together 

to form the “entrapment defense,” used by offenders to 

argue that the police tricked them into committing the 

crime. There are many legal tests for entrapment, and 

every U.S. state’s law recognizes the defense. While we 

need not go into the legal technicalities, there are two 

legal tests of entrapment: the “subjective” and “objective” 

tests, both of which take as their starting point that 

the government encouraged or induced the offense in 

question. The subjective test asks whether the offender 

had a predisposition to commit the act, that is, it focuses 

on the offender’s psychological state. The objective test 

asks whether the government’s encouragement exceeded 

reasonable levels, thus it focuses on the government’s 

actions in constructing enticements—whether it went 

“too far.”32 How each of these is assessed, of course, is 

the subject of legal wrangling, and may in the long run 

depend on a jury.

Negative Features of Sting Operations 31
32 Sting Operations

They Are Expensive

The popular—and more elaborate—stings require 

expensive props (storefronts, money up-front to make 

illegal purchases or pay informers, decoy cars, video 

cameras, eavesdropping equipment, and so on). Often 

police can obtain these by approaching businesses affected 

by the crime to help out. But there is also the greater 

financial cost of staff time—undercover work required 

in complex stings is very time-demanding and may take 

months or even years. Finally, there is considerable cost 

in time required to train officers in how to carry out a 

successful sting operation. Not included in the police 

budget, except for officer time in court, is the cost of the 

very lengthy trials that occur to gain sting convictions, 

since the entrapment defense is commonly used and has 

become extremely complex.

They May Prevent the Use of Other, More Effective 

Problem-Solving Techniques

Sting operations’ major effect is immediate and temporary. 

Problem-solving policing focuses more on solving the big 

problem or problems that lie behind a specific crime—

that is, reducing or eliminating the problem in the long 

term. Arrests, even massive arrests, rarely solve persistent 

crime and disorder problems. At best, they are a stopgap measure. Stings are an attractive technique because 

they produce much positive publicity and impressive 

short-term results, as measured by many arrests. But on 

their own, they do not solve the underlying conditions 

of most persistent crime problems. Given that stings are 

very demanding of resources, they may usurp the use of 

other effective problem-solving techniques. This is not to 

say that you should never consider them. Depending on 

the specific situation, they may be useful in conjunction 
Negative Features of Sting Operations 33

with other responses, a fact demonstrated by several studies 

in the Goldstein project database (appendix). On the 

other hand, an experimental trial of a sting in a specific 

location may be used to decide whether it will produce the 

required long- or even short-term results compared with 

other interventions. This was the approach the Lancashire 

(England) Constabulary used in their project to reduce 

theft from trucks using a bait vehicle.33 They eventually 

abandoned the sting operation in favor of other responses.

Conclusion 35

§ In a well-designed evaluation of 

several parallel sting operations in 

Chicago; Detroit; Gary, Indiana; 

and other cities designed to 

reduce illegal handgun availability, 

researchers found a 46 percent 

reduction that lasted for the 12 

months of the study in Chicago, 

where it was mounted combined 

with considerable pre-publicity and 

intensified enforcement (lawsuits, 

license suspensions) against gun 

dealers. Researchers also found 

diffusion of benefits in some 

adjacent locations. However, they 

found no effects in Gary, where 

there was less publicity and no 

targeted enforcement.

Conclusion

Sting operations can be expensive, are demanding on 

personnel, and generally offer limited relief from recurring 

crime and disorder problems. This is not to say that they 

should never be used. They may be beneficial when used 

in concert with other police responses known to provide 

long-term solutions to the problem, such as a tool to 

collect information that will help in mounting other 

preventative operations.§ Clearly, they do provide some 

attractive benefits to police departments, particularly by 

facilitating investigation, increasing arrests, and fostering 

a cooperative spirit between prosecutors and police, all of 

which result in favorable publicity. However, you need to 

assess these benefits against the negative ethical and legal 

problems associated with sting operations, especially the 

finding that in some cases they increase crime, and in the 

long term, with some exceptions, generally do not reduce 

it.

