Document: 411 U.S. 423 93 S.Ct. 1637 36 L.Ed.2d 366 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Richard RUSSELL. No. 71—1585. Argued Feb. 27, 1973. Decided April 24, Syllabus An undercover narcotics agent investigating respondent and his confederates for illicitly manufacturing a drug, offered them an essential ingredient which was difficult to obtain, though legally available. After the had observed process contributed in return share of finished product, found guilty by jury been given standard entrapment instruction. The Court Appeals reversed, concluding that there 'an intolerable degree governmental participation criminal enterprise.' Held: defense, which, as explicated Sorrells v. United States, 287 435, 53 210, 77 L.Ed. 413, Sherman 356 369, 78 819, 2 848, prohibits law enforcement officers from instigating acts otherwise innocent persons order lure commit crimes punish them, did not bar conviction view evidence respondent's involvement making drug before after agent's visits, concession 'that he may have harbored predisposition charged offenses.' Nor infiltration drugmaking operation such nature violate fundamental principles due process. Pp. 428—436. 459 F.2d 671, reversed. Philip A. Lacovara, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Thomas H. S. Brucker, Seattle, Wash., respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondent Richard Russell three counts five-count indictment returned against him codefendants John Patrick Connolly.1 trial District Court, sole defense entrapment, convicted on all having unlawfully manufactured processed methamphetamine ('speed') sold violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(q)(1), (2), 360a(a), (b) (1964 ed., Supp. V). He sentenced concurrent terms two years prison each offense, be suspended condition spend six months placed probation following years. On appeal, States Ninth Circuit, one judge dissenting reversed solely reason supplied chemical formed basis conviction. court concluded matter 'a charge founded upon 673 (1972). We granted certiorari, 409 911, 226, 34 172 (1972), now reverse judgment. There is little dispute concerning facts this case. December 7, 1969, Joe Shapiro, Federal Bureau Narcotics Dangerous Drugs, went home Whidbey Island State Washington where met with codefendants, Connolly. Shapiro's assignment locate laboratory it believed being illicitly. told Connollys represented organization Pacific Northwest interested controlling manufacture distribution methamphetamine. then made offer supply defendants phenyl-2-propanone, methamphetamine, one-half produced. This Agent Shapiro shown sample they were 3 During conversation, Connolly revealed since May 1969 produced pounds it.2 gave bag containing quantity 'the last batch we made.' Shortly thereafter, left house located Island. At house, empty bottle bearing label phenyl-2-propanone. 4 By prearrangement, 9, 100 grams propanone observe When arrived cutting up pieces aluminum foil placing large flask. testimony some accidentally fell floor picked put into flask.3 Thereafter, added necessary chemicals, including brought make batches completed morning, kept remainder. buy, agreed sell, part remainder $60. 5 About month later, ask if still their 'business arrangement.' replied but recently obtained additional bottles phenyl-2-propanone would couple days. provided at time. Three days later search warrant and, among other items, seized 500-gram 100-gram bottle, provided, partially filled chemical. 6 generally obtain. request firms voluntarily ceased selling 7 close evidence, receiving Judge's instruction,4 charged. conceded could predisposed offenses, 672, argued presented law. agreed, although find misconstrued or misapplied traditional standards governing defense. Rather, effect expanded notion focuses defendant, mandate dismissal prosecution whenever determines has In case decided conduct supplying scarce controlled substance established 8 new held rest either alternative theories. One theory based lower decisions regardless predisposition, government supplies contraband defendants. Bueno, 447 903 (CA5 1971); Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307 (CDCal.1970). second theory, nonentrapment rationale, recent Circuit decision because investigator so enmeshed activity repugnant American justice system. Greene 454 783 (CA9 1971). below these rationales constitute same only distinguishes them. any event, '(b)oth theories are premised concepts evince reluctance judiciary countenance 'overzealous enforcement." F.2d, 674, quoting 381, 825, 848 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., concurring result). 