Court Opinion

ID: 9572323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:40:50.531858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:28.658308
License: Public Domain

DIMOND, Justice Pro Tem,
concurring.
I agree with the majority in holding that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the defense of entrapment. But I am hesitant to accept the court’s statement that “We are firmly convinced that law enforcement officials can, and often must, employ deceptive measures in order to detect and apprehend those engaged in criminal conduct, particularly in the area of narcotics.”
In the course of pursuing those engaged in traffic in drugs, it is. a wide-spread and almost standard procedure for the police to utilize the services of one against whom criminal charges may be brought or are pending. In exchange for immunity against prosecution, and at times with some monetary inducement, such a person buys drugs from those who are able to procure and sell them and then informs against those persons in subsequent criminal prosecutions.
This procedure may be of value in obtaining convictions for drug related offenses. But the means of achieving this is of dubious justification. The difficulty I have with this type of law enforcement is that it is based almost wholly on lies and deceit.
I believe it is essential to have objective morality and ethics in law, because this is essential to the “civilized justice” that the majority refers to. If I am correct, then it is repugnant to that concept to justify the apprehension of criminals on the basis that the end justifies the means — i. e., that it is proper to utilize the tools of lies and deceit to effect criminal justice. In my opinion, *1070this means of obtaining a desired end is distasteful and objectionable, because it eventually undermines, rather than enhances, the high standards of conduct in the administration of justice required of law enforcement agencies and the courts of this state.