 

Appendix 37

Appendix: Analysis of Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing Reports 

Involving Sting Operations

This table reports the findings of project reports 

submitted to the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence 

in Problem-Oriented Policing competition. As such, they 

are designed in a standard way based on the SARA model, 

and procedures followed are generally in compliance 

with the award criteria. However, more than half of the 

studies did not report data to back up their claims that the 

targeted crime had been reduced. Many assumed success 

because of the numbers of arrests or convictions that 

followed the sting. Even taking that into account, close 

to half reported that the sting operation did not work to 

reduce crime in the long run, though there were often 

temporary reductions. 

Crime Targeted Reduced crime? Used other 

responses?

Yes No Yes No

Prostitution (n = 11)

No data

4 7 9 4 7

Car theft (n = 6) 5 1 4 2 4

Illegal alcohol sales (n = 3) 2 1 2 3 0

Traffic violations (n = 2) 2 0 1 2 0

Various crimes (habitual 

offenders, graffiti) 

(n = 3)

1 2 2 1 2

Street drug dealing (n = 2) 1 1 0 1 1

Total = 27 15 12 18 13 14
38 Sting Operations

List of Project Reports Reviewed (all available on The 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at www.

popcenter.org)

Aurora (Colorado) Police Department (1996). “The 

Prostitution Dilemma.”

Austin (Texas) City Police Department (1999). “Reclaiming 

South Congress Street.”

Boulder (Colorado) Police Department (1997). “Underage 

Alcohol Abuse: The Boulder Experience.”

Calgary (Alberta) Police Service (2000). “A MultiDiscipline Approach to Management and Control of 

Prostitution.”

Chico (California) Police Department (1995). “Alcoholic 

Beverage Control Grant.”

El Paso County (Texas) Auto Theft Prevention Task Force 

(2001). “The Repeat Offender.”

El Paso Police Department (1996).” San Jacinto Park 

Renovation Action Plan.”

Fontana (California) Police Department (2003). “Fontana 

Serious Traffic Offender Program.” 

Fresno (California) Police Department (1999). 

“Prostitution Abatement and Rehabilitation First 

Offender Program.”

Hollywood (California) Police Department (1998). 

“Federal Highway Project.”

Lancashire (England) Constabulary (2003). “Putting the 

Brakes on Lorry Trailer Theft.”

Lauderhill (Florida) Police Department (1996). “Mission 

Lake Plaza Combating an Open-Air Drug Market in a 

Shopping Complex.”
Appendix 39

Michigan State University/East Lansing (Michigan) 

Community Police (1998). “Illegal Alcohol Sales and 

Keg Tracking.”

National City (California) Police Department (1997). 

“Roosevelt Avenue Project (Antiprostitution Effort).”

New Rochelle (New York) Police Department (2004). “QTIP (Quality-of-Life Targeted Intervention Patrol).”

Orlando (Florida) Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation 

(1997). “A Task Force Approach to Organized 

Prostitution.” 

Paducah (Kentucky) Police Department (2006). “‘The Set’ 

Operation Deterring Street Crime and Violence.”

Redondo Beach (California) Police Department 

(1998). “Operation Bull Market: Targeting Habitual 

Offenders.”

Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Williams Lake 

Detachment, British Columbia (1997). “Hot Car 

Program.”

Sacramento (California) Police Department (2003). 

“Graffiti Reduction.”

Sacramento Police Department (1998). “Oak Park 

Revitalization Program.”

San Bernardino County (California) Sheriff ’s Department 

(1993). “Foothill Corridor Project”

San Diego Police Department (1995). “Varda Car.”

Stockton (California) Police Department (2003). “Project 

Black Flag.”

Tucson (Arizona) Police Department (1999).”Pimps, 

Prostitutes, and Pushers.”

Wichita (Kansas) Police Department (1996). “South 

Central Prostitution Project.”

Williams Lake (British Columbia) Royal Canadian 

Mounted Police (1997). “Hot Car Program.”

