Opinion ID: 529909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Outrageous Government Conduct Claims

Text: 7 Harvieux and Babian contend that the district court erred in failing to find that they were the victims of outrageous government conduct, in violation of the due process clause. 1 8 The government in this case did not create or maintain the criminal enterprise. It simply intercepted and perpetuated an already existing criminal venture. See United States v. Bogart, 783 F.2d 1428, 1437 (9th Cir.), vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Wingender, 790 F.2d 802 (9th Cir.1986) (where charged criminal enterprise is already in progress at time government agents became involved, outrageous conduct defense is not available); see also Shaw v. Winters, 796 F.2d 1124, 1125 (9th Cir.1986) (government agents are permitted to assume false identities to gain confidence of their targets, and may supply contraband which is at heart of offense). 9 Because the government conduct did not amount to the fabrication of a new crime to ensnare Harvieux and Babian, their claim of outrageous government conduct must fail. 10