9 first recognized applied 413 (1932).5 Sorrells, federal prohibition visited defendant while posing tourist engaged conversation about common war experiences. gaining defendant's confidence, asked liquor, twice refused, asking third time finally capitulated, subsequently prosecuted violating National Prohibition Act. 10 Chief Hughes, speaking statutory construction should available defendant. Under propounded Justice, act 'otherwise its commission them.' U.S., 448, S.Ct., 215. Thus, thrust focus intent crime. '(I)f seeks acquittal cannot complain appropriate searching inquiry own issue.' Id., 451, 216. 11 Roberts concerred courts must closed crime instigated government's agents.' 459, 219.6 difference majority opinions former whereas latter whether 'instigated crime.' 12 1958 again considered underlying expressly reaffirmed expressed majority. supra. Government informer. As appears gained confidence despite initial reluctance, acceded repeated importunings act. Sorrels, affirmance 13 affirming Warren '(t)o determine established, line drawn between trap unwary criminal.' 372, 821. Frankfurter stated result better framed question 'whether police particular falls . proper use power.' 382, 825.7 14 instant case, asks us reconsider set forth Sherman. His principal contention constitutional grounds. argues level high drug's violates contends factors led apply exclusionary rule illegal searches seizures. Weeks 232 383, 341, 58 652 (1914); Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961), confessions, Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), here. But go further deterring undesirable official requiring barred absolutely activity. analogy imperfect behind adoption Government's 'failure laws.' supra, 659, 1694. Unlike situations giving rise holdings Miranda, here violated no independent right statute infiltrating enterprise. 15 overcome basic weakness cases adopt rigid preclude when possible 'supplied indispensable means otherwise, through legal channels.' Even surmount difficulties attending can embodied fixed rules, those formulation, proposes appear significant benefit him. For, record presented, fit within very proposes.8 discloses impossible. admitted both Shapiro. testified saw labeled visit 1969. And searched pursuant January 10, 1970, seized. amply demonstrate used illicit without intervention fact 17 While day situation agents outrageous invoking judicial processes obtain conviction, cf. Rochin California, 342 165, 72 205, 96 183 (1952), distinctly breed. contribution enterprise already scarcely objectionable. itself harmless possession legal. seeking more rings, member, chemical, described above shows nonetheless obtainable. stops far short 'fundamental fairness, shocking universal sense justice,' mandated Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. Kinsella ex rel. Singleton, 361 234, 246, 80 297, 304, 268 (1960). 18 drugs sporadic, isolated incident, continuing, illegal, business convictions illegally drugs, gathering past unlawful frequently proves impossible task. Thus drug-related offenses personnel turned practicable detection: rings limited present practices. Such permissible investigation; so, item value ring requires must, general rule, also permissible. For will taken entrepreneurs unless something Law tactics hardly said fairness' 'shocking Kinsella, 19 urges, argument, broaden nonconstitutional sustain judgment Appeals. Court's element Appeals, well might, 672. Yet jury's refusal under submitted overturned views Justices Frankfurter, Sherman, respectively, turn type conduct, adopted 20 decline overrule cases. precedent long standing once reexamined implicitly reaffirmed. Since dimension, Congress address substantive definition desirable.9 Critics laid down suggested implied largely fictitious, pointed what conceive anomalous treatment who solicited private individual entrapped agent. Questions likewise raised 'predisposition' factually requisite certainty. Arguments these, devoid previously rejected it, 22 believe least equally cogent criticism Commenting Roberts' position 'although claim induced crime, reply showing readiness persuasion agents,' 376—377, 823, quoted observation Judge Learned Hand earlier stage proceeding: 23 "Indeed, seem probable that, (to inducement), ever secure offences consist transactions carried secret.' Cir., 200 880, 882.' 