Endnotes 41

Endnotes 1

 Klockars (1980).

2

 Langworthy (1989). 

3

 Frazier (1994).

4

 Caplan (1983).

5

 Meyers (2000). 

6

 Frazier (1994).

7

 Padgett (1998). 

8

 Bensinger (1988).

9

 Weiner, Besachuk, and Stephens (1981). 

10 Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) (1978).

11 Pennell (1979).

12 Weiner, Besachuk, and Stephens (1981); Cotter and Burrows 

(1981).

13 Zimmer (1990).

14 Zimmer (1990).

15 Smith (2001).

16 Dickson (1988).

17 Willner et al. (2000).

18 Dodge, Starr-Gemino, and Williams (2005); Marx (1992); 

Scholer (1999); Whitehead (2005). 

19 Marx (1992).

20 Holderness (2003).

21 Sallybanks (2001).

22 Cornejo (2006). 

23 Dorsey (2005); Terhune (2006); U.S. Department of Justice 

(2006). 

24 Demetriou and Silke (2003); Fulda (2005, 2002); Krone (2005, 

2004); Scottberg, Yurcik, and Doss (2002). 

25 Lesce (1999); Duff-Brown (2006); Arvada (Colorado) Police 

Department (1996).

26 For a more detailed account of the benefits and negative 

consequences of stings see Colquitt (2004).
42 Sting Operations

27 Webster et al. (2006).

28 Marx (1985, 1982).

29 Langworthy (1989); Langworthy and Le Beau (1992a, 

1992b, 1990). 30

 Raub (1984).

31 Stinchcombe (1963).

32 Allen, Luttrell, and Kreeger (1999). 

33 Lancashire Constabulary (2003).
References 43

References

Allen, R., M. Luttrell, and A. Kreeger (1999). “Clarifying 

Entrapment.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

89(2):407–432.

Arvada Police Department (1996). “Arvada Police 

Department Crimes Against Children Unit.” Submission 

for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing.

Bensinger, G. (1988). “Operation Greylord and Its 

Aftermath.” International Journal of Comparative and 

Applied Criminal Justice 12(1):111–118.

Caplan, G.M. (ed.) (1983). ABSCAM Ethics: Moral 

Issues and Deception in Law Enforcement. Cambridge 

(Massachusetts): Ballinger Publishing Co.

Carr, R., and B. Deans (2006). “FBI Sting Nets Seven in 

Alleged Terrorist Plot.” Cox News Service, June 23.

Colquitt, J. (2004). “Rethinking Entrapment.” American 

Criminal Law Review 41(4):1389–1437.

Cornejo, R. (2006). “Insurance Fraud Sting Operation 

Results in 19 Arrests in California.” Best’s Insurance News, 

August 31. Downloaded from Factiva.

Cotter, C., and J. Burrows (1981). Property Crime Program. 

A Special Report: Overview of the Sting Program and Project 

Summaries. Washington, D.C.: Criminal Conspiracies 

Division, Office of Criminal Justice Programs, U.S. Law 

Enforcement Assistance Administration.
44 Sting Operations

Demetriou, C., and A. Silke (2003). “A Criminological 

Internet ‘Sting’: Experimental Evidence of Illegal and 

Deviant Visits to a Web Site Trap.” British Journal of 

Criminology 43(1):213–222.

Dickson, C. (1988). “Drug Stings in Miami.” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin 57(1):1–6.

Dodge, M., D. Starr-Gimeno, and T. Williams (2005). 

“Puttin’ on the Sting: Women Police Officers’ 

Perspectives on Reverse Prostitution Assignments.” 

International Journal of Police Science & Management

7(2):71–85.

Dorsey, J. (2005) “Seven Sailors Charged in Scam To Wed 

Immigrants.” The Virginian—Pilot Edition, November 

16, p. A1. Downloaded from LexisNexis Academic 

Database.

Duff-Brown, B. (2006). “Canadian Police Reportedly 

Moved in on Terror Suspects After Delivery of Bomb 

Materials.” The Associated Press, June 4.