377 n. 823. 24 does particularly desirable grant complete immunity himself planned committed simply subjected inducements might seduced hypothetical predisposed. content leave Sherman: 25 'The function prevention apprehension criminals. Manifestly, include Criminal stealth strategy weapons arsenal officer. However, 'A different design originates officials Government, implant mind person disposition alleged offense induce prosecute." 820, 442, 212. 26 Several district appeals undoubtedly gone beyond prosecutions thought be, want term, enforcement.' enunciated intended give 'chancellor's foot' veto over practices approve. execution laws our Constitution confided primarily Executive Branch subject applicable limitations judicially fashioned rules enforce limitations. think quite unnecessarily introduces unmanageably subjective contrary 27 Those establish relatively It rooted, authority Judicial dismiss feels enforcement,' instead punishment elements proscribed Government. 28 recognize employees merely afford opportunities facilities defeat prosecution,' 441, 212, 820. mere deceit prosecution, see e.g., Lewis 385 206, 208—209, 87 424, 425—427, circumstances technique deception actually implants comes play. 29 Respondent's finding supported is, therefore, fatal entrapment. active participant began appeared scene, continued scene. was, words 'unwary innocent' wrong, believe, sought principle Its therefore 30 Reversed. 31 DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN concurs, dissenting. 32 A accused known prison. sustained today disallows. I opposed dissent. 33 My Brandeis Casey 276 421, 48 373, 375, 632 (dissent), 378, (concurring result), contained 453, 217, (concurrence). my view, sources irrelevant. Supplying 'speed' Brandeis, 423, 376: 35 'I am aware courts—mistaking relative social values forgetting end justify foul have, zeal punish, sanctioned property personal rights detectives even revolting. objection nature. character obtained. obstacle lies government; fruit conspiracy commission. decoys entrap provoke create criminal, creature.' philosophy 382—383, 826: 'No inclinations criminality, depths sunk estimation society, certain ensnare tolerated advanced society.' added: power abused directed constituted employed promote rather than detect ..' 384, 826. 37 idea words: 38 agents. No issue, comparison equities place overruling public policy.' 219. 39 counterfeiter kind paper ink needs get quick easy arrest? 783, Judges Hamley Hufstedler, 'no' treated suspects 'as partners' him, still, site, equipment, operator sugar. 786. 40 903, Roney, Coleman, Simpson, informer purchased heroin agent, sale 'through creative government.' 906. 41 1307, counterfeit money, receipt Ferguson saying, 'When contraband, permitted it.' 1312. 42 relied sustaining 671. doing took 'prostitution law,' 457, 218, evil aimed. 43 play debased role become instigators partners commission, brain scheme. That furnished ingredients needed drug. 44 STEWART, MARSHALL join, 45 ground '(t)he concerned Lopez 373 427, 434, 83 1381, 1385, 462 (1963). instigate prosecute someone committing it. (1958). 'may 376, (1928) (dissenting opinion). prevent occurring administration exists. (1932); Cf. Masciale 386, 827, 859 (1958); sharply divided basis, scope, whether, absence conclusive showing, issue determine. 46 * called 'subjective' approach predicated unexpressed exclude statutes persons, innocent,' lured prohibited instigation. key phrase formulation inducements. propensities case: avail defense; 'criminal design' originated then—regardless extent participation—there And, way other, jury. adheres approach. 47 Roberts, joined Stone, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, concept, grounded tempted belief methods behalf bring countenanced.' 380, 324. specific standards, feelings respond, 825. Phrased another way, involved—the acted likely offense. approach, determination lawfulness made—as questions involving legality methods—by judge, objective truly consistent rationale defense.1 Indeed, demands adherence agents, 'predisposed' innocent.' purpose effectuate congressional act, done except legislative intention show extracted precisely engaged.' 379, 824. See 456, 218 (Roberts, concurring). Since, definition, arise manifestly covered involved. 