Frazier, S. (1994). The Sting Book: A Guide to Setting Up and 

Running a Clandestine Storefront Sting Operation. Springfield 

(Illinois): Charles C. Thomas.

Fulda, J. (2005). “Internet Stings Directed at Pedophiles: 

A Study in Philosophy and Law.” Widener Law Journal

15(1):47–84.

——— (2002). “Do Internet Stings Directed at Pedophiles 

Capture Offenders or Create Offenders? And Allied 

Questions.” Sexuality & Culture 6(4):73–100.
References 45

Holderness, T. (2003). “Reduce Traffic Collisions by 

Targeting Unlicensed Drivers.” Police Chief 70(9):47–49.

Klockars, C. (1980). “Jonathan Wild and the Modern 

Sting.” In J. Inciardi and C. Faupel (eds.), History and 

Crime: Implications for Criminal Justice Policy. Beverly Hills 

(California): Sage.

Krone, T. (2005). “International Police Operations Against 

Online Child Pornography.” Trends & Issues in Crime and 

Criminal Justice (296): 1–6.

——— (2004). “A Typology of Online Child Pornography 

Offending.” Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice

(279):1–6.

Lancashire Constabulary (2003). “Putting The Brakes 

on Lorry Trailer Theft.” Submission to the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Accessible at www.popcenter.org/library/

goldstein/2003/03-58.pdf.

Langworthy, R. (1989). “Do Stings Control Crime? An 

Evaluation of a Police Fencing Operation.” Justice 

Quarterly 6(1):27–45.

Langworthy, R., and J. LeBeau (1992a). “The Spatial 

Distribution of Sting Targets.” Journal of Criminal Justice

20(6):541–551.

——— (1992b). “Spatial Evolution of a Sting Clientele.” 

Journal of Criminal Justice 20(2):135–145.

——— (1990). “Temporal Evolution of a Sting Clientele.” 

American Journal of Police 9(2):100–114.
46 Sting Operations

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) 

(1978) Taking the Offensive. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice.

Lesce, T. (1999). “Special Report: Internet: Good and Bad. 

Law Enforcement Investigates Abuse.” Law and Order

47(5):74–78.

Marx, G. (1992). “Under-the-Covers Undercover 

Investigations: Some Reflections on the State’s Use 

of Sex and Deception in Law Enforcement.” Criminal 

Justice Ethics 11(1):13–24.

——— (1985). “Police Undercover Work: Ethical 

Deception or Deceptive Ethics?” In W. Heffernan 

and T. Stroup (eds.), Police Ethics: Hard Choices in Law 

Enforcement.New York: John Jay Press.

——— (1982). “Who Really Gets Stung? Some Issues 

Raised by the New Police Undercover Work.” Crime & 

Delinquency 28(2):165–193.

Meyers, M. (2000) “Operation Clean Sweep.” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin 69(5):22–24.

Padgett, T. (1998). “Banking on Cocaine.” Time.com 

(electronic edition):151(21), June 1.

Pennell, S. (1979). “Fencing Activity and Police Strategy.” 

Police Chief 46(9):71–75.

Raub, R. (1984). “Effect of Antifencing Operations on 

Encouraging Crime.” Criminal Justice Review 9(2):78–83.
References 47

Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Williams Lake, B.C., 

Detachment (1997). Hot Car Program. Submission to the 

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing). Accessible at www.popcenter.org/

Library/Goldstein/1997/97-55.pdf.

Sallybanks, J. (2001). Assessing the Use of Police Decoy 

Vehicles. Police Research Series, Paper 137. Policing and 

Reducing Crime Unit. London: Home Office.

San Bernardino County Sheriff ’s Department (1993). 

Foothill Corridor Project. Submission for Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Accessible at www.popcenter.org/Library/

Goldstein/1993/93-04.PDF.

Scholer, M. (1999). “Visible Vice: Investigating Strip-Mall 

Brothels.” Police Chief 66(9):43–48.

Scott, M. (2003). The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, 

Response Guide No. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services.

Scottberg, B., W. Yurcik, and D. Doss (2002). “Internet 

Honeypots: Protection or Entrapment?” Proceedings 

of the IEEE International Symposium on Technology 

and Society (ISTAS), Raleigh NC. USA, June 2002. 

Smith, M. (2001). “Police-Led Crackdowns and Cleanups: 

An Evaluation of a Crime Control Initiative in 

Richmond, Virginia.” Crime & Delinquency 47(1):60–83.
48 Sting Operations

Stinchcombe, A. (1963). “Institutions of Privacy in the 

Determination of Police Administrative Practice.” 

American Journal of Sociology 69(2):150–160. 

Terhune, L. (2006) “FBI Sting Operation Nets Suspects 

in Sri Lanka Arms Trafficking.” The Washington File, 

Federal Information and News Dispatch Inc., August 22. 

Downloaded from LexisNexis Academic Database.

U.S. Department of Justice (2006). “Hundreds Arrested 

in ‘Operation Global Con’.” Press release, February 23. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Webster, D., M. Bulzacchelli, A. Zeoli, and J. Vernick 

(2006). “On the Supply of New Guns to Criminals: 

Effects of Undercover Police Stings of Gun Dealers.” 

Injury Prevention.12:225–230.

Weiner, K., D. Besachuk, and C. Stephens (1981). Detroit 

Police Department Anti-Fencing Project (January 1977 Through 

January 1981). Detroit: Detroit Police Department.

Whitehead, C. (2005). “Anchorage Antirape Unit.” Law 

and Order 53(3):62, 64-65.

Williams Lake Royal Canadian Mounted Police (1997). 

“Hot Car Program.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented 

Policing, No.97-55.

Willner, P., K. Hart, J. Binmore, M. Cavendish and 

E. Dunph. (2000). “Alcohol Sales to Underage 

Adolescents.” Addiction 95(9):1373–1388.

Zimmer, L. (1990). “Proactive Policing Against StreetLevel Drug Trafficking.” American Journal of Police

9(1):43–74.
About the Authors 49

About the Authors

Graeme R. Newman

Graeme R. Newman is a distinguished teaching professor at 

the School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State 

University of New York. He has published works in the fields 

of the history and philosophy of punishment, comparative 

criminal justice, private security, situational crime prevention, 

and ecommerce crime, and has written commercial software. 

He was the CEO of a publishing company for 15 years and, 

in 1990, established the United Nations Crime and Justice 

Information Network. Among the books he has written or 

edited are Superhighway Robbery: Preventing Ecommerce Crime 

(with Ronald V. Clarke), and Rational Choice and Situational 

Crime Prevention (with Ronald V. Clarke and Shlomo Shoham).

Kelly Socia

Kelly Socia is pursuing his masters and doctorate in 

criminal justice at the University at Albany, SUNY. Prior 

to his doctoral studies, Kelly earned a B.S. in Business 

Administration at Rochester Institute of Technology and 

worked as a management analyst for the Department of 

Defense. Kelly lives in Albany with his wife, Kristen.

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 51

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-

932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana 

Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-

932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. 

Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-17-7
52 Sting Operations

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2
53

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John 

E. Eck. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction 

Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets 

and Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-

76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and 

Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. 

Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. 

Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
54 Sting Operations

Response Guides series:

The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel 

Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with 

assistance of Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke 

and John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown 

and Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
55

Using Crime Prevention Through Enviornmental 

Design in Problem Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Abandoned Vehicles

Bicycle Theft

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Child Abuse

Crime and Disorder in Parks

Transient Encampments

Problem-Solving Tools

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Displacement

Response Guides

Enhancing Lighting

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

8.

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including:

Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

Interactive training exercises

Online access to research and police practices

Online problem analysis module

Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing and 

situational crime prevention

A complete listing of other POP Guides

A listing of forthcoming POP Guides.

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e10079110 October 2007

ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

www.cops.usdoj.gov