49 Furthermore, say misleading, best. determined demonstrates conclusively precise plan details, proved capable induced, provoked, do less person—which, course, entitle cry 'entrapment.' identity tempter, follows 50 then, protect prohibit 425, 'This stopped, Casey's denied, government. To officers. preserve purity courts.' Olmstead 277 438, 470, 564, 575, 944 (Holmes, dissenting); id., 485, 575 (Brandeis, dissenting). If irrelevant; important becomes inducing toleration. 51 Moreover, test makes depend permits introduction kinds hearsay, suspicion, rumor—all inadmissible context—in prove predisposition. allows offering proof, rely bad reputation activities, rumored activities insufficient indictment, suspicions why chose tempt sort unreliable, hearsay recognizes; highly prejudicial, especially jury, for, instructions contrary, consider probative guilt stands 52 More fundamentally, focusing innocence direct impermissible Stated reputation, confident enough anyway. Yet, Roberts: 'Whatever demerits previous infractions instigation creation reach misdemeanors. condoned rendered innocuous transgressed wholly disregard refusing consummate abhorrent transaction.' 458—459, 219, 413. 54 out: 55 'Permissible vary according concerned; surely manner, jail disposition. suspicions, reasonable unreasonable, activities.' 826, 848. 56 person's expose transaction unlawful.2 57 mean, activity, strategy, necessarily unlawful. (1966). many crimes, so-called victimless detected. engage likely, objectively considered, ready willing opportunity so. Osborn 323, 331—332, 429, 433—434, 394 383—384, 826—827 agents' goes induced—I occurred. situation, institutional integrity system justice.3 II 59 us, erred submitting acquit doubt irrelevant justified reversing alone. appellate remand consideration standard, dismissed, merits 60 convicted, rather, What meet group suspected producers respondent; drug; exchange therewith; accepted, provide ingredient, purchase 61 undisputed methamphetamine; purpose; manufacturer's license suppliers, sell all. circumstances, undertaking respondent, thus think, meant prevent. 62 Although intervention—that 'there manufacture, delivery, ingredients,' 672—the rejects contradicted trial. record, states, accomplices, himself, supply, production demonstrates, said, obtainable agent; hence furnishing involved produce 331 332, 433—434. argument seems here, table salt, production. 63 doubted unobtainable sources, therewith—an initiated out prosecuting producing methamphetamine—would constitutes definition. totally suppose, textbook example 64 assuming remains charged—i.e., 1969—was indisputably yet initiative, readily amounts. easily elsewhere, wait until buy him? felt incumbent casts considerable procured intervention, afforded 65 licensed requested suppliers people license. offered, supplied, unlicensed helpfully supplied. strikes me pattern law.4 66 duty Here, solved quarry's practical problems assurance promised, bought product respondent—all component. follow, entrapped, 'innocence.' 67 68 affirm tried five validity proceeding. statement asserted true. participate work. follows: 'Where willingness break law, provides favorable entrapment.' instructed 'reasonable persuaded officer exception apparently Woo Wai 223 F. 412 1915). Stone concurred analysis. Brennan shared opinion. language brief 32, Brief 20—21. bill currently contemplates express 1, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., § 1—3B2 (1973). Both Proposed New Code (1971), Final Report Commission Reform Laws 702, Institute's Model Penal 2.13 (Proposed Official Draft, 1962), Donnelly, Control Informants, Spies, Stool Pigeons, Provocateurs, Yale L.J. 1091, 1111 (1951): 'Clearly facet broader problem. Along seizures, wire tapping, false arrest, detention degree, lawless enforcement. They spring motivations. Each substitute skillful scientific investigation. sinister sophism end, dealing criminals classes,' justifies employment means.' variant thereof, See, McGrath, 468 1027, 1030—1031 (CA7 1972); 786—787 Carbajal-Portillo 396 944, 948 1968); Smith 118 U.S.App.D.c. 38, 44, 46, 784, 790, 792 (1964) (en banc); (CD Cal.1970). Morrison, 348 1003, 1004 (CA2 1965); Accardi 257 168, 172—173, 1958); Kros, 296 972, 979 (ED Pa.1969). favored commentators. addition Code, Williams, Defense Entrapment Related Problems Prosecution, Fordham L.Rev. 399 (1959); Cowen, Doctrine Courts, Some Comparisons, J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 2; Comment, U. San Francisco 177 ordered indictments receipt, possession, themselves contraband. supra; Dillet, 265 980 (SDNY 1966). considerations

Category: 0